temporarily disabled

[+Bad_CRC]

so if a cache is disabled because of a few DNF, a wet logbook, or some other issue, is it ok to still look for it, and log it, or is that considered rude?

 

there are a few disabled caches around here that I wouldn't mind finding since I'm out of caches to look for without a road trip longer than I want to take on most days.

[+KY MOOSE]

Who's gonna stop you from looking...

if it needs maintainence, you could fix it for the CO & let them know thru your log or e-mail

[+Trucker Lee]

Guess that would depend on why it was disabled. If for wet logbook or broken container, and you can repair it for the owner, send an email letting them know, and have a ball. Be sure to sign in the new log that you provide, and leave the old one unless the owner asked otherwise. If disabled for property access reasons, please honor, it may be that construction causes an unsafe situation.

[+alexrudd]

In any case except for the cache being on private property and/or dangerous, nothing's stopping you.

 

Do some maintenence while you're there and give the cache owner a report of its condition. I've had a couple caches where the owner re-enabled them after I reported they were OK (new owner from adoption).

[+Team_LPD]

I think for the most part, temporarily disabling a cache is a flag for other cachers that there may be something wrong with it, such as a wet log book, etc.

 

It may or may not be worth your while to go looking for it. If the owner just puts in a log that a part is missing or something else is wrong, when a cacher scans through the listing he may think its okay.

 

But if its marked disabled, hopefully he'll stop and read as to the reason why and decide if he wants to look for it while in the area. For a wet log, the owner may not be able to get there for several days, but the cache is still there.

 

If it was a cache that I wanted to log, I'd go for it and in the case of a wet log I might throw a few pages from a tablet I carry.

[+Prime Suspect]

Sure, go ahead. But you've been warned that the cache is either missing, or not in good shape. So don't complain about, like this person.

[+Kit Fox]

In one trip, I found six different caches that hadn't been found in over 1 1/2 years. I replaced "soggy logs" in four of the six caches. I signed the new logbooks, and never looked back. Soggy logs definately stink, but the experience of solving puzzles, and finding "old caches," was worth it to me.

 

All the owners thanked me for my diligence, and devotion to caching.

[+Bad_CRC]

oh yea, I've done it before

 

but I was just wondering if it's considered bad form to log a find on a cache that's disabled, or even look for it at all.

[+BlueDeuce]

As the others have said, why not? If the cache placement is within guidelines and you can sign/leave a logbook/paper.

 

Go crazy.

 

Edit: of course you might, again might, run into an owner who disagrees. In that case just go look for a different cache.

Edited October 22, 2006 by BlueDeuce

[+Rebel]

I have one I disable every year duing deer hunting season. I don't want to lure cachers to the area and put them in danger. Guess you can add that as one of the reasons for disabling caches.

[Tahosa and Sons]

I'm going to take a nice Hike today and temporialy disable a cache. And it will be down till May when I will re-hide it with an new container and wait and see who goes up there again.

[+KY MOOSE]

If it's actually disabled, give the owner time to make the fix, or decide

what THEY want to do. You could e-mail them and they might meet

you there to look for it. Without the owner’s consent, I don't think

you should post an actual find, even if you did find it on your own.

 

If it’s NOT disabled due to access or hazard issues, you could still look for

it and post a helpful note &/or e-mail the owner. If you happen to find it

(and give it a fix if you're so inclined) they'll probably grant you the find

for your effort.

I don't think anyone would get upset over a well intentioned cacher.

 

I'm not in it for the numbers and wouldn’t foist an opinion on anyone,

but logging a find for a disabled cache seems a little questionable to me.

Who’s to know if it was actually found? Who’s cache is it anyway?

Mending a "needs mintenance" cache and logging a find is fine, and

the fix is usually appreciated. The forums have intimated that some

"disabled" caches have been baited with phony replacements for ulterior

motives or strictly for the find…I don’t understand why folks would do that.

 

I've lent a helping hand on a number of caches that needed a little

(and sometimes a lot) of maintenance, and other cachers have subsequently

scored finds. It’s good form to write a note in the logbook & on the web

whenever this is done…not for the recognition, just to show you care.

[+Renegade Knight]

I have one I disable every year duing deer hunting season. I don't want to lure cachers to the area and put them in danger. Guess you can add that as one of the reasons for disabling caches.

 

Exactly.

 

You need to know why it's disabled before you seek it. If it's just because of a damp log book...that's one thing. If it's due to safety concerns by the owner or other reasons they may have, that's another.