Jumpin' Jack Cache

Keystone's first post to this thread indicated that the cache was being looked at by someone who actually gets paid, not discussed in the "secret reviewer forum". I'll update Cpt.Blackbeard's advice. If what you say about your account is true, hit the "Report" button and request that this thread be closed, then wait for someone to discuss your cache submission when work resumes in Seattle. And, I'd definitely drop the group account and start fresh.

Oh, snap! Good catch.

Contained within the bolded bit, I imagine, considering his fairly recent contributions on the forum.

It's understandable that, as a geocacher, you'd assume that the ammo can is a geocache. Someone that was not geocacher might not not see it as a cache at all, but just an ammo can being used to hold ammo. Why it was under a bridge, I have no idea, but to assume that's it's a cache because it's an ammo can is looking through geocacher colored glasses. Um, from the op:

what mark?...no one yet has proved that the said marks are left by geocachers...its all speculation...i want to see "before" and "after" satellite images, until i see that i am not convinced Really? Lets see, there are 2 arguments 1)these are not tire tracks, they could be from walking people/animals 2)they are not from alian head cachers 1) The track is clearly a 'two track' that never changes in width. Naturaly developing two track trails from people walking are continualy changing width, and often, one will dissapear, and a new one appear on the other side of the surviving track. these are clearly made by vehicles. 2)what are the chances that there were trails leading to each cache site? Well maybe the cache placer just placed the caches as s/he was driving (or walking) along a existing path? For this to be true, there would have to be a pre-existing track in the middle of the desert shaped like an alien head. I do not believe that, nor do you. Stop with this silly line of arguing. The trail is caused by cachers driving the alien head. The question is, is it OK, good, or bad for them to do that. The real question is, how much angst can be generated in this forum about it?

I suppose it's possible that one guy who didn't see the tracks well in the middle of the night three months ago means, that the tracks are no longer visible. I'm leaning towards all of the other logs. All the other logs from when? I'm not seeing this vast number of logs discussing this issue that you seem to be referring to. I saw some logs discussing the issue from last winter. Is that what you are referencing? I personally gave more weight to the hundreds of logs since then. Beyond that, it should be noted that if these tracks were the problem that you and others claim them to be, then a cacher would not be able to 'miss them' regardless of the time of day that the trip was made. They would be directly from cache to cache for the entire series, after all. I didn't say that there were no tire tracks. I said that there are places where they are apparent, and others where they are not (at least, that's what I meant). We did not follow tire tracks to every cache, but I suppose that we might have figured out a better path. The tire tracks that I did see were no more than compacted soil, a slightly firmer walking surface. Flora and fauna in the area seemed to be adjusting just fine, as far as my biologist's eye could tell. Of course, there is the off chance that there was one unique plant that got run over. Better chance that some critter ate it as a change from the same ol', I suspect.

The bolded bit has not been shown to be true. Nor, has it been shown to be untrue. Having spent quite a bit of time in desert habitats, I'd say it's more likely true, than untrue. Especially considering posts in this thread which indicate how long scars like these remain visible in this area. To my way of thinking, that would indicate that an area is particularly sensitive. I have ecosystems near me that you could drop napalm on and see no trace of it a week later. I see these ecosystems as being less sensitive. Jumpin’ Jack Cache visited these caches just a couple months ago and has reported that tire tracks are not an issue. Correction. JJC said the tracks were not an issue for him, as he either didn't see them in the dark, or didn't care about them. These forums have shown us time and again that just because one person is apathetic to an issue does not mean there is no issue. Yeah, I'm blind as a bat and have absolutely no concern for the environment in general. Again, it has not been shown that the trails seen in the OP’s image were made by vehicles. I suppose there might be someone, somewhere, who couldn't tell a foot print from a tire track... Maybe... Not sure I'd want to base an entire argument on such an unlikely theory. Unless, of course, I was just arguing to hear myself type. I assure you, I know a foot trail from a tire trail. I also know cattle and game trails. I've walked many of all of 'em. I would say, "Great twisting of the facts", but to each his own. Not to mention, the summation was irrelevant, as it avoided completely the real problem. As has been stated many times in this thread, the significant issue is land manager perception, not tire tracks. If land managers ever collectively get the idea that we, as a group, don't care about the environment, that could cost us. If one of the many anti-caching wackos were to dig up indications that we were uncaring louts, that could cost us. But I suppose contempt comes naturally to some of us... I suppose some want to see landowner relations as a two way street. I see no evidence here that the landowner has a problem. I do know that the local residents are rather amused and enriched by the presence of geocachers in the area.

Thanks. You are confirming what I already pretty much knew. It would be interesting to me if someone could dig deeper and prove this information wrong. It would also be more interesting if that person was local. If I had the money, I'd cover long odds against that happening. And then there's this... For reference here is a pic of the area without the reference dots Haaaaa! I love it. Somewhere there is a teapot brewing a tempest. What I love best about this thread is that there is soooo freakin' much of this blessed desert, ummm not too many miles from this spot, that is used for regular munitions testing, radioactive nuclear test sites, WW2 era unstable munitions storage bunkers, etc. And a buncha geocachers are worried about trails forming. Lawd Lawd. This is sooo freakin' rich. You'd think geocachers were playing whack-a-mole with endangered PNW burrowing owls out there. LOL. I saw somebody step on a scorpion, does that count? (It was accidental & the scorpion move after the foot lifted).

OK there's the third who gets it. We've spent 10+ years trying to sell geocaching to land managers as a low impact activity, and it usually is. This kind of shoots the whole low impact thing out of the water. Do you actually think that the land managers there don't know about it? Seriously? After all the flap over the nearby powertrail? I walked the thing, in the dark. Wasn't that freakin' easy to follow no tire tracks around the whole thing, and I've spent some time following tire tracks in my time. I guess Brian can speak quite well for himself, but I think that he was probably seeing a bigger picture than you, and referring to land managers in general, not these particular land managers. Yes, these population and tourist-income starved people will put up with a lot... they are hungry. But move the scenario to another place and it becomes a brand new game. Move the scenario to another place & it's a brand new place, now ain't it? Have you or Brian been there? Have you seen more than vague GE screen captures with suggestive dots? Ever seen a mountaintop removal job? I have lived in, worked in, and loved the desert, if that is any qualification. And you? I think that Briansnat was indeed referring to the bigger picture, and not just this one place. No. What has that got to do with this? Not as much I guess, I just walked the cache series & a bit more. Brian's point seemed to be that land managers would object. I suggested that these particular land managers might just be aware and not particularly worried. I'm pretty sure there are more cattle than humans making trails there, they just aren't so organized. Doesn't take much to leave a trail, though. You can most definitely see a mountaintop removal job from space.

OK there's the third who gets it. We've spent 10+ years trying to sell geocaching to land managers as a low impact activity, and it usually is. This kind of shoots the whole low impact thing out of the water. Do you actually think that the land managers there don't know about it? Seriously? After all the flap over the nearby powertrail? I walked the thing, in the dark. Wasn't that freakin' easy to follow no tire tracks around the whole thing, and I've spent some time following tire tracks in my time. I guess Brian can speak quite well for himself, but I think that he was probably seeing a bigger picture than you, and referring to land managers in general, not these particular land managers. Yes, these population and tourist-income starved people will put up with a lot... they are hungry. But move the scenario to another place and it becomes a brand new game. Move the scenario to another place & it's a brand new place, now ain't it? Have you or Brian been there? Have you seen more than vague GE screen captures with suggestive dots? Ever seen a mountaintop removal job?

OK there's the third who gets it. We've spent 10+ years trying to sell geocaching to land managers as a low impact activity, and it usually is. This kind of shoots the whole low impact thing out of the water. Do you actually think that the land managers there don't know about it? Seriously? After all the flap over the nearby powertrail? I walked the thing, in the dark. Wasn't that freakin' easy to follow no tire tracks around the whole thing, and I've spent some time following tire tracks in my time.

Amen.

You Sven may be somewhere in the middle. Fixed that for ya You see The Great Pumpkin last night?

Actually, I think I'll use that. It'll be funny now

Are you sure about "everyone"? Everyone who has found it. Does it offend you? Yes Sorry, but I think you need a winter coat of fur or thicker skin. This is exactly the answer I would expect, but that sidesteps the issue. If you were caching with your young daughter would you like to explain this to her? Would you tell her to get thicker skin? Would you want her to get the idea that she is substandard? But the issue isn't these two caches it's the overall idea that it can send a bad message--one I'm sure any reasonable, tolerant person wouldn't want to send--especially those at Groundspeak and the caching community as a whole. My young daughter would get the joke, she has a sense of humor (I do actually have one, if you count 14 as "young"). Sometimes a joke is just a joke. I don't know which cache(s) set you off, but if that one offends you, you might need to relax your "getting upset" meter.

Are you sure about "everyone"? Everyone who has found it. Does it offend you? Yes Sorry, but I think you need a winter coat of fur or thicker skin.

Are you sure about "everyone"? Everyone who has found it. Does it offend you? Edit: The person the joke was on liked it.

I guess this one is sexist, but everybody seems to enjoy the joke http://coord.info/GC2YT1D

Y'all do realize that the sole purpose of this thread was to get more publicity for the spoiler site, right?

Now that we know that you peek in, can you explain why you pay for a google ad for your bookmark list? He actually does have a good explanation, but I'll let him post it. Seeing as I'm the guy who responded in the other thread I'm quite sure you're referring to. That would be the thread. I suspect that your definition of "good" and mine may very well differ, but I'm honestly curious & he did peek in.

I found it bizarre that Groundspeak decided that the part of France known as St Martin was not part of France. I have a photo of me at the "Welcome to France" sign there. But I'm not planning on revisiting St Martin. I was hoping to visit St. Pierre. These are integral parts of France, not territories. How can Groundspeak decide to break countries into separate parts??? Will Groundspeak decide that Hawaii is too far from the US, and separate it into a new 'location'??? Get a grip on reality! St Pierre y Miquelon IS part of France. As is St Martin! Oops. Groundspeak desn't like Alaska. It's now a new country! Wanting a new souvi, are ya? Oops, I forgot, you disdain them...must be something else

Now that we know that you peek in, can you explain why you pay for a google ad for your bookmark list?

Expect it not to happen? No. Expect some respect if they see a spoiler and prefer not to, not unreasonable. Not bother hiding interesting caches if GS seems to condone spoilers, not unreasonable. Condone Richards? Bad. If you blow up the onion sack, we expect spoiler pics

+1

And many do. Just sayin'. Yeah. Lazy ones, those who just want "points", those who look for creative ideas...(notice the last group). Somebody who owned more than one cache on the channel discussed didn't like their caches being "spoiled". If GS condoned such spoilers by omission, said person is less likely to go to the trouble of creating more. Bloviating & backseat lawyering aside, it's a case of "I'll do what I want & screw all of you" (and get lots of hits on my youtube channel, thanks). I tend to pick battles where the example case doesn't help my point. Early on in this thread I posted Then some referred me to the original thread in the UK forum (which by that time I had looked at). Clearly the cache owner had asked Sven to remove the spoiler and he refused. Ideally these two cachers should have come to some agreement about what was shown in the videos and never gotten Groundspeak involved. Now it seems when a second cache owner complained, Sven tried to play tricks to get around the request to remove another video. Clearly, again he should have come to an agreement with the cache owner. The problem now is that the cache owner is in the cat bird seat. They have no incentive to negotiate as they know Groundspeak will back them up. My objection is not that that Sven got banned, or even that he should be allowed to act like a Richard (I don't know what that means but will assume it's less likely to get me suspended than the word I was going to use). I object to the rule itself. The rationale for this rule has been to respect the wishes of the cache owners. Why should the wishes of cache owners be respected and not the wishes of those who want to share information about caches free and unencumbered by an arbitrary cache owner? The rule establishes a right for caches owners that no one else in a similar situation has. I don't care that caches aren't movies or that cache owners don't get paid for hiding caches like authors do for writing books. You put something out in public that interested people are going to talk about. You can't stop people from talking about it. Groundspeak has a rule that may or may not stop some people from sharing cache information. If it stops people from sharing then I fear for a caching world with fewer blogs and videos (getting permission for everything you write may be too much of a burden for many bloggers). On the other hand, I know it's not going to stop everyone. Sven seems adamant about keeping his videos online. Perhaps he will accept a permanent ban and cache under Cup's account or create a sock puppet that cannot be traced to him. Perhaps he will stop logging finds online. He'll just keep posting spoilers and there won't be anything Groundspeak can do about it. It's a hollow rule and it won't have the effect that the cache owners who demanded it want. I had to click "show all" to even reply coherently. You read "Richard" correctly. I used it for the same reason. You're still going in circles. Some COs don't like their caches being spoiled "community spirit" or just plain "respect" would have resulted in those particular ones being deleted --- problem solved. Sven elected to shoot for publicity and obviously split the account in anticipation of a ban which he welcomes (publicity?). Ya got sucked in.