Just skimming this thread -- they aren't talking about rarely-found caches. They are talking about the rate of finds ("if it isn't found as much as it used to be" =/= "if it's been a while since it was found"). They are saying if it was found 10x/month consistently and is now found 2x/year, and it's not an amazing cache (with favorite points as a metric for that), maybe it's time to rotate the cache out and see if another player has a better idea. This is not the same as a cache that has been found 1x/year consistently for the past 10 years.
They are targeting stagnant areas -- dense urban and suburban parks where there is no turnover and no places to hide new caches without placing LPCs, and established members (those more likely to be paying premium, going to events, buying trackables and gear) are getting bored because there's nothing new to find within a reasonable distance. This is the picture in a lot of cities and suburbs. There are areas I have cached in that had very active communities, but it didn't take long to "clear the area" -- and then the hobby isn't quite as fun when you're driving an hour and a half to make a find and can only do it once every other week or so, so the community dies down. The rate of finds on caches in those areas goes down as locals have found everything convenient to them (which is the signal they are trying to highlight). In those settings, they might attract new members, but are losing established members who will spend more money. New members don't care if a cache is brand new -- but established members like fresh things to find.
All this aside, though -- as others have said, the language is pretty clearly not targeting lonely caches.