Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by chachi44089

  1. Just curious if anyone has puchased the Endura map card.I would like to know what you think,how is the detail,roads,terrain?I cant find any pics of what they look like,if someone could post one that would be great.EnduraExpert?I would just like to see what they look like before shelling out the cash.Thanx.
  2. I have found more than one of these while hunting.Not a good thing to trip and fall into.One I found had rotten boards covoring it,my foot went through and when I flipped the board over I found a nice deep well.Close call.
  3. lol..I forgot about that..ok...HOOCHIEMAMA!
  4. Yes! Another convert to living a stress-free life! I kinda feel good now..SERENITY NOW!! SERENITY NOW!!
  5. I hunt in Carhart.Almost indestructable.You can get them in different styles and insulation.I wear a lighter one with layers under in cold weather,no layers in nicer weather.Walls is another brand that is a little cheaper but very good.I spray the outside of my jacket with Scotchguard.Helps make it waterproof.I have worn the same old jacket for about 8 years,through thorns,briars and heavy brush.Its still in good shape.
  6. This reminds me of the early days of Usenet, when commercial messages were beginning to show up in what had previously been a totally non-commercial medium. As was mentioned in another thread, "SPAM" was defined as being anything that was repeated over and over again. This definition of spam was carefully worked out, precisely to avoid the idea of having anyone become the arbiter of what was or wasn't "acceptable speech." I think swag could benefit from the same sort of thinking. A single tract in a cache is reasonably a trade item; some people won't like it, but someone else might. (I would take a Jack Chick tract in a heartbeat, and leave a nice trade item in its place. The author of those tracts thinks I am destined for Hell, but I know I'm not, and I find his rantings hysterically funny.) On the other hand, if someone is visiting every cache in town and leaving a dozen identical tracts in each one, it becomes spam. It doesn't matter if the tract is urging the reader to become a Jehova's Witness, or visit Joe's car wash. One of either might be a trade item and should be left for those who might appreciate it; dozens of them are spam. GeoGeebee..Yesterday you made a comment of me being FORCED to read or handle the papers.And the more I thaught about your comment the more it made sense.I can always just set the material aside and do my thing,sign,trade ect.And just put it back and move on.I can just not let it bother me.Its not like I will burst into flames if I see one.And the kids arent going to be all confused.I can just let it be.
  7. Would a religeous paper really fall under the catagory of swag?Seems the same as putting in a paper that says "vote for so and so for mayor".Just a question.
  8. A donut biting a pony would be something to see... ... but only if it were made of bacon. The pony or the donut? I'm getting SO confused. STEP RIGHT UP!!!! GET YOUR TICKETS!!!!! POPCORN, GET YOUR POPCORN!!!!!!! Is that pony-flavored popcorn, donut-flavored popcorn, or beer-flavored popcorn? Inquiring minds want to know! Beer flavored popcorn? Does it come in a microwave bag or Jiffy Pop stove top? I am willing to bite a pony for a bacon donut,then trade half the donut for a bacon flavored beer.Any takers?
  9. Final update:I received my new Out&Back yesterday.The GPS works great!They gave me 6 free maps to download and they worked perfect the first try.EnduraExpert also sent me a free lanyard,and a very nice one at that.I cant say enough about how great EnduraExpert and Lowrance have been with my issue.Great communication,shipping,customer support.They always kept in constant contact with me about my unit.Thats how business should be done.Thank you EnduraExpert and Lowrance.
  10. I am not sure why you're taking my arguments so personally that you feel it necessary to insult and cajole. Your tone is not conducive to a productive discussion and it's verging on trollery. Many of us cache *with* children, and would prefer not to find inappropriate materials in a cache. I always check a cache first, as does every geocacher-parent I've ever spoken to. Yes, sometimes being faced with something offensive or inappropriate opens up a chance to discuss these things with our children, but that still doesn't make it okay to put such items into a geocache. Other than persuading people to adopt your beliefs, what motive is there for putting religious material in a cache? I wouldn't describe this intent as necessarily "nefarious," and I strongly object to your attempt to attribute that characterization to me. I understand that for some people, converting others is an integral part of their beliefs. However, it is inappropriate to use geocaches for this purpose. I don't have to worry about a Canadian library carrying religious or political propaganda, and I believe in supervising children while they use the internet, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by bringing those things up. The geocaching guidelines prohibit using geocaches as a platform for an agenda, and all geocachers should respect that, regardless of their viewpoints. You must forgive me for not knowing what a "Chick Tract" is. It's supposed to be a family-friendly game, and different families have different values and beliefs. Let's keep geocaches free of religion and politics so we can all enjoy the game. well stated.I agree.
  11. The more I think about it the less it seems to bother me.I still dont think it is appropriate,but I could always just disregard it and continue on my way.No real damage done.Just annoying at most.
  12. You can still choose to read it or not. In any case, it's not relevant to the discussion. These items are not appropriate in caches, and that's what we're discussing here. There's no need to attack people for what they do outside of geocaching. I didnt attack anyone.How did you get that out of what i wrote?I am fine with what people do outside of geocaching.And it is relevent to the discussion.I said"or in a cache".My point was about "choice".And if it is in a cache i loose my choice.Not cool.
  13. I think this has a lot to do with choice too.If someone wants to pass out papers on the sidewalk,in front of a church,in a park or wherever,I have a choice to either take one and read it or simply say "no thank you".But when its left on my door,on my car or in a cache I loose that choice.Then it comes off as pushy to me.
  14. I recently had a problem at my house of finding religious papers laying on my steps and hanging from my door knobs.I put NO SOLICITORS stickers on the doors,problem solved.I personally feel if I am looking for religeon I know where to go,I dont need it waved in my face.When I go geocaching I want to find geocaching related stuff,not more religeous papers.Finding them in a cache seems like soliciting to me,and a sneaky way of getting people to unexpectedly view your religeous ideas.It wouldnt anger me tho,I dont get upset over little things like that.I do feel it is inappropriate none the less.If you want to advertise religeon,do it in a proper venue,not stashing them where people will unexpectedly be subject to them.Just my opinion.
  15. You might want to also check out the Lowrance Sierra or Safari.Loads of features and turn by turn capable with add on card.Great geocaching features.Excellent customer support.
  16. Read my posts correctly: I've never hidden a buried cache, I've only only found buried caches. How can you call that disregard for the rules? I'm only debating a possible rule change and if you call that disregard for the rules, I'd say you're way of base. I apologize for that post Team Juniper.It was very off base.Bad wording on my part.I do understand that you do not disregard the rules,you are just looking for change.And I didnt mean to say that you did.My bad.
  17. When negotiating with land managers about allowing geocaches on their lands, it's a lot better to be able to tell them that geocaches are never buried period, than to say "Well we don't bury caches - usually, except when ___ or ____ and ____ and maybe _____ and sometimes ____ and _____ or _____, but other than that we generally don't bury caches most of the time." When negotiating with land managers it would be better to tell the truth. The phase "geocaches are never buried" is poppycock. Caches are buried under piles of rocks, they are buried under sticks, they are buried under fallen leaves, they are even sometimes buried in the ground in existing holes, or in rare case where an exception is made or where the reviewer has no idea the cache was hidden in violation of the guidelines they are hidden in holes dug for the purpose. The real issues is being able to tell land managers that geocaching is not about buried treasure. It is about about finding a hidden container using a GPS. Geocachers will not descend on their parks with shovels and picks looking for a caches. Just as they shouldn't show up with machetes or chain saws. I've ofter wondered the need for the no digging guideline since we already the no deface guideline. Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method [may be quickly archived]. It seems what land manager need to know is that cachers won't deface anything whether to hide or find a cache and if it is discovered that someone has done this the listing on geocaching.com will be quickly archived. The no deface and no dig guidelines go hand-in-hand with the permission guideline. The idea is to get blanket permission for geocaching from as many land managers as possible. Most land managers don't have the time to write their own rules for caches placed on the property they manage. And if they do, they understand that most geocachers only see the Geocaching.com guidelines and until the reviewer asks if they complied with a local land manager's guidelines they might not even know these exists. In that respect, briansnat is correct. The guidelines are written the way they are to make them acceptable to the greatest possible number of land managers while keeping them simple for geocachers to follow. Good point.Sometimes I think the definition of "buried"comes into play.As in your first paragraph,I pesnonally would call those "covored".And "buried",would use tools.But that is just my interpritation of the words.There is somewhat of a grey area there.So depending on how a person defines the word"buried"might be an issue with the guidelines.Just another way to look at it.
  18. Read my posts correctly: I've never hidden a buried cache, I've only only found buried caches. How can you call that disregard for the rules? I'm only debating a possible rule change and if you call that disregard for the rules, I'd say you're way of base. Ok,I admit that the word "disregard"" was not the best choice and I apologise to a all I offended.It is true that he has not buried any caches.Its just frustrating to see how many people in this thread have explained to him why the guidlines should be followed,yet he feels they should be changed for him or the area he lives.Once again sorry for the use of"disregard".I should have said that he has disregard for all the advise and reasons given to him in this thread.
  19. What I said was not off base at all.Its the truth.You are off base with your continued efforts to change the guidlines to benefit you. [edited as not to offend]
  20. This issue I am seeing however is people getting up in arms over an idea that does not have to be in any way contrary to the GC guidelines. This thread has provided several but no way near an exhaustive list of how a cache, or part thereof might happen to be in the ground without any guideline being violated. No digging being done to place one and no digging being required to find it. Yet because it is even partially in the ground it is somehow skirting a non-existent rule. The rule does not say a cache can not be in the ground, it says no digging can be done to put it there and no digging can be required to find it. That is why it is acceptable to 'bury' an ammo box under a pile of sticks or pieces of bark. In the quoted example it is more akin to a house rule you may have that guests are not allowed to watch your television, yet you kick them out for using their phone to set their Tivo. Using an existing hole and tossing some leaves or other debris over it has been discussed in this thread already,and seems to be an acceptable method.The big fuss is over Team Juniper who wants the rules changed to permit him to dig holes with tools and bury wooden boxes and buckets to place his cache in.This would use tools to hide and to find the cache.Read the Team Juniper posts in this thread.
  21. Almost off on vacation, just enough time left for a small reply. I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Finding buried caches around where I live, has never ever involved using a shovel (though hiding them could've). I've never found a buried cache where the immediate environment looked like the moon's surface or like a bomb recently exploded there. One example of a buried cache that I've found is this one. Notice the small ammo box shaped hole in front of the tree (you can just spot one corner of it), that in hidden condition is covered by a thin film of soil and pine needles with the nearby stump placed on top. Do you want permission to dig holes?Then step right up and ask for it.If you are willing to ask,then are you willing to accept the answer?Simple question.Simple answer.
  22. Depends on how big the everybody else group is: it would be nice to have a worldwide geocaching poll about a subject suggest as the 'no digging' allowed rule and see how many people are fore it, against it or stand somewhere in the middle (my position). What I find strange is that most of the people in this thread see only digging as a possible way that geocaching could get banned. IMHO I think every possible way of hiding and certainly the ingenious one, could get geocaching banned by land owners. What I would like is the method of hiding shouldn't be limited, but that it has to be agreed upon by all parties involved. This would still mean that the national parks in the USA can say that caches are allowed, but no when digging is involved. Placing a cache according to the current rules could also cause geocaching to come under the microscope, something this seems to be blissfully ignored in this thread. I dont think you would like the outcome of your pole.You seem to be the only one who "blissfully" ignores all reasons for not digging holes.I see no one here backing up your arguement.Didnt you agree to play by the rules when you joined?Every possible reason has been explained to you over and over as to why it is not allowed.You have nothing to say when people here give you their reasons why it is not allowed.You seem to only be concerned about yourself and how changing the rules will benifit you,and no concern about the other world wide players or the future of the game.Seems selfish to me.
  23. A lot of rules differ by country already, road rules are one example, and you're supposed to know them for the country you are in and the ones you are going to. Why can't the same be possible for geocaching? If you'd go to England, thinking the road rules are a blanket rule, and drive on the right, you'd be certainly messing things up for the locals. Blanket rules are a utopian idea. But we are not talking about "road rules".In most sports and games the rules are the same no matter where you go.That keeps the playing field level for all.Just imagine if the Olympics had different rules in every country for the same game.Do you think that would work?
  24. I don't think it is a lack of imagination, just the application of common sense. I've seen my share of caches that are hidden according to the rules, especially in urban surroundings, where the creativity of the hide is the cause of geocachers tearing up the surroundings and causing damage to property too, maybe not a tree or ground, but still damage. So for me the whole 'burying causes damage and might get geocaching banned' argument is moot, since the same applies to all non buried caches too. You could hide a bloody magnetic nano in a lamp post in the parking lot of your local ACME and get geocaching banned on their properties worldwide. Same effect, even though the cache wasn't buried. You totally missed my point. My point was not about damage to the surrounding area. It's about how land managers perceive our game and decide to ban caching on their lands because they think cachers are going to show up with shovels in hand. Land managers do not have to understand our game to ban it. To me common sense dictates that we don't hide caches in ways that can mislead land managers to think that our game may be bad for thier lands. Common sense would say it's not worth the risk. But that is exactly what I want: let the land manager decide if he/she wants to allow a buried cache and the possible consequences or not. I just feel that the current 'no burying whatsoever' rule overshoots its target. And for me the same applies to other hiding forms, just check if it is allowed with the appropriate owner/organisation. It's sure not what I want!! I don't want to put any land manager in the position where he might ban caching. Common sense tells me not to do that. Land managers in the US are very sensitive to people digging in their areas, possibly due to the popularity of metal detecting. Most lands for public use here include in their rules of use that no digging is allowed. Maybe it works differently where you are but here's how it goes over here.... Cacher calls land manager - "Hello sir. I am a geocaching enthuiast and would like to know if I can hide a container on your land. I would like to bury it in the ground so my fellow geocachers will think it is a really cool way to hide my geocache, and it's really the best way to hide what I have in mind. My common sense tells me I need to dig on your land to make my hide work." Land manager answers cacher - "Geo-whatting?? People burying things on MY land? How do I make sure no one can do this on MY land??" Just asking can get caching banned. Then all the other cachers who would have placed guideline compliant caches in the area are out of luck. Not a good idea, when burying is not an integral part of caching (nor does it need to be). Why insinuate to some uneducated land manager that it's part of the game, when Groundspeak has been trying to stop just this perception for years? It was just one buried cache that got caching banned in our National Parks system, blocking many tens of thousands of acres from cachers. I think the "no burying whatsoever" guideline is one of the reasons that some of the more enlightened land managers DO allow caching on their lands. They know they never have to worry about someone burying a cache on their lands. They don't have to worry that there might be some cases where burying is allowed. It makes it an easy decision to allow caching on their lands that way. The same could be said for someone that wants to place a non buried cache that follows the rules and guidelines to a tee. He also HAS to contact the respective land manager/organisation and ask permission. That same act could also get geocaching banned in certain area's. Even with only caches that follow the guidelines a land manager would still have to worry about all the other effects that geocaching has. Thinking that disallowing digging is some sort of a cure-all isn't realistic. What's next? Geocachers can't use walking sticks and the like because they too poke holes in the ground? So you want the rules changed for your area.Have you considered the fact that people travel to different countries to geocache?How are people supposed to know the rules if they are different in every region?Who would write and keep up on all the different rules?That is why I believe a blanket rule is the best for all.Then people can travel to other places and not worry about accidentally breaking a rule and messing things up for the locals in that area.
  • Create New...