Dear Dora

I am surprised, wimseyguy, that you would make such an UNFOUNDED statement as to how many 'non-Caucasion" persons Atrus may have as friends. Also, one can prefer to be 'labled' anyway they like, but that does not change reality. However, to set the record straight, we (Atrus & myself) have MANY dear and wonderful friends from more varied races, backgrounds, ethnic persuations, religious beliefs, locales, etc. than space here would permit. To all of you posters who claim to be so offended by this picture and paint Atrus as racist and bigoted, without even knowing him, I say...shame on you all! But that is YOUR OPINION...NOT FACT! And, you are most certainly entitled to your OPINION. However, racism and bigotry, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. One should first look in the mirror at ones'self before applying labels to another. To simply call one a racist or bigot, does not make it so. And that is FACT!

Greetings, San Diego geocachers! I live in western NC and have located the 1st. Stage of the above mentioned geocache, "I HAVE A FRIEND IN SAN DIEGO" GC1WD48 and have the coordinates for the San Diego, 2nd Stage. I would love to locate someone in your area who would be willing to go to the 2nd. Stage of this cache to retrieve the coordinates for Stage 3, the Final, located here in western NC. Then, we could both grab a smily on this one. Also, we could grab its companion cache, "west,east?,west" GC1W7RA by thurmdog , too! That would give us both two finds spread across our two states. Sounds like fun, doesn't it? Happy Geocaching! Dear Dora

What's the big deal? Did you enjoy finding this cache? Isn't that all that really matters? What does it matter who is FTF, STF, or even FTF (50th To Find)? Will claiming F(irst)TF bring you fame and riches beyond your wildest imagination? Will it do anything to solve our nation's current financial situation? I think not. So, just log the cache as you would any other by relating your experience with this cache, and thank the cache owner for placing it for you to find. Done! Fine! Now, go enjoy finding another cache!

I grow tired and weary of all this drivel. We have explained our side of the story, explained, and RE-explained our logic. Things have been muddied, twisted, added to, and distorted. Neos2 is the ONLY one who even comes CLOSE to having it right. The root of the problem has ALWAYS been, that one cacher and ONLY one cacher took it upon himself to log a SECOND, “find” log on the cache page without waiting for the permission which we were ABOUT to grant him. After we learned that he had already found and signed the paper log before even ASKING if re-finds would be allowed, we decided to not allow him to KEEP his ALREADY LOGGED, SECOND “finds.” Period, end of "issue." - In his second, "find" logs, he SAID he would either delete the logs, or change them to notes. After learning that we were denying him permission to KEEP his ALREADY LOGGED, SECOND, “find” logs, HE asked if we would mind him posting our communications (private emails) on the cache pages, and possibly other forums. Since we didn’t feel then (and still do not feel that) we did anything wrong, we obliged him by posting them there ourselves. It was HE who took this petty little squabble between US, to both this international forum AND our local state-wide forum to air all of our “dirty laundry.” It was WE who decided that if he were going to put it out there, we were going to describe in detail exactly what happened, and provide links to the actual cache pages. Why not get the whole story out there? This incident is just the latest of a whole list of petty little squabble between us, and the second in just about a month. We are tired of them, and we are tired of him. We would gladly place him on, “ignore” if we could, but he is everywhere, and it is impossible to avoid contact or interaction with him at one level or another. So, you learn to “tolerate” him. This is our last and final posting to this thread, because it is not worth any more of our time. Before we close the book on this nonsense and move on, we will address the latest rash of inaccuracies, false accusations, and pointless drivel. 1. NOWHERE in the guidelines, does it even suggest that if a cache is moved x number of feet, it should be archived and a new cache submitted. And, furthermore, it has absolutely nothing to do with a cacher helping himself to a SECOND, “find” log on a cache page without the expressed invitation, or permission from the cache owner. 2. If any of you actually READ the whole dissertation on the cache pages, you will see that BOTH of his “find” logs are still very much intact. We have NOT (I repeat, NOT - Let me repeat it one more time to make sure everyone understands, NOT) deleted his SECOND “find “ log!!! We have NEVER deleted his logs, nor have we ever THREATENED to delete them, yet people still act as if we HAVE unjustly deleted them. Do I need to repeat it again? What part of this do you not understand? 3. Neos2, someone else brought up your point on the state forum, and we addressed there. It is a point well taken, and we in no way make excuses for it. The property owner was out of town when we arrived, but we were able to talk to him live, in real time, as we were surveying the property for placement of a (single) cache. As stated on the cache page, we specifically asked if there was any place he preferred it, or any place he preferred it NOT be placed. His enthusiastic reply was, “Put it anywhere you like.” While he was still on the phone, we described the location we found for the cache, and he again replied, “Put it anywhere you like.” So we did. After placing the cache & returning to the parking lot, we TOOK IT UPON OURSELVES to see if another cache could be hidden on the property. Yes, we made the assumption that it would be ok, based upon the fact that we were enthusiatically INVITED by the PROPERTY OWNER to place a cache on their property. Were we presumptuous? Yes, and, Neos2, your point is very well taken. The difference is, however, the instant we learned that there was an “issue” with the WIFE of the property owner, WE TOOK IMMEDIATE ACTION to rectify the situation to her SATISFACTION!!! The cacher, who was also presumptuous in logging a SECOND, “find” log WITHOUT being INVITED to do so, and WITHOUT PERMISSION, refuses to make good on his own word to either delete the log, or change it to a note. It would really make no difference to him either way, as he would simply log the find to one of his own archived caches where he “hides” finds, GCHXBT. Ok. We were presumptuous, but out of respect to the property owner’s property, and her concerns, IMMEDIATELY corrected it. But, what does any of that have to do with a cacher logging a SECOND, “find” log without permission, or being invited to do so? 4. Whether we moved three caches, five caches, or a HUNDRED caches has absolutely NOTHING to do with a cacher logging a SECOND, “find” log to a cache without permission, or being invited to do so. However, in EVERY case, WITHOUT FAIL, if a SECOND find was allowed, it was OFFERED out of COURTESY, not RIGHT. An INVITATION was CLEARLY posted on the CACHE PAGE inviting anyone who had already found it, to find and log it AGAIN. Since OzGuff/Caching Fool knows so much about what we were doing, and took advantage of EVERY offer, he should have KNOWN that if we were offering a SECOND “find,” ANYWHERE, it would have been clearly posted on the cache page. There was NO such offer on either of the two cache pages in this instance. 5. Not that it has ANYTHING to do WHATSOEVER with a cacher logging a SECOND, “find” log on a cache page without permission or being invited to do so, but since it has been thrown into this thread, we will address how we “managed” our very good friend’s caches. Due to a myriad personal problems, these folks had to take a sabbatical from geocaching. Their caches were falling into disrepair, and some were being archived due to lack of cache maintenance. At one of OzGuff/Caching Fool’s local cache events, comments were made about our friend’s caches, and things were said about them personally, which made us decide to step up to bat for them. We began repairing/replacing caches, and fixed over 100 of them in one weekend. When we went to our friends and told them what we did, he said he could not even tend to the logging of them, and GAVE us his password. We did, indeed, maintain all of his caches AS him, from behind the scenes, with no whoopla or fanfare, for over TWO YEARS, and kept them apprised of everything we did on behalf of their caches. OzGuff/Caching Fool was only ONE of two local cachers who knew. During that time, we acted AS them on their behalf, in ALL matters regarding their caches, with their FULL KNOWLEDGE and APPROVAL. In doing so, we repaired, replaced, and/or moved caches no more than a few feet (only when necessary) to new locations due to the original hiding place, in some cases, no longer existing. In cases where caches had been archived, only for lack of maintenance, we repaired the caches and had them unarchived. (Please spare me the drivel about suggesting that a new cache should have been submitted. That is a matter of personal opinion, is NOT found anywhere in the guidelines, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with a cacher logging a SECOND, “find” to a cache page without permission, and without being invited to do so.) When the time came for our friends to get back into geocaching, all of their caches were completely intact, in pristine condition, and still in their own account. We sought no glory or recognition for ourselves, and to this day, most of the local geocachers are unaware of our involvement with their caches on their behalf. Today, we still remain VERY good friends. The husband is now very involved in volunteer work with the Red Cross. We have not spoken to him since dinner last week, but it is most likely that he may be in Tennessee this very moment helping the tornado victims. We still have full access to his gc.com account, and during times when he is out of town on Red Cross volunteer work, still watch his caches for him, still from behind the scenes, and still without fanfare or hoopla. No one, not even OzGuff/Caching knows who is actually at the “helm” at any given time. Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with anything, but since OzGuff/Caching Fool brought it up, and you folks want so much to somehow find a way to use it against us, we felt the need to explain. 6. It has degraded through this thread into the assumption that we have moved perhaps a SINGLE cache (or caches) multiple times, for several reasons (allegedly, to get around the “moving cache” restriction, to somehow devise a method to “pad the numbers” {???} and a few other of the stupidest things we have ever heard). Every WORD of it is nothing but pure RUBBISH being generated by people who don’t have a clue about that of which they speak. 7. The main contention from OzGuff/Caching Fool is that we are playing “favoritism” to the other cache finder (who has NOT even asked for permission to log a SECOND, “find” log) and not allowing him to KEEP his ALREADY LOGGED, SECOND, “find” logs which he placed on our cache pages without permission, and without being invited to do so. Agree with it or not, our logic in this decision was completely explained in the “cookie jar” analogy. So, after all of this petty bantering going on, what have we accomplished? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! OzGuff/Caching Fool still has his precious SECOND, uninvited, “find” logs still standing very much intact on our cache pages, and we are still at odds. Do you see why it is impossible to put him on “ignore?” He refuses to go away. We have had quite enough of this nonsense. We are done with it. We will not delete his logs, even though we have the ABILITY to do so. Do we need to repeat this again, so everyone will understand? We feel that if there were any courtesy between us, he would act in the exact same manner we did with the property owner when we learned there was an “issue” there, but we won’t hold our breath. We are closing the book on this one, and very much ready to move on. There will be plenty more petty little squabbles between us in the future to waste any more time on this one. You can all agree with him as much as you like. We still know that we have done nothing wrong, and apologize to no one other than the original property owners for the inconvenience we caused them. Oh, wait, we already did that, and they are happy! Dear Dora & Atrus

In our last two posts to this thread, we have been explaining our decision as to why we denied OzGuff/Caching Fool permission to keep his already logged SECOND finds to our two caches. As is the case in any lively, spirited debate, we have heard both sides of the argument, people have chosen their sides, and voiced their opinions. After re-reading our two previous posts, we realized that we never weighed in with our opinions to OzGuff/Caching Fool’s original topic of this thread: Is the cache owner within their rights to single out who can or cannot log a find on a cache? Yes and no. When you hide a cache, and it gets approved, it is there for ANYONE to find. A cache owner can not decide who can find it. Finding a cache, and logging it on the cache page are two different things. A person can find a cache and sign the paper log as many times as they like. The owner DOES, however, have absolute control over who logs a find on the on-line cache page. The following paragraph explains this in greater detail. Does this meet the letter of the guidelines but not the spirit? It certainly does meet the guidelines, but definitely NOT the spirit. If a person legitimately finds your cache and logs a find on the cache page, he is entitled to keep the find, regardless of the relationship between the owner & the finder. If the cache owner deletes a finder’s log, there should be a VALID reason. (He does have the POWER to delete it without question or reason, and this is where we feel it is within the guidelines, but NOT in the spirit.) Of course, this only applies to the finder’s initial (first) find log on the cache page. Subsequent finds, in addition to the initial find, are another issue. THIS is where the cache owner has the option to either allow or disallow multiple find logs to the on-line cache page. We agree that everyone should be treated fairly, which is not always equally. Consider this scenario: You have several children, and a cookie jar full of cookies. You have established that every child is allowed to help himself to ONE cookie. If a child wants a second cookie, he either waits for it to be offered to everyone, or asks for it and must receive permission before helping himself to another. If you learn that one child has helped himself to another cookie, before even asking, you would have every right to take the second cookie away from him (assuming, of course, he hadn’t already eaten it). Would it then be fair to the rest of the children to deny them a second cookie simply because one child broke the rule and helped himself without asking first? We don’t think so. Could I get a cache listed that specifically listed those cachers allowed to log a find and those specifically prohibited from logging a find? Absolutely, as in the case of a “Premium Members Only” cache. This type of cache distinctly specifies who may or may not log a find to the cache page. Anyone can “find” it but only “Premium Members” can log it as a find. Agree with it or not, however, it most definitely possible. Is the cache owner all powerful when it comes to logs on their caches? Like it or not, strictly according to the guidelines, yes. But as with any other, “power” in life, it should be used responsibly. Dear Dora & Atrus

In this note, we will address a few points which have come up in the posts which followed ours. I will reference my comments by note number. #90 - For the record, we have only moved THREE (3) caches. One of them was never found before it was moved, so therefore, no "re-finds" were offered. (Ironicly, it is one of our two caches which pays honor to OzGuff, OzGuff Hides 300 (GCPK07). It was moved about 12 miles. The 'then' reviewer had no issues with moving it.) As to the other two caches we moved, we invited anyone who had already found them in their original location, to re-find them again in the new locations. This invitation was clearly stated on the cache pages. That being said, could it not be argued that our "past practice" would therefore be established to be, that any invitations for re-finds would be clearly posted as part of the cache page? Since there was NO SUCH invitation on either of the two cache pages in this discussion, why would OzGuff/Caching Fool, ASSUME that re-finds would be automatically allowed without being stated as such on the cache page? That is contrary to our so-called, "past practice." (Actually, we never realized that we even HAD a, "past practice!" Thanks for pointing that out to us! ) Throughout this thread, there have been a few references to on-line logs being deleted. Again, for the record, we have NOT deleteted ANY of his logs, (origional or second find). Both logs are still on both cache pages. Our post #89 (and the 'then' private email to him posted on the cache pages) clearly states WHY we are denying his second finds (and ONLY his second finds) for the previously stated reasons. We never had any issues whatsoever, with his original finds. #91 Finding the physical cache and signing the paper logs is one thing. We do not have any issues with that. In fact, Atrus does it all the time. He finds caches, signs the paper log, and then doesn't claim a find on the cache page. No big deal. But it's quite another issue when an unauthorized, second find is claimed on the cache page as another legimate find. #93 & 94 A "relocated" (for whatever reason) cache with the same GC number is still the same cache. Therefore, refinds are only allowed with permission from the cache owner. Where in the guidelines, it is even suggested that if a cache is moved more than X feet, it should be archived, and a new cache submitted? It is done all the time. This is a matter of personal preference and has no bearing on the issue of unpermitted double-dipping of a cache find. As for US, ASSUMING that a second cache hide at the origional cache location would be acceptable without the property owner's explicit permission is a point WELL taken. The difference being, as soon as we became aware of an issue, we immediately took appropirate measures to rectify the situation to the satisfaction of the property owners. As soon as OzGuff/Caching Fool became aware of being denied a RE-find, he did absolutely NOTHING to remedy the situation, except to start this thread. #95 Permission for re-finds of these two caches was NOT considered at the time of relocation, as there were only two (2) finders at that time. NOT until OzGuff/Caching Fool asked if they would be allowed, did the matter come up for consideration. Again, I state that the ONLY reason he (and HE alone) was denied a refind was because he took it upon himself to do so without prior permission! And, again, I ask, is it "fair" to deny the other cache finder a re-find, (if requested) based upon the fact that OzGuff/Caching Fool took the unapproved liberty of logging a re-find? Let me elaborate on the statement I made to OzGuff/Caching Fool concerning the other cache finder: "BTW, The cacher who was FTF has not requested a re-find for these two caches, but if he does, he is welcome to do so." This statement does NOT, in fact, grant blanket permission to the FTF finder. The phrase, "BUT IF HE DOES" requires him to make a request for a second find. Also, it is important to note that this statement was never part of the cache page, but was contained in the email returned to OzGuff/Caching Fool in which we denied him permission to KEEP his already logged second finds. We sincerely hope that this note will clarify any remaining questions regarding our decicions. Dear Dora & Atrus

This thread has certainly provided interesting reading, if nothing else. I wonder if I, as the cache owner, of the two caches in discussion, am allowed to add my two cents? I am amazed at how accurately OzGuff has presented the facts, up to a point. He states that there is animosity between us. This is a fact and is very true. He states that these two caches were only found by himself and another cacher. This is also true. He states that from time to time we have moved caches and allowed previous finders to re-find them again. This is also, a true statement. However, in every instance where we have offered a re-find, it has always been clearly stated on the cache page, "Anyone who has found the cache in its original location is welcome to find it again in its new location." There was NO such statement on either of these two caches which offered a second find, because ONLY two cachers had found them. Oh, and BTW, whenever re-finds were offered, they were for EVERYONE. because they were at OUR INVITATION! He makes this whole issue seem to be about us wanting to prohibit him from a second find on these caches for no other reason than, "We don't like him." Well, that may be true, but it is NOT why he is being denied. What he fails to mention, is that the SOLE reason HE is being denied, is because he took it upon himself as his God-given RIGHT to claim a second find without being invited, with absolutely NOTHING on the cache pages allowing re-finds, and without permission to do so. Period. To add insult to injury, we learned that by the time he "got around" to even ASKING if refinds would be allowed, he had ALREADY found and signed the cache logs. It was already a DONE DEAL! When we received his request for a refind, even with our, "animosity," we considered granting permission to BOTH previous cache finders. Before we were able to answer his email and grant permission, he again, took it upon himself to log the finds on the cache pages. When we learned that the caches had already been found and cache logs already signed, It was THEN that we decided to deny HIM permission to KEEP his already logged second finds. BTW, the OTHER previous cache finder had not even REQUESTED a second cache find, but OzGuff already had them in the bag! In all honesty, we felt it unfair to the OTHER cache finder to pay the penalty earned solely by OzGuff. That, and that ALONE, is the reason HE (and only he) is being denied a second find. In closing, I cannot understand why OzGuff would be so unwilling to provide links to the two caches in question. We invite anyone to take a few minutes to visit both cache pages, and read all the logs, beginning (at the bottom) from the reviewer's "published" log. The entire story of these two caches will unfold, and you can form your own opinions. It really helps to know ALL of the facts before offering an opinion. Here then, are the links to the two caches. In The Woods At Lake Lure (GC17BKC) and Solitude In The Woods (GC18X6F) Read the cache pages, and THEN form your opinions. Dear Dora & Atrus

It looks like a lot of good folks are using their GPS units for a lot of good uses to help a lot of other good folks! This thread has also provided a lot of good ideas as to how to make better or alternative uses of a GPS unit. Thank you for all the fine input. I hope everyone has a very happy. safe, and prosperous New Year!

We all love Geocaching and we all have own opinions on which GPS is the best. My question is this...Other than Geocaching, what are you using your GPS for which is helpful or beneficial to others? For example, at this time of year, my other half, Atrus, and I are deeply involved in the process of coordinating the delivery of 1100 to 1200 home cooked (nothing from a box or can) free dinners to anyone who lives in our county of Henderson, NC and for any reason is unable to come to the free, all volunteer, sit-down dinner, which is called Bounty Of Bethlehem. We visit the address of each meal recipient and create accurate directions and mark a waypoint in their driveway. These waypoints are then entered into our mapping program on the computer so that we can then create the most efficient driving routes for our 60 drivers/60 routes who deliver the meals on Christmas Day. We also have a very close geocaching friend who is actively involved in disaster relief with the American Red Cross. He travels all over the US, in unfamiliar territory, where ever there is a need for assistance. He uses his GPS to auto navigate to the various locations at a particular disaster site. The auto routing is especially critical since many times, the local street signs have been destroyed. The GPS doesn't know that the street signs are missing and will take him to his destination anyway! So, how do you use YOUR GPS to help others?

Thanks, CR, for the information. It's just one of those things you ponder from time to time. I live in western NC and had not heard of the one up near Mt. Mitchell called "South Toe/Roaring Fork Geocache." I think a quest ought to be in my future for that one as well as "Octopus Garden" in Charlotte since I often go in that direction, too. Anothr "oldie," which prompted me to ask my original question, is "Pisgah Cache" GC12B7, by NC_Ron& Dianne, which is in the Pisgah National Forest. I was curious to know how that one compared with other "oldies." Wouldn't it be kinda neat, if you had the time (and money) to be able to find each of the oldest caches in each county of NC or in each state? Guess I'll have to leave that challenge for someone else! Again, thanks for your reply. Dear Dora

Can anyone tell me what is the oldest geocache in western NC which is still active, and who placed it? Just curiious.

Mudsneaker's quote above is very appropriate. It IS the logs left by the cache finders which encourage a cache hider to continue to try to be creative (both with the cache page as well as the cache, itself) and give back something meaningful to the caching community. If all a cache owner gets is a barage of the stupid TNLNSL (or less) variety of logs, where is the incentive to continue to place interesting caches? Consider this analogy. You spent all day preparing a wonderful dinner (and I mean the whole works from appetizer through desert, all homemade from scratch ingredients, nothing out of a box) to which you invited some very special people into your home. When your guests had had their fill of this wonderful repast, they simply got up, put on their coats, left your home with barely a "thank you." Wouldn't you think that after all the effort you had put into preparing this great feast that they were extremely RUDE? Would you want to invite them back again? No? Not hardly! Well, my friends, that is exactly what a cacher finder is doing when they can't be bothered to say even a sentence or two about anything SPECIFIC to an individual cache! It's a slap in the face to the cache hider and RUDENESS in the first degree! Inexcusable. Just my opinion.

9Key speaks very well for so many of us who have hidden a few interesting caches and who also take great pride in maintaining those caches we place! All of his points should be well heeded. He is absolutely right in his statements. Why is it that so many have become so lazy? And no, I don't buy the augument that, "I don't have time" or "I found so many that I can't remember one from another" or "I'm on a 'numbers' run and I just can't be bothered" or " I'm just not a creative writer." Boulderdash, to all of that! Another lame excuse used by many is that they found so many in a day that they can't remember which is which. Well, that's no excuse, either. If a cacher found so many on a given day that he can't remember each one, then how can he remember to log them all? If you are still printing out the cache pages on your printer, then you have that piece of paper to write a note about that particular cache. If you are "paperless" then you have your PDA to jot down something about the cache to jog your mind when you go to the website to post your find! What many cachers don't seem to realize, is that cache hiders take definite cues from the logs posted to their caches. Once a cache has been placed, how else is the owner to know how that cache is received? Is it being enjoyed? Do you like the type, style, or location of the cache? Is it too easy or too hard? Are the ratings appropriate? Is the log getting full? Does it need its "goodies" replenished? These and more, are all questions whcih provide the cache owner with information needed to determine if she should keep this cache active or even if she should place others like it. The TFTCTNSL, blah, blah blah nonsense imparts no useful informaton and are, in fact, rather insulting to the cache owner who has often put considerable time, effort, and in many cases, expense into placing these caches out for other's enjoyment. I don't think any cache owner is expecting a finder to write a 500 word essay on each cache they find, but just to be courteous enough to give the owner an honest opinion of his or her caching experience. No, you don't have to be a Shakespere, or a Milton, or a Mark Twain to write a brief accounting of your experience. Just consider what kind of posts YOU would like to read by finders of YOUR caches.

I hope you find your stereogram cache in FL! If you like stereogram caches, then perhaps, you will decide to try this one..."Under A Rock" (GCT5WR). It's located in western NC. Plus, there are a great many other fine caches in this area to keep you busy. Dear Dora

Using the example stated in your post, you should most definitely post a "Needs Maintenance" log to the cache since having found it in such a condition. That IS the purpose of that log type. Then I would most definitely and promply deal with the cache personally. Since you had, indeed, located the "remains" of the cache, I would offer you the option of logging it as a find even though there was no logsheet to be found for you to sign. In this instance, you DESERVE the smiley! Dear Dora

If you didn't actually find the cache, why would you assume that the cache should have a "Needs Maintenance" log posted to it? Why would you not instead, simply post a DNF? That shoud be sufficient notice to get the cache owner's attention that something may be amiss with his/her cache. The only reason I can see for posting a "Needs Maintenance" log to a cache is if the cacher finds the physical cache in poor condition such as wet, missing log, chewed by some creature, contents scattered about, etc. I have had both "newbie" as well as experienced cachers post a "Needs Maintenance" log to my caches from time to time, gone out and checked on them, and have found them to be precisely where they are supposed to be in perfect condition. I take great pride in my cache maintenance. To date, I have only one archived cache and that one was an Event Cache. Dear Dora

New folks to this fine sport who "want to be good citizens from the beginning" should be appauded and encouraged! Hats off to you! Go ahead and feel free to take as many Travel Bugs or Geocoins you may find in an individual cache. as long as you intend to place them ipromptly nto another cache. They are not the property of the cache but rather belong to the individuals who released them out in the "wilds" to travel according to their stated "mission." As such, the owners of these "Trackables" would much rather see that they are being moved about rather than languishing for extended periods of time in one geocache. Now, as far as "TRADEABLE" items, here's a simple good "rule of thumb." Don't put INTO a cache anything that YOU would not want to take OUT! Now, if one was into creating their own personal collection of broken pencils, used bottle caps, pieces from your kids discarded toys, etc. then I guess that is what would be appropriate trade. However, if that's not the case, then always make it a point to trade EQUAL or BETTER! You'll feel better and it will help to self-perputuate the cache, making finding it an enjoyable experience for future cachers. One more thought, consider yourself a "steward" of the caches you find. If a cache need a bit of TLC and you can do so then, by all means, do it. If not, then kindly send an email to the cache owner to alert them to the situation. Happy Caching, Dear Dora

From what you describe, it sounds like a good plan to me. Is this going to be a new cache placed by you with its own log which will hold these 12 bugs? I can't see what difference it could matter if you put all the bugs into one cache or 12 bugs into 12 different caches. The effect would be the same. Cachers would come and retrieve the bugs and disperse them to the far ends of the earth. Your students get the bonus of perhaps learning a bit of geography (and history) depending on the locations that your TBs visit. In my humble opinion, I would say, GO FOR IT!

What's the big hoopla over being FTF on a cache? Do they make you rich, famous or well loved by friends and family alike? Is there some sort of big "prize" at the end of the year for attaining the most FTFs? Not hardly! Over the nearly 3 years I've been geocaching, I've had plenty of FTFs, so many that it just doesn't mean anything anymore. Sure, the first dozen or so seemed rather neat, but after awhile, what's the big deal? If getting FTF on a cache is so important to some folks then maybe they need to get a "real" life!