Commander & Chief

This isn't a matter of doing the neighborly thing and performed Cache maintenance on Caches that you visit that may be in need of a new log etc.. Or even about the times we may have actually replaced a Cache container for one that the lid may be broken and so on. Typically, in those cases a responsible CO would be heading out to their Cache to do their own maintenance after the temporary fix was performed. This is about a Cache Owner posting a Cache and stating in the Cache description how everyone is SUPPOSED to maintain it for them and how they are to do it. Yes, most of us are good to each other and help out when needed, but it is just wrong and quite irritating when a Cache is posted that EXPECTS me to do their job of maintenance. The bottom line is that it is in violation of the guidelines most follow when posting a new Cache to basically state that they will not be doing their part in maintaining their own Cache and as such it should not even have gotten approved with out a very good explanation in their posting notes to the reviewer. Quite sure that if the reviewer questioned them prior to approval as to their intentions, the reviewer would most likely recommend a diffent wayh of wording it in the Cache description.

Having read the many thoughts regarding this topic and the Caches currently being posted by the Ecorangers in Wisconsin, I personaly believe that there is a difference between the original concept of GCRM Caches and how they are being advertized in current postings. Originally, I have to believe that the guy in Colorado Springs that started the GCRM site was just trying to promote other Cachers in helping out CO's in performing maintenance on Caches needing it. The problem is that most of us are already doing that when we can (there are times that I go into the woods without my Cache bag). Where my dislike of this comes is that somehow it has Morphed into the concept that it is acceptable to hide a Cache and in your posting basically relieve yourself from any responsibilty of that Cache's maintenance as required by Groundspeak (and by common sense). As stated in my earlier posting, the day's of needing the "Few" to hide "Many" so that there were plenty to find is in the past. Bottom line, I believe that all Cache Reviewer Volunteers who spend countless hours approving our (normally responsible) Caches, should band together either by forum or other means to come to an agreement, that any Cache where the CO basically states in their posting that it is the responsibility of other Cachers to maintain the Cache WILL NOT BE APPROVED!

The days when Caches were few and far between and a small handful of Cachers who were thankfully willing to hide many, many, many Caches for us to find are in the past. Now is the time that there are tons of Cachers (growing everyday) and they are adding to our sport many new Caches that have been well thought out and creative. These Caches are being maintained as they should. Any CO that is willing to post a Cache that states right in the description how to maintain it for them goes right in the face of our guidelines. As much as we appreciate the occasional maintenance done on one of ours by a finder, I will run right out and check on it myself. I look at it as my responsibility as a CO. Surprised to see reviewers let these type of Caches get posted. I will say that I haven't gone back to check if there were any Owner Maintenance logs done on them. But if I did that I would also be looking to see if any of the Cache Owners have also logged finds on them... But that is another can of worms for another day.

Can anybody tell me why when I try and do a search based on Zip Code and selecting the box to exclude Caches found and owned, they are still displayed? In the past these were omitted from my search which provided me a quick look at any new Caches in my area without checking my e-mails. C&C.

As we were sitting around one day marveling at the number some Cachers seem to be able to log in a day, we kind of figured that to get more than say, 100 it would have to be a VERY saturated area and would involve some very early starts and late finishes (say about sun up). My Brother in law (Captain of Captain and Mate and I (Chief) set out one day while we were visiting for Easter to see just how we could do. It started with dropping of their pups at the groomers and a failed attempt at a newly placed Cache for a FTF. our journey involved Caches along the eastern side of Wisconsin and Illinois and yes, we even stopped for lunch and even a search for ammo boxes at a hardware store. All in all we ended up with 40 finds (41 if you count the one we stopped for that afterwards Captain realized that they already had). All this and we were able to finish up before the sun was setting. I'd believe that it was possible to hit maybe even 60 givin the right area. I'm supicious of those logging in excess of 100. I'm thinking it was most likely the end of a journey and they're logging all their finds total and not changing the dates. Of course I've been known to be wrong before. C&C.