Salvelinus

Your post is the first whining I have heard. This thread has been full of good, thoughtful opinions on both sides of the issue at hand. Some of us liked things better before numbers hungry cachers started spreading junk caches like they were sowing seeds. I have nothing against caching for numbers..its part of this game. But myself and others have strong feelings about poor cache quality moving this game further and further from its roots. We are allowed our opinion here as well! Salvelinus

Well you asked, so here it is. Some people enjoy placing caches and can maintain 50, 70, or 100+ hides. They could be retired, or would rather spend their time hiding and maintaining than looking for caches. On the opposite end, there are people out there who refuse to maintain 1 hide. When I do encounter "problem caches" I find that they are more often than not owned by someone who has one or two hides, then lost interest in the sport. It seems that most of the prolific hiders care about the sport and take care of their caches, so I don't see placing an arbitrary limit as a solution. Thank you for your comments Brian! The limit was not arbitrary. I gave my justification for the number, but I'm sure if the number won't work for most, it can be discussed and adjusted. I see your point on maintenance of forgotten caches, but around here those caches are usually in good cache areas and psudeo "adopted" by the local community. This Cache is a classic example. The worst maintained caches I hear about or run into are those caches hidden just to have anther hide, in a non-watertight container, with nothing but a scrap of paper inside. The point IS to limit those who just "like to place caches" like this. I'm sure there are those few rare cachers that can easily maintain "50, 70, or 100+ hides". However, I'll still hold firm to the idea that when your pushing 3 digit hide totals...your compromising your ability to adaquately maintain them. As a prolific hider and diligent maintainer of caches, please give us your maintenance threshold as a better guideline. Salvelinus

Some will get caught, some won't. Some will get caught after they've had 10 hides listed, then what? Some will get caught, and get pissed and go off the deep end until they get reinstated. So it's only one listing? So what? What's the difference if it's one page or 10 pages? It's STILL 10 <insert cache-type you consider lame here> caches hidden in your area, taking up spots someone could have hidden 10 decent <insert cache-type you enjoy here> caches. I guss I was a bit late on my "limiting numbers" thoughts. I agree that the cache limit could be "got around" in various ways, just like many of the current guidelines. But how many cachers would really go to all that trouble? Some would and get away with it, others would and be found out. The vast majority of cachers play by the few rules we have. They also tend to shine the spotlight on the ones that don't. Thus, IMO it becomes a somewhat self-policing guideline. Salvelinus

Although there are many issues being discussed in this thread, which I'm sure the admins paying attention to, I wanted to comment on Quest Masters idea of limiting hides. This would be a simple solution to several problems raised here and one I think most cachers would accept. It has always amazed me how cachers with high numbers of hides can possibly properly maintain that load of caches. After paying attention to some of these caches and hearing comments from other cachers, it turns out they really don't maintain them very well...if at all. These types of caches can easily fit the guidelines and the Approvers cannot deny these even if they wanted to...and I'm sure some approvers really would like to! Limiting hide numbers would still allow them to exists, but not be overwhelming. Another problem with cachers with exceptionally high numbers of hides is the fact that other cachers feel limited about where they can hide a cache. I have heard this from several cachers who cache near prolific hiders. They feel that if a cache is already in a park, that is "the" cache for that park. They realize some parks can handle multiple caches but these prolific hiders tend to cover that with their own caches as well! I'm also seeing series of parking lot type caches centered around Dept store, Coffee shop and bookstore chains. I don't have a problem with telling people where you like to shop, drink coffee or by books, but I don't think GC.com is the place to do it. In my opinion these are commercial caches and should not be allowed to exist at all. I think it has already been well pointed in this thread the problems raised by prolific cache hiders. To me, sometimes I feel this sport is being loved to death. So here is my (proposed) solution: Limit cachers to 50 "owned" hides. Cachers currently over that number can keep the ones they have already placed, but cannot be approved for any new ones until they are down to 49. Multi-caches would be counted as one. Seems simple enough to incorporate...why not try it? Why 50? Becuase it seems like a reasonable number someone can realistically maintain. I personally feel stretched thin maintaining 10! It also seems like a reasonable number if you want to place caches in series...like a cache in every state! What do you think? Salvelinus

Check the thread dates. I bet you didn't have many back then. Salvelinus

Here they all are, together in one gallery. Cool. I checked yesterday for that! Should of looked before I posted. Salvelinus

Ok Southeast PA. The gauntlet has been laid down. Check out what some of our Northern Tier cachers did at the Potter County CITO last weekend. There are tons of photos posted in the logs. Check them out! Let's keep the ball rolling after the successful CITO's in Pittsburgh, NEPA and Potter County. Come on out...even if just for a little while. The more the merrier! Salvelinus

Good advice Rock! As you know, a 190 pound man in drab cloths, bending over or crouching, while flashing a hint of blue or red can easily look like a turkey in springtime. The high number of accidental shootings during the spring gobbler season was the main reason for the orange requirement to be instituted. Wear your orange. Better yet, stay out of the gamelands until noon during late April and May. Those lands are purchased with hunter's $$$ primarily for hunting. Let them have it when they are there doing their thing. Salvelinus

Quest you make valid points but I don't think GC.com is caving in. I just had a cache approved on a SGL yesterday. People need to understand that the PGC is a small agency and nobody within that agency is elected at all. It is also important to note that gamelands are purchased soley with hunters dollars, not tax revenue, and managed primarily for wildlife and wildlife habitat, not for general recreation. With that being said, they do allow other recreational uses (including Mt biking and horseback riding) mainly as good PR to expose more persons to the positive aspects of gamelands. These other activites are somewhat regulated as not to be counter to the main purpose of the SGL. Apparently, someone within the PGC currently perceives geocaching as an activity that could be counter to the primary purposes of the gamelands and has taken the simple approach to not allow it. In the near future we will working with those persons to help them better understand geocaching and what geocachers can do for them. I can assure everyone that the ball is rolling to find a workable solution to their concerns. I am hopefull this will lead to allowing geocaching on SGL's. Remember those first few days with the DCNR? That is where we are right now with the PGC. Please, please head KA request not to fire off nasty e-mail to PGC Regional Offices. Our approach should be to attract friends with honey and not vineger. Monitor this thread often as there may be a future time for appropriate correspondance from the masses to them. But for now, please let the few "points of contact" with them see what they can do first. Patience here will pay off. Now go CITO this weekend! Salvelinus

Don't you people know that the 17th is the opening day of trout season? Get your priorities straight I've got mine straight...and will be thigh deep in cold water on Saturday morning! Actually, I will also be attending the Potter County CITO and working my real job that afternoon. So I would love to come to the "burg' and take a dump...but I will be fishing, CITO, and being a fish biologist in Potter County that day. However, I will attend next week's fun at "Take another Dump" Salvelinus

You may want to check out the "Free" policy we have for Pennsylvania State Parks and State Forests when dealing with your State Parks people. You can find it Here. So far things have gone well here. But even with the policy and permitting process there are a few park/forest managers who, for whatever reason, are anti-caching. I don't think you can avoid that. But, for the most part, things have been great. Many pre-policy caches have even been permitted and very few are being pulled. Some parks have even been extremely pro-geocaching. I recently found a new cache in a State Park and was impressed to see that the Park actually designed their own geocache container sticker. The sticker was very "welcoming" and designed to be specific to their park. I think those Parks people understand that geocachers can be their best friend! Good luck! Salvelinus

A gamelands CITO is not a bad idea. Showing up at a regional office with bags of gamelands trash would open some eyes. I picked up at least 10 discharged shotgun shells this weekend in a State Park! Salvelinus

I'm too busy to smile this week...cache me Friday!

Two threads may be a bit overkill. There is not much to really say on PFBC lands and losing them is a small loss for geocachers compared to Game Lands. If the Game Commission does not prohibit geocaching...the Fish and Boat Commission will not either. I offered the information about PFBC property in case anyone was curious. Think of them as one in the same as far as this thread is concerned. Salvelinus

The above qoute alone is reason enough for all of us to wait for Salvelinus to come up with a contact who is more open. Who ever sent the e-mail, their knowledge of Geocaching is limited. We don't dig holes, cut vegetation, or litter(its not abandoned property, and if they can show that the surronding vegetation is being destroyed the cache be removed. Clearly we need to find someone at the SGC who can work with us, if DCNR can find an acceptable way to work with us so can they. All they reall have to do is implement the DCNR policy. As PSUPaul mentioned. I am respectively letting Keystone Approver work this one first. He already has made previous contacts and is on top of things. I will gladly become more involved when Keystone Approver request any assistance I can offer. All of this may be nothing more than a few PGC employees mis-interpreting their own regualtions and how they relate to geocaching. In my opinion, at this point, no geocacher should be contacting the PGC except Approver. My apologies to PSUPaul. I was only pointing out the mis-interpretation of Game Lands regulations about littering in the second e-mail, as it related to geocaching. I did not assume that you were in agreement with their interpretation. I apologize if my response sounded as such. I actually felt the second e-mail was mostly positive and I appreciated seeing the information. BTW, if your curious about regulations on PA Fish and Boat property. As long as the caches you place don't cause a major public problem, you may use PA Fish and Boat owned and controlled property. Just be sure that what you do is not in violation of the posted regulations. Each property has slightly different regs, but you can search HERE for more information or to get general PFBC property regulations. If you are thinking of a cache on PA Fish and Boat Property feel free to e-mail me about potential problems with it. Salvelinus

A physical geocache is not litter for these reasons...and by Websters defination. A. They are not items of rufuse B. They are not discarded property randomly scattered about. If the DCNR does not consider them litter, how can the PGC? However, their rules on digging or cutting brush are very valid. As long as your cache placement does not involve digging a hole or cutting brush or trees. I see their regulations as ok and caching friendly. It seems to me that whoever is sending you these e-mails has mis-interpreted their own regulations or does not understand what geocaching is. Probably both. Salvelinus

Right. This is why I think we need a S.P.O.C. Your absolutly right Jenn! It seems as if Approver is already on it. He's so good! Approver: I'm willing to meet, discuss, share my thoughts, do a show and tell....anything with the PGC if necessary or needed. Salvelinus

Everyone hold your horses a minute! Don't jump to any conclusions. I am attempting to find out if this is real or not. We need some names in the PGC to follow up with. I already e-mailed the originator of this thread in an attempt to get more information. I work for a sister agency...The PA Fish and Boat Commission, and I will attempt to make the appropriate contacts if this turns out to be plausiable. In the meantime...don't go firing off a bunch of angry e-mails to their website. Keep in mind that lands owned by the PFC and the PFBC are purchased with dollars from hunters and fisherman only. THESE AGENCIES ARE NOT FUNDED WITH GENERAL TAX DOLLARS! Lands that they purchase are managed for the sole purpose of providing hunting and fishing opportunities. With that being said, they do understand that their lands are used for "other" activities besides hunting and fishing. Their regulations for these lands are designed and develop to maintain the primary purposes of the lands. Non-traditional activities that occur are pretty much ignored until something is brought to their attention. I suspect that is what happened here. Being a small agency...the simple answer is always no. If this is true, it does not mean all is lost. Horseback riding, and mountain biking are already allowable, regulated activities on State Game Lands. Hopefully, if/when the opportunity presents itself, we can work out acceptable regualations for geocaching. Our history with DCNR will definatly help. But remember, the PGC focus their efforts on hunters and trappers with everyone else having a lower priority. Sorry to be...sobering, but we need to approach this one cautiously. Salvelinus Edit: Looks like approver and I were typing at the same time. He's the man with his thumb closest to this issue. Thank you again Approver! But please keep in mind how the PFBC and the PGC view uses of their lands when you are geocaching there. Your activities are not their primary priority...hunting and fishing are. It helps if you can think of yourself as a welcome guest when visiting those areas.

That is a recommendable cache. Great birding spot too! Salvelinus

Yeah Lep...but we're talking normal cachers. Your speed caching pace is legendary! Your summary above pretty much echos my thoughts. I think the Ricketts Glen area is a sleeper spot for great geocaching and I'm fortunate to live near State College and all its diversity. I would also recommend e-mailing a cacher or two in the area(s) you plan on visiting. That's the beauty of a well filled-out profile. It makes it easy to contact others who should be able to help out. Salvelinus

My first though was to wonder why you would post a scanned log book. I still can't think of a good reason to do so, but I'm open to the idea that others may feel differently. I would not like to see something I wrote to someone else posted without prior knowledge that it would be exposed to everyone and anyone via the internet. To me...many of my logbook entries are personal thoughts between me, the cache placer, and other finders. They often contain spoilers or other thoughts nobody, except people who have had that same experience, could understand. In contrast, my online logs are written with full understanding that anyone can view them. In such, they are written in a different frame of mind than the physical logbook entry. I also choose whether or not to use a cache camera with the knowledge that it too could end up online. I would be okay with posting log book scans if I knew up front that what I write could be posted. Then I could decide whether to share my thoughs and/or spoilers, or just stamp the book with my really cool brook trout stamp and be on my way Sure...it may be legal to post scanned log books without prior knowledge of the authors, but that dosn't necessarily make it appropriate in every case. Salvelinus

I'm jealous...you have spring coming? We are getting 6-8 inches of snow today! Caching was just getting going again too. Enfanta has done some things with fake rocks as cache containers. They look like a rock...but really don't function like one. You may want to send her an e-mail. Her profile is readily found in the NE forums. Salvelinus

Kudos to you guys for all you are doing!!! I'm curious if you ever get the chance to get any of the Iraqi locals (good guys) interested in geocaching? Salvelinus

Couldn't agree more Brian! I have a Spawner type cache that breeds other "new" caches with much more control than potentially flooding an area with inadaquate film container micros. Considering new permitting requirements and private property issues, I found this type of cache to work really well in promoting new quality caches in an area. The three caches "spawned" from the original are all in great areas and have all been well received. That reminds me...its almost time for a new one! Salvelinus <edit> Took out "lame" micro. I found out that word offends some cachers.

Recently there were four bogus finds by the same cacher on the same day in my local area. In every instance the cacher was at ground zero but figured there was too much snow to actually find them. They posted spoiler picks instead. What angered me the most is that one of the caches was actually found the previous day by a newbie cacher. They had the nerve to mention in their log that us local cachers need to educate newbies about burying caches! The next day, the cache was checked by the owner and found exactly where it was supposed to be...not buried at all! I guess when you are on a cache blitz for more numbers you can't let a tricky hide slow you down! All of their bogus "found" logs that day have been deleted so I can't post them. I've noticed this type of behavoir is usually associated with strictly "numbers" cachers. Any one else notice that too? Salvelinus