Wily Javelina

This guy hit the nail on the head. I do not think anybody (95% of all cachers) really cares as long as they can log a find.

Starbusts Coffee and Taxi service to cache should also be added as an attribute. Hate to waste a day trying to figure out what kind of refreshments are close at hand.

Probably should remove it and post note. Also, do not eat it and wash hands after handling.

Well, rest areas are your best bet, donut shops are probably your second. Look at at map. You are traveling the country and are probably in the best position, time prevailining, to find a wide variety of caches.

I am glad you pay for it, too. It is people like you that make this site what is is.

I am not sure why mtn-man is against approving virtual caches. Maybe he is concerned that we will out do one of his 10 "unique and interesting" virtual caches. I am not sure how in the heck he got one of his virtuals approved...guess you've got to be and insider. My favorite is the Kennesaw Hill photo from beneath power lines. Take a look at what he got through the system... -WJ

I was just getting ready to post a new topic on how freakin slow this site has become, then I saw this one. I am sure glad I do not pay for this service! -WJ

The best way to support the activity of geocaching is to place QUALITY caches! As far as members only caches, forget about them...there are so few why bother.

You can look at my stats and see I'm not a bean counter. However I still think it should be up to the cache owner to give out hints or clues. El Diablo I think that it is perfectly acceptable for a person to ask for hints in solving a difficult cache. Though, I do not think that the owner of a cache should be required to give out hints. Personally, I gladly give out hints if I feel that the person is truly stuck and cannot move forward. But, the thing that bothers me the most is when I get harassed by cachers that are attempting to be the first to find the cache and will do anything to get it…these cachers are what I consider to be the "bean counters". The best part about hiding a puzzle cache is when you think that you'll stump "them all" and the next day someone has found it without even contacting you to verify the final coordinates…these cachers are what I consider to be the "purists".

Ouch! That must have smarted. And I was concerned about rattlesnakes...

Nice try mtn-man, but no cigar. Here you go, off again, with arguments full of air and out of context. Your propaganda machine is just not up to snuff. I am sorry if you are still sore… -WJ

In my mind, the obvious solution for removing GC.com of the "virtual headache" would be to draw the hard-line and decree that "Virtuals are forever banned and will no longer be approved". Since, we have been told to count on our virtual submission to be rejected: "Consider that your virtual cache will most likely not get listed. That way you are prepared for disappointment." Why does CG.com even entertain the idea of allowing any new virtuals the express privilege of being granted a spot on the GC.com website, in the first place? My opinion is that for every cacher "against virtuals" there is an equal number of cachers "for virtuals" and obviously GC.com knows this and does not want to upset a large portion of its supporters. I think that GC.com should draw the hard-line and deny all future virtuals and place them in the ranks of locationless caches, otherwise they should open it up to all virtuals that meet a defined virtual criteria…And no, this is not the way it is currently done!

I have to disagree with this statement. -WJ

You are exactly correct. I do not except this one. This is as lame as any of the others. Not only in content but in tone. Yep, Mica is the Highest point in the Saguaro National Park or more correctly, the Rincons. Miller Peak is the higest peak in the Huachuca Mtns it tops out at 9466 ft. BTW, Mica Peak is 8664 ft almost 1000 ft lower! Get your facts strait. Furthermore, there is no view from the summit of Mica, the view is obscured entirely by Pondersa pines. Not that I am taking anything away from this peak, the experince of reaching the summit is enough. Hence no summit photo only photos of the approach. Well, my log hasn't been deleted, yet. I always let a good try like that one pass for all of my virtuals, this is just a game and we are all out having fun. Very cacher approver like of you to say such a thing. This is the type of crap that I refuse to put up with. A blatant stab (Insult #1) Lets get the fact strait, now. I submitted the exact Miller Peak Cache back on April 26 2004. Not sure who's cache I am copying. Again, get your fact straitened out. (Insult #2) Boy, your good. Why don't you look at all of the caches that I've hidden on peaks and try to make that statement again. Here are two relatively old peak caches the predate the Mica one by a over a year and a half. I will only include the virtuals: [url=http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=29f11f86-2b26-42b7-8555-a5e5e1323e04 Wasson Peak: [url=http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=ca147c04-ddd6-4002-9d40-8e3b13584795 The Window ( Big Insult #3) Your killing me. Also, if you rifle through this thread you will see than many many disagree with you. This is a unique and noteworthy virtual. (Insult #4) I am so sorry. Please accept my appology. Are you serious, no, your kidding, right? Nope, I'll pass. I went above their heads and went to the geocaching community. I no longer desire to make Miller Peak a virtual, and if you read my posts I gave up on that a long time ago. But, I will keep defending myself. You still did not answer my question. -WJ

Thank you AZcachmeister and Team Cowspots, well put and exactly my point.

July 20 by Wily Javelina (388 found) Okay 9key, If this is the way that you would like to communicate. We may as well archive the whole conversation, instead of the tidbits of your choice. First of all you did not answer my question on what differentiates this from the Mica Mountain Cache (GCJX6T)? Secondly, there is not a reasonable way to make this an offset. In order to make it an offset I would have to leave some kind of media containing the offset...may a well leave a cache. There was nothing already at the site that contains a means to relay an offset, either. I already considered this idea. Thirdly, there is not a good or reasonable place to leave the final cache, that is, without cooking up some klugey, hacked up, forced location. The trailhead starts out on National ParkLand (Coronado National Memorial) and then transitions directly to Wilderness Area. So, there is no good place near the start. The other trailhead is on the Fort Huachuca Military Base. In between there are already many caches. The logical place to locate the final cache is near the trailhead. Fourthly, what differentiates between a historical lookout tower on one of Arizona's most prominent peaks and say a old movie theatre, an old post office, a large brass plaque on a concrete dias...the difference is purely subjective and individual. Quit being such a tough guy and just approve the cache. -WJ -- Copy of email sent to 9Key -- I do not understand why you folks will not approve this cache. First of all, the peak is not the main objective of the virtual, the lookout tower on the summit is, read the description. Secondly, this is a wilderness area and in this one, in particular, physical caches are not allowed. Thirdly, I do not see what is different about this cache GCJX6T Mica Mountain (visit link) which was just recently approved. I can list many. So your argument about a peak not being a valid virtual does not hold water. I guess it depends on who you know, who you are, which approver you get and thier current state of mind, etc. -WJ

Well, I had to respond to this one. After this response I take back all the nice things that I've ever said about you. I did not accuse you of not following the guidelines. What I meant was that geocaching.com has a set of guidelines. Now, several and how much within this set of guidelines a cache submittal falls is entirely up to the approver. For instance, a virtual cache at the Grand Canyon may only have nice views and does not satisfy the guideline requirements, but since it is in a NP it automatically gets approved. Threats are not appropriate and this is not the proper behavior for a cache admin. You owe us an apology. I in no way ferreted out any caches and in no way implied that they should be archived. Do not try and put this on my shoulders.

No thanks, I'll pass on logging it. I would hate to perminently close it out to other as a possible virutal find. I am tired of the guidlines being thrown in my face and none of the approvers following them. Yes, maybe one or two caches may have slipped through. And yes a previous cache being approved is not the basis for future approavals. But, if you look at all of my virtual finds (in particular most the 4 most recent finds) and virtual hides, the majority are are exactly the same as the Miller Peak Virtual. Difficult to reach locations with a very satisfing view as a reward, nothing else. Hmmmm, Wonder how they all got approved? Miller Peak is as good as the ones I've found and the ones that I've placed. Furthermore, it has the added benifit of a historic lookout tower on top. I do not feel that I have to justify the Virtual beyond what I've done in the cache description. It is as good or better than the others that I have found or submitted. I feel that this is a great cache and it not being approved is preventing it from being experiencd by the rest of the geocaching community as a geocache. And thank you to Mtn Man for taking the time to do a little research and reply to my questions and badgering in a calm and intelligent manner. You will hear from me no more on this specific subject. -WJ

You obviously have not been to southern Arizona and bagged some of our desert islands. Anybody that stands on this peak, I guarantee, well shout WOW! I'll be driving through Southern Arizona (again, I might add) on August 2nd. How close is this to I-8 or I-10? Sierra Viast is located about an hours drive from Tucson. It is about 25 miles south of I-10, from the Benson exit. From Sierra Vista, follow AZ92 south for about 15 miles, then turn right on the Coronado National Memorial road. Continue 8.2 miles to Montezuma Pass, this is where the trailhead is located.

Fire tower, eh. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=20738 Already a cache. Feel free to log your find there. I even went to the trouble to see if any of the 320 fire towers that have already been logged were the one you have marked. It has not been found yet. Is this a good enough response yet? Not even close. What is your point?

Yes, maybe so? I still have hope. Also, I do feel that I deserve reasonable response as to why not this one and yes to others that are practically identical.

The response that I am getting from Team GPSaxophone, and others, are more on the line of the questions that I'd expect to get from a cache approver. Thank you. This cache satisfies the WOW factor, the histric landmark factor, the no phyical caches allowed requirement, so what is the deal? Why do some virtuals on peaks get approved and others don't?

You obviously have not been to southern Arizona and bagged some of our desert islands. Anybody that stands on this peak, I guarantee, well shout WOW!

Well, thank you for asking. "Fire lookouts have been a proud and prominent history in forestry. They are perceived as a symbol of forest conservation, although their role in fire detection has changed, lookouts, even abandoned ones, remain popular with visitors and offer opportunities for public involvement in forest conservation programs." I am a an armchair Forester and strive to visit all the lookout towers in AZ. Not all towers towers made it to the historic register and have been removed or left to decay (e.g., from a wilderness area or NP), like the ones on Mica Mtn, Miller Peak and Mt Wrigtson (GCC2C1), just to name a few. See the following web page for more info on fire towers throughout the US. http://www.firetower.org/presorted/byState/USA_Arizona.html. Visiting an old lookout tower on a remote peak is very exciting to me. -WJ

Yes, you make a good point...kind of. I am into Mountain tops and old fire towers, see what I post for caches. That is just me and I understand that lots of you folks do not share the same interests as I. Old Look out towers members of the unusual history category. But, I have, as of yet, not received one good response from an approver. Three down... -WJ