Cachers Who Don't Want To Put Caches Back

[+RIclimber]

I keep getting logs on my caches that the finder moved my cache!

January 10, 2004 by XXXXXXXX (28 found)

Sorry, but we had to move this one. It was right at the waters edge and when the river floods it would have been gone. We moved it to the coordinates given above. About 130 feet from where it was.

 

On a 4.5 star cache:

May 15 by XXXXXXX (258 found)

Well.... the good news was that we found the cache and by some dare-devil climbing we were able to retrive it. The bad news was that we were not able to muster up the kahonies to replace it in the exact same location. (Climbing with one hand holding the cache would not have been a good idea.) In any case, we placed it about ten feet from were we found it and hid it appropriately. The cache owner may want to put it back in its proper place. Sorry, but thanks for the fun!

 

On a 3.5 star cache:

December 15 by XXXXXX (160 found)

We came to a fence near the cliff's edge. We searched the safe side of the fence for the cache, knowing it couldn't possibly be closer to the edge. But, sure enough, it was down a icy snow covered slope about five feet from the edge. .... The cache has been moved to the safe side of the fence and hidden. There is no need for these caches to be near a cliff's edge. You clearly get the same view from the safe side of the fence. .... Thanks for the find!

 

I don't know why I place caches if people will not put them back.

[+Cigar Bubba]

That doesnt sound like they are being very good geocachers? I mean really if they couldnt place it back where they FOUND IT they shouldnt have touched it. I dont think it is the finders resposablity to replace a cache they found some place they think is better then the hider did.

[+badlands]

If you had them listed as a 1/1 I could see where they could assume that someone had been trying to be funny by placing the cache in a difficult spot, but these are clearly labeled 3.5 and 4.5. If you're not ready for the terrain you shouldn't be hunting 4.5's.

 

On the plus side they did own up to what they did so you have to give them credit for that.

[+Airmapper]

If they found the cache in the first place, there should be no problem putting it back.

 

You get it, you put it back. Nuf said.

[+Renegade Knight]

You can thank the first people for saving your cache from floating away.

 

The others didn't have much of a real excuse. The second log is funny. "We climbed up and got the cache and got back down one handed, but then couldn't get it back up...but we did have the balls to write about it.

[+The Jester]

You can thank the first people for saving your cache from floating away.

 

The others didn't have much of a real excuse.  The second log is funny.  "We climbed up and got the cache and got back down one handed, but then couldn't get it back up...but we did have the balls to write about it.

Or it could be: "... and dropped to my partner, then climbed down, ..." , or "... and jumped to ground,..." You can't assume that just because they got it they can replace it (climbing one handed is very much different the two handed), or that they would know this (that they can't get it back) before going for it. Or maybe they used up all their adrenalin getting up there the first time.

 

The last log really has no excuse.

[+dogbreathcanada]

How about some links to the caches so we can have some context. I do see some concern with the 3.5 star cache. It sounds quite dangerous, perhaps unnecessarily so (I'm not sure how high the cliff is) for a 3.5 star cache. There was no excuse for the cachers not replacing the 4.5 star cache it would seem.

 

And as for the river cache, you should probably thank the folks who apparently have more knowledge of the river system than you. I live near the ocean and I always find it amusing when people place caches between the line of drift logs and the waterline ... and then they're confused when their cache is washed out to sea. Didn't they pause to wonder how the drift logs got to be so far up the beach? Maybe because the tide will get that high during the year, especially during storms.

[+Pasha]

IMO none of them should have been moved. In the first case they were trying to be helpful and I can excuse that, but the point is that the cache owner put them there purposefully. Regardless of the finders' feelings of inappropriateness, it's not their cache to move. The difficulty ratings have nothing to do with it. At most they can mention their feelings, about safety or otherwise, in their log or via email.

[+Rich the Bushwhacker]

I see this as an education opportunity. A non confrontational email informing them that the cache was placed there for a reason and should not be moved should be sent. Much of this is just ingorance on the part of newbies and can be cured quickly.

[+jackratt]

How about some links to the caches so we can have some context. I do see some concern with the 3.5 star cache. It sounds quite dangerous, perhaps unnecessarily so (I'm not sure how high the cliff is) for a 3.5 star cache. There was no excuse for the cachers not replacing the 4.5 star cache it would seem.

Try this. Yeah it's rude to be messing with anothers cache location. But reading some of the logs this one seems a bit precarious. I'm not fond of heights so I might not have even tried for this.

[+altosaxplayer]

If its in a bad spot when I find it, I put it back where it was. Not in another location. If it dissapears, its the owners fault. Not mine.

[+nfa]

If it's in plain site, I will add some camouflage, but I return caches to the spot I found them in...

 

jamie

[+Harry Dolphin]

I am perfectly capable of chosing which caches I will do, and which I do not feel safe doing. (I think this is called common sense?) I scoped out a cache on an abandoned trestle. I shall not return. DNF.

An analogy for the situation in question might be: There is a cache nearby on an island. (Where can I find an inner tube? It's only about seventy five feet to the island. Despite being a dolphin, I am not a good swimmer.) So, using the examples cited, I should remove the cache from the island (as being too dangerous), and replace it on the mainland? I do not think so! The cache is meant to be on the island, or on the cliffs. I might not do the cache on the cliff. I definitely will not do the cache on the trestle. But! I am working on a scheme to get the one on the island!

[+RIclimber]

How about some links to the caches so we can have some context. I do see some concern with the 3.5 star cache. It sounds quite dangerous, perhaps unnecessarily so (I'm not sure how high the cliff is) for a 3.5 star cache. There was no excuse for the cachers not replacing the 4.5 star cache it would seem.

 

And as for the river cache, you should probably thank the folks who apparently have more knowledge of the river system than you. I live near the ocean and I always find it amusing when people place caches between the line of drift logs and the waterline ... and then they're confused when their cache is washed out to sea. Didn't they pause to wonder how the drift logs got to be so far up the beach? Maybe because the tide will get that high during the year, especially during storms.

This photo is at the cache site of the 3.5-star cache. It would only be a 2-star cache if there was no cliff.

 

The 4.5-star cache is hard to replace without help, but over 50 people have found it This Way.

Cliffside #6, 4.5-star cache

 

Edit: Link.

Edited December 17, 2005 by Downy288

[+AuntieWeasel]

How about some links to the caches so we can have some context. I do see some concern with the 3.5 star cache. It sounds quite dangerous, perhaps unnecessarily so (I'm not sure how high the cliff is) for a 3.5 star cache. There was no excuse for the cachers not replacing the 4.5 star cache it would seem.

Try this. Yeah it's rude to be messing with anothers cache location. But reading some of the logs this one seems a bit precarious. I'm not fond of heights so I might not have even tried for this.

You can be too nervous to find a cache, but being okay finding it and too nervous to replace it properly? I don't think so.

 

Down288's a prolific hider hereabouts, and when he says "cliffside," nobody wears rollerskates.

 

The Cliffside series are all on...well, guess...and includes some rapelling-only caches that Downy and others (those guys are all family, aren't they?) are kind enough to use as teaching opportunities, and disable in between. They have famously and safely lowered many an unlikely cacher down cliff faces on ropes.

 

But not this old cow! Not yet, anyway. (Though not for lack of trying).

[Major Catastrophe]

I keep getting logs on my caches that the finder moved my cache!  

 

I don't know why I place caches if people will not put them back.

I suppose you really have two choices:

• Put the caches back when some dummy moves them, and ignore the logs.
  
• Put the caches back and delete their logs.
  

It might be worthwhile to also add explicit instructions to "put it back exactly where you find it" in the online description. Though I'm sure there will always be people who know better than you do, where you want your caches hidden...

[+CompuCash]

Ya - this is the bane of cache hiders. I too have a log where the person said he put it in a place easier to find. Talk about hutzpa!

 

[n] hutzpa - aggressive boldness or unmitigated effrontery

 

There ain't much we can do about it. Most of my caches have instructions about closing and replacing the cache properly.

 

good luck -

 

cc\

Edited December 18, 2005 by CompuCash

[+BlueDeuce]

There ain't much we can do about it.

Well, a friendly, I said friendly, note usually doesn't hurt. Most of these people are new and figure they are helping out.

 

I guess you can put them under a wing or a hammer.