Cpt.Blackbeard

What an ironic statement coming from someone concerned with the logging of extremely difficult 5/5* caches I'm assuming I missed the in there somewhere. But to answer your question, because the Guidelines say so Of course, it's a free country.... I think they're right. My 0.02 Leave a camera there then, mines broken but even if it worked I seldom carry one caching, and since Groundspeak doesn't require a photo the only way you'd get one from me is if you provide the camera. And if you rejected it I'd file an appeal to Groundspeak over your ALR to get my log reinstated. This is all moot since I'm unlikely to find one of yours but others will who will feel that way, and I have to wonder why you wish to be obstinate over an issue Groundspeak is not.

You miss the point entirely. Forcing people to take a picture with their faces in it is just plain silly and an ALR to boot. Not only that, it can be a pain in the butt if you're caching alone to get a good face picture. If an Earthcache is so weak that it necessitates a face picture to prove the finder was there, it needs to be retooled. My, that sure out them in their place. No way anyone can counter a well thought out rebuttal like that.

My apologies for straying. It was my understanding that the thread was about some guy, claiming to be a LEO, dealing with an unmarked cache under a car. He posted an idea, (a good idea, though one already covered by our guidelines), which he felt might have alleviated some of the concern brought about by the incident. I figured additional suggestions geared toward preventing similar incidents would be on topic. No, this thread is a simple request from Groundspeak that all caches be marked with the Groudspeak label to identify what they are, and Groudspeak posted the letter they received to show why they had to ask once again that people follow the posted guidelines.

Doesn't it seem odd that this geocaching trooper would claim there was a geocache under a car? That seems EXTREMELY odd to me. That's why I call bull hockey on the entire email. You all stop reading to soon, the next line states that the cache had rolled under the car from where it had been stashed. No doubt the previous finder did not replace it right and being round it rolled out. No one seems to read all the way. I stand corrected. I did miss that. That was posted after the post I replied to, I did read it after I posted and scrolled on done, but at that post I had already read the same argument posted numerous times with no response so I stopped to reply. So there ya old Pirate

Sometimes an object can sit in one place for weeks and then suddenly move, I've seen it happen. Nothing at all odd or improbable about this scenario, I have no doubt it happened just as stated. Regardless it is a very straight forward request here from Groundspeak, clearly label your cache containers. It's been a requirement all along, it's easy to do, there is not a single valid reason it can't be done, so why all the debate? Label them and move on.

Doesn't it seem odd that this geocaching trooper would claim there was a geocache under a car? That seems EXTREMELY odd to me. That's why I call bull hockey on the entire email. You all stop reading to soon, the next line states that the cache had rolled under the car from where it had been stashed. No doubt the previous finder did not replace it right and being round it rolled out.

They blend in?!? Are we on the same planet? Those labels scream "I'M OVER HERE!!" They also don't stick for very long, but that is a minor problem, I think. I've yet to see a container where you couldn't turn it so the label isn't obvious. And if it isn't obvious, it won't be seen by a bomb squad, right? Wrong, they'll see it when they check it out before blowing it up. I've yet to hear of a bomb squad standing back and lobbing sticks of dynamite at a package, they generally try to move it to a safe area first and look it over to try and identify it. Regardless though of whether they see it or not it does not lessen your responsibility to clearly label it as the guidelines and this thread tell you to do.

They blend in?!? Are we on the same planet? Those labels scream "I'M OVER HERE!!" They also don't stick for very long, but that is a minor problem, I think. I've yet to see a container where you couldn't turn it so the label isn't obvious.

It continues to amaze me that people make caches and don't label them, even camoed containers can have the green Geocache label and blend in.

Big problem will be longevity. If you just cut an inch or so off the top and hinge it on that piece would quickly rot away where I live.

About the bolder part: The way I read it, that's what happened. And the majority of the replies said that asking for cash was inappropriate, and recomended asking for help instead. That wasn't the sort of answer, or polite discussion, that he wanted. Agreed. Some people post to get advice, others to get support for what they believe. He was the second type, he did not want nor would he accept alternatives or advice, it was his way is right or else. He still does not consider asking for large cash donations on his cache page wrong, and still thinks he deserves to receive anything he asks for. The blame for his meltdown rest squarely on him, not on those who replied with advice.

I don't for a second doubt that he was on the level. He still went about asking for help in the wrong way I would have to agree with you completely. That's irrelevant. It was against the guidelines AND the TOU for him to put the request on his cache pages, and, as has been mentioned NUMEROUS times, he always had the option of asking other cachers to adopt the caches. Asking for money was inappropriate and misguided, at best. Yes, I see what you're saying and yes it was inappropriate. All I'm saying, is can't someone help him maintain his caches for a while without him having to give them up? I would hate to have to adopt out my caches after the time and effort I put into them. I would if I really had to, to keep them alive. I would hope that someone would help me out though. You are free to send him all the money and cache items you wish, he shouldn't be hard to find.

The "Hogans Heros" thing was the exact reason I came up with the idea of my "Stump Hides". Another would be "Dr Zhivago" "key, behind the brick" or "Wild Wild Wild World" , money buried under the palm trees in the shape of a dubbaya, a dubbaya, I tell ya! Thats why Im a compuslive geocacher. Of course the entire stump was hollowed out with the top hinged on theirs, impossible to do and have any structural strength left. I only sold the largest trees here so using the entire stump would make it extremely heavy to move, gonna have to think about it now.

I'm picturing the stump on Hogans Heroes they used to get in the tunnel. That would make an awesome cache but I can't think of anyway to do it with a real stump. Fine cuts require fine toothed thin blades, preferably a band saw but it would take a large machine to do. Chainsaw is the most practical and would work, though not as invisibly as you want. They are logging my place right now though, may investigate adding a stump hide here myself.

I keep saying... Everyone comes arond to my way of thinking eventually I think it's more that you keep changing your way of thinking to throw everyone off, pretty clever actually

Anything goes as long as the land owners/managers, you and the Groundspeak reviewer agree it will work. I'm sure it will turn out great.

Yep, you don't get it. The concept of "ownership" only exists in your own psychotic mind. I respect someone else believing in their tenuous concept of "ownership" only so long as it doesn't infringe on my own rights. When they go beyond that then they no longer own what they psychotically believed that they owned. Who really owns that city, that state, that country? Do tell. You'll figure it out one day. Or not. Doesn't matter to me one little bit. You are a fool. Once I realize I'm conversing with a fool I then also realize it is pointless beyond that. "Never wrastle with a pig. You only get dirty and the pig has all the fun." Oh, I get it now. You are one of THOSE people. The ones that truly believe that stop signs, speed limits, no trespassing signs, Authorized Personnel Only signs, etc. don't apply to them...only to other people. The sheep, in other words. All those pesky laws and rules infringe on your rights. That sucks to be you. Here's what you can do, if you wish. Buy some land (yeah, I know...you should just be able to take the land because it's yours anyway) and post big signs that say that the land is free to use by anyone and everyone. No rules, no limits...do whatever you want. How long do you think it would be before "your" land would just be a trash riddled wasteland? If the world worked his way chaos and anarchy would be the rule for sure. THere is no bigger fool than he who believes all others are fools.

I'd guess to more clearly define the intent. A cache can be "buried" in leaves, for example. It can (from what I understand) be buried in, say, sand. That is my understanding as well. If you place a cache in a pre-existing hole and cover it with leaves many would call it buried but it would still be allowed under the guidelines. I found a five gallon bucket cache once convincingly camo'ed to look like a stump, had been in place a few years and you still had to grab it to tell it wasn't a real stump. May not work in Brooklyn but it was great in the Forest. Find a similar camo for your area.

Not 100% If you can convince GC that you have explicit permission, ie you are the land owner, and you have a good enough reason why the cache must be buried instead of left out and covered they will consider the request to list it. I imagine it will take a mighty good reason to get it approved but it could be done.

Don't know about the SA where you are but over this way they carry an inventory significantly larger and more diverse than you might imagine. We don't have a Sports Authority nearby but we do have a Dick's store. It has, by far, the largest fishing department within 30 miles, and that includes the Cortland Line Factory store. Considering there is a 40 miles long lake that has three species of trout, landlocked salmon, largemouth and smallmouth bass (the smallmouth bass fishing has been featured on national weekend fishing shows at least a couple of times), as well as perch, pickerel, walleye, and northern pike. There used to be a really good flyfishing shop nearby but it had a fire and it's long gone. Dick's is about the only decent source for fishing (and hunting) supplies in the area. I was speaking with a manager at the local Dicks and he told me that they are moving away from the outdoor gear and toward clothing. I looked at him and said "You mean like Sports Authority" and he said "Yes, that is what sells". I don't know if he was referring to the Dicks here, or Dicks in general, but if that is the case it would be a loss. The world doesn't need another Sports Authority or Modells. Dicks has never been half the outdoors store Galyans was which is why I wonder why they bought out and closed Galyans, not like they were really competing with them.

I'm just glad to see him post in this Forum again. So if no one finds all ten who wins

Very Doubtful I'll see one but if I do or hear of one I will report it

The same way I noticed him? At about 2:52, you were walking into the gate for the cemetery, blabbing in a conversational tone. At that point in the video, the hunter was clearly visible, silhouetted against the skyline. Anyone practicing even a modicum of situational awareness would've seen him right away. Except thanks to the way the video is edited, you are warned that something is about to happen. It is also fortunate for the viewer that it is facing right at him. I, on the other hand, was obviously busy looking down at the graves, as I had been waiting to visit that spot for years (I am not joking, I learned about this place in 3rd grade and always wanted to visit). The other two I was with similarly were looking down at the graves. Are the three of us just dense idiots? I think the fact that none of us noticed until we started getting screamed at tells you something. I mean who expects to see someone 40 feet up in a tree anyway? I wasn't exactly looking for something like that while at the same time was specifically focusing on something on the ground. Also describing our talking as blabbing seems to imply you have general contempt for us, since that word doesn't have a nice connotation and what we were saying was historical in nature anyway so not useless garbage either. No one here was posting to attack or insult you, we posted to point out areas you should watch out for in the future and to advise on what we believe the best course of action would be next outing. Please don't take it as a personal attack, you all looked like you were having fun and just had a few bad moments. You state now that editing has changed the way it appears it happened, well the edited version is all we have to go from. I don't think any member of your group is an evil criminal willfully flouting the laws, just that it was an unfortunate occurrence which is now escalating needlessly. I hope your future trips turn out more to your liking and wish you all happy caching.

Thank you Lone R, I agree with you. You sum up the situation perfectly. We weren't in his way, we didn't stand in his line of fire, we just happened to be in the general vicinity. I apologize to you all for going back for a minute but I hope you all undestand how we felt we were being unecessarily bullied when we had a right to be there. If the cache was in his line of fire or directly next to him, of course we wouldn't have returned. We felt our interference was negligible though, we were on top of a hill and he was shooting down into a valley- could we really have scared the deer away with our mere presense way up there in relation to them? Maybe our scents could be noticed by the deer a thousand or so feet away, I don't know, but just the fact we were there would have ruined that whether he spent two more minutes at GZ or not so that is a null point. Also, to those who said we had a lack of awareness to our surroundings because we didn't see him- did anyone notice how he was camo'ed into the tree and was like 40 feet above us?? How were we supposed to notice him? And for his safety shouldn't he have been wearing bright orange as well? I'm frankly a little shocked that people would even toy with the idea that what we did here could possibly be seen as illegal or worthy of charges whether we would be acquited of them or not. Not that there haven't been a lot of frivolous law suits in the past, but this would be beyond the pale and just sounds like the musings of people who antagonize us for what you perceive as an anti-hunter "liberal" opinion. I don't hate hunters, just thought that one was rude the end. You still do not understand hunting. He was not "Hunting the valley" he was hunting a 360 degree radius around him, that included the cemetery. Human have a very distinctive walk, no other animal tramps though leaves the same way, and hunted animals are extremely tuned in to any differences, any deer within earshot knew you were there long ago. During deer season here, and I presume elsewhere, hunter orange is only worn during firearms season, bow hunters are heavily camouflaged as they must get much closer to the deer to have a chance of killing it, so no, he should not have had orange on. You were blameless until you spotted him, at that point the correct move was to shut up and quietly leave the way you came in. It was only after you saw him and continued looking around anyway that he became pissed off enough to speak, and while he was rude, at that point he was simply responding to your rudeness in not having left yet, the original rude behavior was yours. When you decided to return to spite him it became illegal harassment of a hunter no matter how you rationalize it away. Many times when people behave badly towards us it is because we did something to them first unintentionally, a little understanding on both sides helps.

you should read all the posts your self!!!! its been posted many times how they went back... and that was intentionaly interfering with his hunt which is illegal prove it In Indiana: Harassment of Hunters, Trappers It is illegal to intentionally interfere with the legal taking of a game animal by another person on public land, or on private land without permission of the landowner. http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-hg_generalinfo.pdf Notice where it says public lands? Most states have similar laws. Hunter was a jerk but we don't know why, possinly he has waited years to hunt that area and will never have another chance, around here public land hunts are often Lottery based, you apply but if they don't draw your name, you don't hunt. Ruining what may have been his only chance to hunt that area would upset most people.