Geocachers Get Bad Wrap In Appleton, Wisconsin

1.1k · July 21, 2006

I know it wasn't your intention to sound like you were blaming cachers for the Appleton mess...

Read the inital quote article. Blaming cachers is exactly what was being done.

No, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but in my experience its pretty rare.

As with nearly everything in life most people are responsible honest people. It's the rare minority that make the majority look bad. Justified or not, it's the impression the rare minority leaves that impacts the majority.

July 21, 2006

I know it wasn't your intention to sound like you were blaming cachers for the Appleton mess...

Read the inital quote article. Blaming cachers is exactly what was being done.

My post said YOUR intention, not the article in question. It is quite obvious that the article blames the cachers but your post made it sound like you agreed with them, which would be wrong because no one knows the exact truth. I live in the area and I read the original article the day it went to print. I also attend local cache meetings and I have yet to meet a cacher that irresponsible. I have spoken with quite a few area cachers since the first article and they are all very upset and have written letters to the paper and alderman.

Edited July 21, 2006 by yearwood_3

1.1k · July 22, 2006

My post said YOUR intention, not the article in question. It is quite obvious that the article blames the cachers but your post made it sound like you agreed with them, which would be wrong because no one knows the exact truth.

Then you need to re-read all my posts. You jumped to an erroneous conclusion. No where was that ever part of any of my posts. Others tho were quick to jump on that it couldn't have been cachers which is just as wrong as jumping to the conclusion that it was a cacher.

What I was trying to point out that careless, slobs, inconsiderate, wreckless cachers are out there and those give cachers a bad name.

I appreciate you insight on the cache in question. However, the size and who planted what where really doesn't matter. If some slob cacher tears it up, it's not theirs to tear up.

Bottom line for those who haven't caught the message, respect other people's property. That includes public property. Exercise care. We preach CITO. Rules are no digging to hide caches. Those are to prevent damaging the environment and making things better. Yet people think they can toss a film canister in the middle of public flower beds where the only way to get to it is by trampling in the flower bed. Those are the slobs.

As far as "no one knows the exact truth." Someone was seen, GPS in hand standing in the middle of the flower bed. Others were seen pulling down tree branches. So taking this person's reports as being honest it sure wasn't briansnat's bear that was seen. No one has provided anything to disprove this gentleman's report so therefore with only that information one would have to take his observations as accurate. The info you provided, while nice, had nothing to counter this gentleman's observations. Given what he saw then one would have to conclude that his observations were of cachers. Do you condone cachers standing in the middle of someone else's flower bed and pulling down tree limbs? Or even a city's flower bed? Do you think that is acceptable behavior? Was it you seen standing in the flower bed or pulling down branches?

Edited July 22, 2006 by Wadcutter

3.1k · July 22, 2006

My letter to the editor. Some may not agree, but it was pretty lame reporting--it should have appeared on the commentary page as printed, not as reporting of a town "incident", like "Farmer Brown's cow tangled in wire yesterday". I'm a big fan of letters to the editor. Get your pencils sharpened and get to it!

In your article, "Appleton park gets redo after geocacher trashing" by Steve Wideman, I find a number of items alarming. At no time was it factually established that the geocache finds were creating damage to the park named. Also, the title is incredibly misleading as a follow-up article to the first story about the damage to the park.

Unless this article was placed on the commentary page, I see no newsworthy content beyond unfounded accusations by the author and Mr. Kalata.

Simply including a quote that geocachers "need to get a life" is inflamatory a best and unnecessary at least. Poor reporting in this article by Steve Wideman is obvious. There was NO investigation into the sport of geocaching, no factual evidence other than a single person with a GPS seen in the park (who was not identified as a damaging party), and the visitors of the park are obviously not only geocachers--likely a number of kind citizens and destructive and disrespectful youngsters visit as well.

As a geocacher thousands of miles away, I am personally offended in this blind accusation and horrible reporting. There is plenty of reason to print a retraction and apology by the author due to his slanderous reporting.

This article was "geocacher trashing" indeed.

9.4k · July 22, 2006

You guys are awesome! There's no other way to say it. I just saw that several Wisconsin geocachers set the record straight. And such a great approach too! Good luck with the meet and greet on July 30. Let me know if you need any support from Groundspeak HQ.

1.7k · July 22, 2006

You guys are awesome! There's no other way to say it. I just saw that several Wisconsin geocachers set the record straight. And such a great approach too! Good luck with the meet and greet on July 30. Let me know if you need any support from Groundspeak HQ.

Good for you, sounds like the Alderman assumed the damage was from Geocachers as they were an obvious target. It would be interesting to see what happens to the park now that it has been restored based on some other comments from people who know the area.

July 23, 2006

Someone was seen, GPS in hand standing in the middle of the flower bed. Others were seen pulling down tree branches.

.

Re read the original article on page one the quote is:

Just last week one guy was standing in Union Springs Park with his GPS unit. Others pull on the tree branches. It was ridiculous. People need to get a life,” Kalata said.

The alderman says the guy was standing in the park not in the flower bed. And if you have ever found a cache hidden in a tree, tell me how you got to it without moving the branches because you must be a wizard if you could pull that one off. The person standing there with a GPS was not a careless slob as you put it. And if you look at your post right there.-

However, the size and who planted what where really doesn't matter. If some slob cacher tears it up, it's not theirs to tear up "

Your quote implies that you believe that it was cachers. I live here, I cache here and have been to the "park" many times. Teens skateboard and ride their bikes in the lot that the park is in, people at the bar park their cars right next to it" and yes, cachers have been known to stop by for look. You may live in an area with alot of careless cachers but I have yet to find an area that was trashed by a cacher in this part of the state. Between myself. my sister and my dad we have logged more than 800 and they also have never seen any problems around here.

July 23, 2006

that's just outright impressive. i think that getting up in front of everyone in an organized fashion will work so much more than simple letter-writing. that bold sort of move will definitely get you far. props to you all!

and you got jeremy's approval... how could it possibly be bad?

1.1k · July 23, 2006

Your quote implies that you believe that it was cachers. I live here, I cache here and have been to the "park" many times. Teens skateboard and ride their bikes in the lot that the park is in, people at the bar park their cars right next to it" and yes, cachers have been known to stop by for look. You may live in an area with alot of careless cachers but I have yet to find an area that was trashed by a cacher in this part of the state. Between myself. my sister and my dad we have logged more than 800 and they also have never seen any problems around here.

I'm happy you live in the area, however, that doesn't mean a hill of beans unless you've been faithfully watching that park and seen what has been going on as apparently the gentleman who reported has. "Living in the area" doesn't mean a thing.

I'm surprised you've never seen any trashed areas. Keep caching and looking, they're out there.

Not impressed by your "myself. my sister and my dad we have logged more than 800" of which you logged over 100. You need to get out more. We've logged over 1000 in 18 states not including "dad" or "sister". But I fail to see what any of that has to do with anything. Wave your "find count" at someone else. Not impressed.

The story was from a gentleman who reported what he saw. You have provided absolutely nothing to counter what the gentleman reported. Don't stick your head in the sand, or in this case, flower bed, and flat out deny cachers are capable of causing damage. That's a completely unrealistic view of people and life. The gentleman who reported the story actually does "live in the area" and not just visits.

Edited July 23, 2006 by Wadcutter

July 23, 2006

I'd be more inclined to listen to what someone who lives in the area and who has personal knowledge of the area, the cache, and the complainer has to say, regardless of their number of finds than someone with higher numbers who only knows what the story says.

1.1k · July 23, 2006

I'd be more inclined to listen to what someone who lives in the area and who has personal knowledge of the area, the cache, and the complainer has to say, regardless of their number of finds than someone with higher numbers who only knows what the story says.

So then believe the guy who apparently lives in the area and reported to the papers what he saw. Oh wait, but he can't be right because everyone knows there's no cacher who would tear up someone else's property.

Yearwood knows no more than anyone else. The gentleman who reported his observations is the one who saw who and what was going on. Yearwood can only relate that he/she has been to the location and in no way can counter what the gentleman says he saw. I've been to the World Trade Center several times too but I can only tell you what happened by reading the accounts of the people who were there.

Edited July 23, 2006 by Wadcutter

July 23, 2006

You guys are awesome! There's no other way to say it. I just saw that several Wisconsin geocachers set the record straight. And such a great approach too! Good luck with the meet and greet on July 30. Let me know if you need any support from Groundspeak HQ.

+1 -- Having a meet and greet is a great way to approach this problem. Kudos!!!!

July 23, 2006

I'd be more inclined to listen to what someone who lives in the area and who has personal knowledge of the area, the cache, and the complainer has to say, regardless of their number of finds than someone with higher numbers who only knows what the story says.

So then believe the guy who apparently lives in the area and reported to the papers what he saw. Oh wait, but he can't be right because everyone knows there's no cacher who would tear up someone else's property.

Yearwood knows no more than anyone else. The gentleman who reported his observations is the one who saw who and what was going on. Yearwood can only relate that he/she has been to the location and in no way can counter what the gentleman says he saw. I've been to the World Trade Center several times too but I can only tell you what happened by reading the accounts of the people who were there.

I'm just sayint there have been accounts here by at least three cachers who have been to this particular cache. It has been said that you don't need to go anywhere near the flowers to find the cache and even in the report the alderman only mentions one person holding a GPS out of all the activity he has witnessed. I'm not saying that it's not possible that less informed cachers would tear up someone's property, I'm just saying that I'm going to place more weight on what is said by those with firsthand knowledge of the cache and the area. We get it, you think geocachers are to blame here. That's your point of view and you've made it clear.

1.1k · July 23, 2006

I'm just sayint there have been accounts here by at least three cachers who have been to this particular cache. It has been said that you don't need to go anywhere near the flowers to find the cache

What you fail to consider is even tho you may not have to go in the flowers to find the cache, those seeking the cache are operating with a GPS unit that is only accurate to within 15-30 ft radius. Once you know where the cache is located then you realize you don't know need to go into the flowers. Until then you are operating within a 15-30 ft radius.

I'm just saying that I'm going to place more weight on what is said by those with firsthand knowledge of the cache and the area.

Me too. Then we agree. That's the guy who lives near the cache and reported what he saw first hand.

9.4k · July 23, 2006

Me too. Then we agree. That's the guy who lives near the cache and reported what he saw first hand.

The guy saw a geocacher tearing out flowers?

3.2k · July 23, 2006

Me too. Then we agree. That's the guy who lives near the cache and reported what he saw first hand.

First, you need to go read the account carefully to see that your statement does not apply. There is not one mention of any "witnesses" to damage.

Then, do a little research on the Mayor, alderman or whatever he is calling himself now. From all reports I have read, this guy is one seriously..errr...eccentric...individual and the paper seems to be less that fair and balanced.

Edited July 23, 2006 by baloo&bd

1.1k · July 23, 2006

The guy saw a geocacher tearing out flowers?

Bear Paughs said he would rather believe the person who had first hand knowledge. Just who would that be? The guy who reported what he saw? Or the person who says they "have been to the "park" many times" altho never saw anyone do anything? If this was a criminal or civil case it would be a no brainer. The person who says they only have been to the park many times wouldn't even be considered a credible witness and most likely would never make it to the stand.

Are you flat out denying that it wasn't a cacher? Are you saying all, everyone, 100% of the cachers are fine people who would never do anything like that? So far the only report given is the one gentleman. No one has contradicted his report. There's been all kinds of others who say it couldn't be a cacher but no one offers any first hand knowledge other than to cast aspersion at the gentleman and paper. So far the only confirmed sighting has been from the guy who saw and reported. Everyone else, including uncalled for "guy is one seriously..errr...eccentric...individual" has done nothing but deny that it could even be possible. Sure glad there are no " seriously..errr...eccentric" cachers and every cacher looks out for other's property. <_<

As cachers we preach CITO but it's OK then to make excuses and deny any cachers would ever do such? The club in Appleton is doing the right thing. They realize that perception is reality and they are doing some good PR work to counter it. To flat out deny it was cachers, to make excuses, to call the reporting person "seriously eccentric" does nothing for our hobby. But what it does do is cause towns, maybe even Appleton, to ban all caches from public parks and locations because they have reports of damage and when they look into it they get the denials and stuff from 6 yr olds of "wasn't me. I didn't do it." Instead of coming up with all the lame excuses why it wasn't or couldn't have been a cacher, wouldn't a more positive approach be more productive and benefit geocaching? Instead of cachers writing letters to the Appleton paper whining about geocaching being maligned how about writing letters apologizing for the everyday people who cache, are slobs with no regard for personal/public property and that as geocachers we do not condone such behavior. Wouldn't a much more positive image? A lot more positive than calling the reporting gentleman "seriously..errr...eccentric". Which approach do you think would get the hobby further in Appleton, or anywhere else? Which do you think would make better progress and be better received the next time a cache hider goes to the Appleton park district and asks permission to hide a cache? I'll bet you one thing. Send a letter to the Appleton paper identifying the city councilman as being "seriously..errr...eccentric" and " the paper seems to be less that fair and balanced" there's one vote denying permission and absolutely no support from the editor. Do you think any of the council persons or paper reads the geocaching forums?

There's some damage control needed in Appleton and I applaud the local club for jumping on it quickly to send a positive message. Their approach will yield a lot better results for our hobby than calling an alderman "seriously..errr...eccentric" and the paper "less that fair and balanced". In the long run we'll be much better off if the local chapter admits it could have been a cacher and they are doing what they can to stop such unacceptable behavior. Understand where I'm coming from?

3.2k · July 23, 2006

The guy saw a geocacher tearing out flowers?

Are you flat out denying that it wasn't a cacher? Are you saying all, everyone, 100% of the cachers are fine people who would never do anything like that?

Please. First (once again) no one reported seeing a GCer do it. No one. Yes, it could very well have been a cacher. It could also have been Oprah Winfrey, George Lopez or Oliver North. No one saw them do it, however no one saw them not do it either.

The most plausible explanation given would be some industrious critters got to it. This is actually more common than the assumption.

As to no one contradicting him, it was refuted, online, in emails and messages to the paper, etc.

An assumption as well as an accusation was made in an irresponsible manner. I also applaud the club for their actions, however that was to correct a irresponsible report, not to make up for a percieved transgression.

On quick note: you quoted off of Jeremy's post, but all the quotes you chose to comment on were mine. Jeremy may or may not agree with my total position. Besides, I want the credit for the comments. <_< Anyone involved is more than welcome to contact me, I only speak for myself.

July 24, 2006

"I'm surprised you've never seen any trashed areas. Keep caching and looking, they're out there.

Not impressed by your "myself. my sister and my dad we have logged more than 800" of which you logged over 100. You need to get out more. We've logged over 1000 in 18 states not including "dad" or "sister". But I fail to see what any of that has to do with anything. Wave your "find count" at someone else. Not impressed."

My point was that in over 800 finds within my family no one has seen any damage in our area. I did not wave any find count at anyone nor was I trying to impress anyone as you put it. Your find count has nothing to do with this issue, unless you have made many of those finds in the Appleton, WI area and have found damage there. Yes, there are most definately bad cachers out there but this directly relates to the area MY family caches and we have not had the bad experiences that you apparently have had.

"The story was from a gentleman who reported what he saw. "

What he saw was a man standing in the park one day with a GPS, someone else moving the branches of a tree and the aftermath of some flowers being damaged. The report he submitted to Park and Rec. stated that he never actually saw who did it or even what time of day the damage occured. So he couldn't be sure if it was a cacher or a drunk at 2:00 in the morning trying to stumble to his car parked in the stall next to where the flowers were planted. FYI: there are parking stalls touching the park so this is very possible.

Edited July 24, 2006 by yearwood_3

38.2k · July 24, 2006

So then believe the guy who apparently lives in the area and reported to the papers what he saw.

He saw a guy in the park with a GPS and saw the damaged flower bed and connected the two. He never claimed to see a geocacher damage the flower bed, he simply assumed geocachers were the cause.

If this was a criminal or civil case it would be a no brainer.

If it was a criminal or civil case it would be called circumstantial evidence and by itself usually not enough to convict.

1.1k · July 24, 2006

If it was a criminal or civil case it would be called circumstantial evidence and by itself usually not enough to convict.

Not to range too far off topic but circumstantial evidence is definitely enough to convict in any court and is done everyday all over the US. Don't get your legal knowledge of rules of evidence from TV and the movies.

Edited July 24, 2006 by Wadcutter

July 24, 2006

If it was a criminal or civil case it would be called circumstantial evidence and by itself usually not enough to convict.

Not to range too far off topic but circumstantial evidence is definitely enough to convict in any court and is done everyday all over the US. Don't get your legal knowledge of rules of evidence from TV and the movies.

Based on your logic and your insistance that indeed a geocacher caused all the damage. I am concluding that it must be true that indeed a geocacher did it and his handle is Wadcutter.

Look at the facts.

Wadcutter is a geocacher.

He insists a geocacher did it.

He is the only geocacher that believes this.

Therfore he must be the on that did it.

July 24, 2006

Here is the latest article on this, note how the Alderman says he came to the conclusion it was cachers because of all the people WALKING THROUGH THE PARK. It appeared in another local paper the Green Bay Press Gazette

Geocachers deny trashing Appleton park during hunt

Alderman accused group of trampling flowerbeds

By Jeannine Aquino

Gannett Wisconsin Newspapers

A group of high-tech enthusiasts known as geocachers, upset they were blamed by an Appleton alderman for trampling flowerbeds in the city's smallest park, plan to set the record straight.

Justin Korpal, a geocacher from Green Bay, is organizing a July 30 meet-and-greet in the Old Country Buffet at the Fox River Mall in Grand Chute to talk about the sport of geocaching.

Geocaching is essentially a scavenger hunt using a global-positioning system and a computer to log coordinates to hidden "caches," most often a logbook, but sometimes trinkets contained in water-proof containers.

These caches are located all over the world.

"Geocaching isn't just about finding hidden treasure in the woods or in a park or under a park bench," said Korpal, who works in Appleton. "It involves the history of the area of where the cache was placed, or a mini-history lesson, as well as bringing you to an area that you would not normally go to in your daily travel."

Korpal said the event was in response to report Monday in The Post-Crescent of Appleton in which Alderman Walter Kalata blamed geocachers for ruining the flowers he had planted in Appleton's Union Springs Park.

Korpal, who said he was the last person to find the Union Springs Park cache on July 12, said it was highly unlikely that a geocacher dug up the flowers. He said most geocachers know that people aren't allowed to bury a cache, thus eliminating any need to dig using hands or tools.

Ray Handley, a member of the Wisconsin Geocachers Association board of directors, said many people mistakenly assume that "treasures hidden" is "treasures buried."

"I would say that the Wisconsin geocachers or the cachers I know are the least likely to cause any damage to the environments in which we play," he said, comparing geocachers to other people, like picnickers, who use the same parks and trails in which caches are found.

In fact, Handley said, one of the basic tenets of geocaching is leaving the cache site better than when you entered it by picking up trash in the surrounding area.

The practice of hauling out garbage from cache locations is called "cache in, trash out," said Korpal, who has done just that at numerous sites since he started the sport in 2004.

Alderman Kalata said he didn't have anything against geocachers.

"My complaint, at the time, is that Union Springs Park is such a tiny park, (which) very quickly got trashed," he said.

He said he came to the conclusion that geocachers had trampled the park flowerbed by observing a steady stream of people walking through the park, some poking around in the trees. On two occasions, he said, he noticed someone holding a GPS.

Parks and Recreation Director William Lecker said he hadn't heard of any concerns about geocachers in any of the parks in the past.

Lecker said he talked to the person who placed the cache in Union Springs Park. The cache owner told the director that he placed the cache in an area he thought wouldn't be a problem. His intent, Lecker said, was to draw people to an interesting place.

The Wisconsin Geocachers Association has about 600 members. The national Web site shows 2,754 cache locations within a 100-mile radius of downtown Appleton.

— Jeannine Aquino writes for The Post-Crescent of Appleton.

38.2k · July 24, 2006

If it was a criminal or civil case it would be called circumstantial evidence and by itself usually not enough to convict.

Not to range too far off topic but circumstantial evidence is definitely enough to convict in any court and is done everyday all over the US. Don't get your legal knowledge of rules of evidence from TV and the movies.

One piece of circumstantial evidence is very rarely enough to convict, unless there is supporting direct evidence. A large amount of circumstantial evidence taken taken together can be. I don't think a jury in the land would convict a geocacher of vandalizing a flower bed because he was seen in the park, unless there was an eyewitness to the act or some other direct evidence.

Edited July 24, 2006 by briansnat

1.1k · July 24, 2006

One piece of circumstantial evidence is very rarely enough to convict, unless there is supporting direct evidence. A large amount of circumstantial evidence taken taken together can be. I don't think a jury in the land would convict a geocacher seen in a park of vandalizing a flower bed, without an eye witness or some other direct evidence.

I'm very familiar with putting together cases based on circumstantial evidence and what is needed to convict. I put together hundreds and hundreds of cases in my career and I use to teach it investigations.

My point all along is people have jumped up and proclaimed it couldn't have been cachers. All I've said all along is don't be so quick to deny. Admit the possibility exists, and do like the Appleton cachers are doing and that's trying to mend fences. To flat out deny it couldn't have been a cacher is sticking your head in the sand, or in this case, the flower bed.

1.1k · July 24, 2006

Look at the facts.

Wadcutter is a geocacher.

He insists a geocacher did it.

He is the only geocacher that believes this.

Therfore he must be the on that did it.

Go back to school Dick Tracey and pay more attention in your investigation class. Wadcutter has never looked for nor logged a cache in Wisconsin.

20.7k · July 24, 2006

My point all along is people have jumped up and proclaimed it couldn't have been cachers. All I've said all along is don't be so quick to deny. ...

I would say that given the specific cache in question and the type of damage that was done, it is ferociously unlikely that it was done by geocachers.

38.2k · July 24, 2006

One piece of circumstantial evidence is very rarely enough to convict, unless there is supporting direct evidence. A large amount of circumstantial evidence taken taken together can be. I don't think a jury in the land would convict a geocacher seen in a park of vandalizing a flower bed, without an eye witness or some other direct evidence.

I'm very familiar with putting together cases based on circumstantial evidence and what is needed to convict. I put together hundreds and hundreds of cases in my career and I use to teach it investigations.

My point all along is people have jumped up and proclaimed it couldn't have been cachers. All I've said all along is don't be so quick to deny. Admit the possibility exists, and do like the Appleton cachers are doing and that's trying to mend fences. To flat out deny it couldn't have been a cacher is sticking your head in the sand, or in this case, the flower bed.

And I'm sure if all the evidence you had in a case consisted of the testimony of that one gentleman who saw nothing and was only guessing, you would continue looking for additional evidence. An experienced investigator would know that there wasn't enough there to go on.

Is it possible that geocachers did the damage? Sure. But geocachers digging up flowers? That doesn't ring true. Being that caches aren't buried, they would have no reason to dig. More likely sounds like a thief to me.

But it seems you're just as quick to hang the geocachers as others are to acquit them.

Maybe it was geocachers. Maybe it was flower thieves. Maybe it was the guys who were stealing the geocache. Maybe it was someone's dog. Considering the available evidence, anybody who says with certitude that the damage was caused by geocachers is being rash.

1.1k · July 24, 2006

Is it possible that geocachers did the damage? Sure. But geocachers digging up flowers? That doesn't ring true. Being that caches aren't buried, they would have no reason to dig. More likely sounds like a thief to me.

But it seems you're just as quick to hang the geocachers as others are to acquit them.

Maybe it was geocachers. Maybe it was flower thieves. Maybe it was the guys who were stealing the geocache. Maybe it was someone's dog. Considering the available evidence, anybody who says with certitude that the damage was caused by geocachers is being rash.

Maybe it was one of the bears you mentioned previously.

Anyone who flat out denies it could have been a cacher is in a grave state of denial. Sure it could have been a cacher, might not have been either. But read some of the other responses. Some think absolutely no way. Why? They don't know, they just don't like the tone of the story in the paper. One, whose dad and sister have 700 finds, says it couldn't be cachers because that person has visited the site before. Yeah, like that's credible evidence. I'm not trying to hang any geocacher. I'm just not so quick to give cachers a free walk either as some of you seem to. And we're not here to convict anyone. We're here to try and change the community's perception. To them perception is reality. Go back to the very first post and read all of them all the way thru again. But this time read them in the frame of mind of the mayor or city council or parks superintendent, someone who has never done caching. Then tell us what image do you think these "deny, deny, deny" types will have left with those officials. As I posted to Jeremy, do you think any of those officials will then be quick to grant approval for cache placing if they think no matter what happens the cachers are going to deny it was a cacher and point their fingers at others, or bears? The Appleton club is working to change the perception. In the community tho it doesn't matter whether it was a bicylist or a bear who tore up the flowers, the story they know was it could have been a cacher and could have been is the same as it was.

Sure caches aren't suppose to be buried. Doesn't mean they haven't been. They're not suppose to be placed on public or private property either without permission but we all know it happens. Anyone who has been caching anytime at all has seen micros that were hidden under shrubs and in flower beds. No need to dig them up is correct but that sure doesn't mean people don't go pulling thru them which resulted in flowers being pulled. As I mentioned in my initial post we watched a cacher with a golf club, which I assume he was using as a type of walking stick and probe, swinging the club like a weed whip knocking down grass while looking for a cache. None of that was at all necessary as the cache was velcroed under the bench nearby.

No one is convicting anyone. As far as I know there's been no investigation and probably won't be. However, I also accept the possibility that it could have been a cacher unlike a lot on here who refuse to believe there are people out there who would do such things.

Edited July 24, 2006 by Wadcutter

July 24, 2006

I am surprised at the defensiveness of most of the posts regarding the damage to the park allegedly caused by cachers. I wouldn't be surprised if the damage had been caused by geocachers. As more and more people join the ranks of cachers, the ratio of ignorant or careless or bad-mannered cachers will logically rise. While most of us try to be respectful of our surroundings and personal property, there is always going to be that one or two who are not.

A poster from Cleveland mentioned a hollow log he felt was destroyed by cachers and everyone scoffed. This is my experience. There was a cache located in a heavily wooded park near my house. The hint indicated it was in a log. Coordinates brought you to an area well off the trail where there were three or four old fallen trees strewn across the ground---foilage kept you from getting a dead reckoning. The hint indicated the cache was a micro in a log. I DNF'd it once, twice...three times (okay, I admit I think I only logged one of the DNF's). There were a lot of DNF's on this cache, thanks to the bouncing signals. On my third or fourth visit, I found devastation. The groundcover around the logs was tramped dead, branches on nearby saplings and bushes were broken (they did have a tendency to poke you), someone had kicked or knocked part of the logs apart and torn loose the bark. I was aggravated. Not only because someone had torn up the cache site, but what if the cache had been stuck in one of those chunks of wood he/she dropped kicked ten feet away? I wanted to get the d*** thing logged as a find!

I thought part of the caching thing was to leave no trace. Break branches, grind grass and cover into the ground, track through too many times in the same pattern, you might as well put up a neon sign that says "the cache is here!" Where's the fun of that?

And I believe on my son's head that it was a frustrated cacher or two that tore up the site. Why would a muggle venture 40 feet thru brambles and thickets to this particular spot in a 150 acre park? When this place has lots and lots of fallen logs, a lot of them right next to the trails, if he/she had the urge to kick dead wood.

I think a lot of people are joining in the caching fun, but some of them are more about the hunt and find and not remembering about respect and good manners. If a newbie didn't read thoroughly the intro to caching pages, they wouldn't know that a cache is never buried---so to them, why couldn't the cache be under the flowers?

I am not saying cachers were responsible for the damage done to the little park, but I am saying that if we want to keep our sport respected and well-thought of, then we have to be willing to admit that there is a tiny percentage of cachers out there acting beyond the bounds of good caching etiquette and instead of saying "not my kid", say "I'm sorry, 99.99% of us are good guys, let me prove it to you."

BTW: cache owner eventually decided cache had been muggled and replaced it---and I finally got my find!

3.2k · July 24, 2006

I am surprised at the defensiveness of most of the posts regarding the damage to the park allegedly caused by cachers. I wouldn't be surprised if the damage had been caused by geocachers.

I can appreciate what your saying, however the defensivness in some comes from the way that geocaching is reported, often (as is the case here) irresponsibly.

Guilt was assumed based on the fact that someone was seen in the area with a GPS, possible days before. I would venture to say a dog, leashed or unleashed, has been seen in the area, as have squirrelsa racoons and other critters. Even you seem to assume it was the cacher.

The city, state and DNR in this case seem to have a positive view of GC and even stated they were not aware of any issues.

Some of us still presume innocence absent any facts to the contrary. In this case, none of us have seen such facts. As such, it would have been more appropriate for the paper to blame the destruction on "potential vandals" than to decide it was an indivdual person or group of people.

Edited July 24, 2006 by baloo&bd

1.1k · July 24, 2006

A poster from Cleveland mentioned a hollow log he felt was destroyed by cachers and everyone scoffed. This is my experience. There was a cache located in a heavily wooded park near my house. The hint indicated it was in a log. Coordinates brought you to an area well off the trail where there were three or four old fallen trees strewn across the ground---foilage kept you from getting a dead reckoning. The hint indicated the cache was a micro in a log. I DNF'd it once, twice...three times (okay, I admit I think I only logged one of the DNF's). There were a lot of DNF's on this cache, thanks to the bouncing signals. On my third or fourth visit, I found devastation. The groundcover around the logs was tramped dead, branches on nearby saplings and bushes were broken (they did have a tendency to poke you), someone had kicked or knocked part of the logs apart and torn loose the bark.

Couldn't have been a cacher. No one saw anyone do it. Without an eyewitness, and one that isn't seriously eccentric, no one can prove anything. There are rules and we all know that every cacher reads and follows all the rules just like the Ten Commandments. Besides, it was just grass and ground cover so it doesn't matter. I think the damage was caused by one of Briansnat's renegade bears. I thought Cleveland had gotten rid of the wild bears a couple of centuries ago but from what you posted that sounds exactly like free range bear damage.

B)

Edited July 24, 2006 by Wadcutter

20.7k · July 24, 2006

Couldn't have been a cacher. No one saw anyone do it. Without an eyewitness, and one that isn't seriously eccentric, no one can prove anything. There are rules and we all know that every cacher reads and follows all the rules just like the Ten Commandments. Besides, it was just grass and ground cover so it doesn't matter. I think the damage was caused by one of Briansnat's renegade bears. I thought Cleveland had gotten rid of the wild bears a couple of centuries ago but from what you posted that sounds exactly like free range bear damage.
B)

I don't get your posts. If geocachers are as destructive as you believe, you should quit the game so you are not painted with the same broad brush.

In this specific case, the facts suggest other culprits than geocachers. The specific issue was uprooted flowers. I have never seen a geocacher pull up a flower to see if a cache was under it, have you? I have seen my dog dig up a flower bed. Luckily, she was accounted for during the time of the attack. Perhaps it was someone else's dog. That hypothesis is more likely than geocachers, in my opinion.

1.1k · July 24, 2006

In this specific case, the facts suggest other culprits than geocachers. The specific issue was uprooted flowers. I have never seen a geocacher pull up a flower to see if a cache was under it, have you? I have seen my dog dig up a flower bed. Luckily, she was accounted for during the time of the attack. Perhaps it was someone else's dog. That hypothesis is more likely than geocachers, in my opinion.

I didn't read anything in the articles to suggest anyone other than cachers. I've read plenty by folks trying to make excuses but none based on anything other than emotion.

Flower, specifically, uprooted? Not flowers. However, I have found branches broken in shrubs. And those had to result from a cachers because it was where the cache container was located. But then, it's only bushes and bushes grow back. Doesn't matter that those bushes are on private or public lands.

As I've previously posted, there are slobs in every walk of life. Caching is no different. As geckolovers also pointed out there are some people who have no regard for anyone else's property. Since caching is just another cross section of society there are bound to be trash cachers. To deny otherwise is a complete lack of reality about the human in today's society. There is a percentage of people who just don't care.

July 24, 2006

I think that what it all boils down to is that an individual group is being blamed for the damage without any proof of who did it. I re-read every single post on this thread and not one person said that they were 100% sure that is wasn't cachers but that many people found it unlikely, including myself. What the paper and the Alderman did was no better than an old fashioned lynching, blame the first guy that could be a suspect without any proof of who did it.

And before Wadcutter goes spewing anymore garbage about how I don't think it could possibly be a cacher, go back and read my posts. I have never once said that. I agree with others that is is unlikely in this situation but I NEVER said it couldn't be a cacher. I agree with sbell111. You seem very jaded when it comes to caching and that if all the problem caches you seem to have come across bother you so much, maybe you should stop caching.

3.2k · July 24, 2006

I didn't read anything in the articles to suggest anyone other than cachers. I've read plenty by folks trying to make excuses but none based on anything other than emotion.

OK, even though I know your trolling and you can't possibly believe most of what you are writing, I have to respond.

What in ANY of the articles you have read suggest that ANYTHING but emotion was what motivated the paper and alderman to assume that it was Geocachers?

July 24, 2006

I, like many of the other posters on this thread, never insisted that it couldn't possibly be geocachers. However, based strictly on what was written in the article and the descriptions of the area and people involved by people who are familiar with them, my gut feeling is that wasn't geocachers. I may be wrong, I'm simply expressing an opinion as I've respectfully allowed others to do. I'm open to the possibility that it was geocachers, however unlikely. I'm just surprised how insistent people are that some of the opinions expressed are wrong.

1.1k · July 24, 2006

I'm just surprised how insistent people are that some of the opinions expressed are wrong.

Or others just as insistent the other way simply because they disagree with others. It swings both ways.

July 24, 2006

I'm just surprised how insistent people are that some of the opinions expressed are wrong.

Or others just as insistent the other way simply because they disagree with others. It swings both ways.

Did you think I was talking about you? "just as insistent the other way"???? What? Believe me, I never thought you or anyone else in this thread was insisting that the opinion they didn't share was the correct one. Read my post again. BTW, my statement applied to anyone, regardless of which opinion they held.... But it's true your voice has been the loudest, I suppose.

Edited July 24, 2006 by Bear Paughs

2.1k · July 24, 2006

Please don't feed the trolls!!!

Pretty bad we can't keep things on topic here where we have great chance to make a good impression about geocaching after a bad situation has occurred, even if a geocacher did it or not.

1.1k · July 24, 2006

Pretty bad we can't keep things on topic here where we have great chance to make a good impression about geocaching after a bad situation has occurred, even if a geocacher did it or not.

Exactly what I've been saying. And that's been my point all along. I've stated it in a couple of different posts. But then there are those who refuse to believe it could be possible it was a cacher and come up with all kinds of excuses, from roving bears to stealing flowers to bicyclists to anyone but. At least there is some cacher in Appleton who realizes that damage was done to the image of geocaching and they are working to make a positive influence. If the mayor or city council would read some of the previous posts they sure wouldn't get a very favorable impression of geocachers. And then people wonder why some towns are not geo-friendly. It's because they don't want their public parks torn up and then have a bunch of kids (doesn't matter the age) deny, deny, deny and point fingers at all kinds of imaginary scenarios instead of acting like adults, admitting there was a problem, that possibility a cacher was at fault, and then go about fixing the wrong. But it sounds like when my kids were little and instead of admitting one messed up they'd each try to blame the other or someone else.

20.7k · July 25, 2006

... If the mayor or city council would read some of the previous posts they sure wouldn't get a very favorable impression of geocachers. And then people wonder why some towns are not geo-friendly. ...

Ummm.... Your posts were pretty much the only ones that had anything negative to say about geocachers.

July 25, 2006

Uh oh.

There's a guy in the Protocol thread claiming that geocachers trample vegetation.

Pile on! Get him, burn the heretic!

3.1k · July 25, 2006

Feed 'em. Feed 'em good.

Classic Veal Piccata

1 pound thin veal scallops

1/2 teaspoon salt

1/4 teaspoon ground black pepper

1 tablespoon olive oil

3/4 cup white wine

1 lemon, juiced

2 tablespoons capers

1 tablespoon butter

2 tablespoons chopped fresh flat-leaf parsley

1. Season veal scallops with salt and pepper.

2. In a large nonstick skillet, heat oil over medium high heat. Add veal and cook until golden and cooked thoroughly, about 2 minutes per side. Remove veal from pan and place on a serving platter; cover to keep warm.

3. Pour wine in pan and simmer for 3 minutes, scraping pan gently to loosen any browned bits. Add lemon juice and capers; simmer 2 more minutes until sauce is slightly thickened. Swirl in butter. Pour sauce over veal and garnish with parsley before serving.

Makes 4 servings.

3.1k · July 25, 2006

Pretty bad we can't keep things on topic here where we have great chance to make a good impression about geocaching after a bad situation has occurred, even if a geocacher did it or not.

Exactly what I've been saying. And that's been my point all along. I've stated it in a couple of different posts. But then there are those who refuse to believe it could be possible it was a cacher and come up with all kinds of excuses, from roving bears to stealing flowers to bicyclists to anyone but. At least there is some cacher in Appleton who realizes that damage was done to the image of geocaching and they are working to make a positive influence. If the mayor or city council would read some of the previous posts they sure wouldn't get a very favorable impression of geocachers. And then people wonder why some towns are not geo-friendly. It's because they don't want their public parks torn up and then have a bunch of kids (doesn't matter the age) deny, deny, deny and point fingers at all kinds of imaginary scenarios instead of acting like adults, admitting there was a problem, that possibility a cacher was at fault, and then go about fixing the wrong. But it sounds like when my kids were little and instead of admitting one messed up they'd each try to blame the other or someone else.

If the mayor or city council would read some of the previous posts they sure wouldn't get a very favorable impression of geocachers.

Yup, like your continued trolling.

...instead of acting like adults, admitting there was a problem, that possibility a cacher was at fault, and then go about fixing the wrong.

The reporting was rather one-sided. The wrong of that reporting was attempted to be "righted". Most feel that the report was just the "when my kids were little and instead of admitting one messed up they'd each try to blame the other or someone else" you are talking about.

Not too many people on this site woud outright DENY that it COULD have possibly, maybe been a cacher. It does not, however, ring true to most cachers. Thus, the reporting was unresearched, knee-jerk hack reporting on a slow day in Wisconsin.

Cacher damage? Possible, not probable--in this specific case. Wadcutter, why can't you just agree with that statement and go back into the field and find some caches--like I'm about to!

Man your GPSrs! Cache, Ho!

3.1k · July 25, 2006

July 26, 2006

This whole story smacks of the "Shipping News": "Coastal village threatened by looming storm!"... "Threatening storm averted!"

July 26, 2006

Uh oh.

There's a guy in the Protocol thread claiming that geocachers trample vegetation.

Pile on! Get him, burn the heretic!

wrong quote.

"We found a witch, may we burn her?" mob: "Burn her!! Burn her!!!"

24.7k · July 26, 2006

Flower beds are normally bad locations for caches. While I don't know of anyone who digs up anything looking for a cache, flower beds are subject to wear and tear from searching and don't hold up well.

Edit: I have no idea if cachers did or didn't do the damage in the original article. Kids playing hide and seek can destroy more faster. Looks like local cachers jumped on things and did a good job.

Edited July 26, 2006 by Renegade Knight

3.2k · July 26, 2006

Is Wadcutters real name Steve Wideman??

Geocachers Get Bad Wrap In Appleton, Wisconsin

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment