Potential Problem Cachers

[+Miragee]

I have found several buried caches, some of them five-gallon buckets and although I know that is against the guidelines, I would never inform a Reviewer or Groundspeak employee about them . . .

 

Great attitude. These illegal caches endanger our sport. Let's make sure we look the other way when we see them.

Sorry . . .

 

When I found the five-gallon bucket caches, I was relatively new and the caches had been placed by someone who had been caching much longer than I had. I sure wouldn't want to be the "cache police" and report those caches to Groundspeak, when I knew our local Reviewer had also found those caches . . .

 

As for the one in Colorado, that cache had been existing happily for quite a while before, and after, I found it. I sure wouldn't be the "cache police" on a cache so far away from my usual caching territory when the cache was placed in a non-impacting way, and when I had no way of knowing whether the cache had been placed that way with permission, or not.

 

If I was the person who reported that cache, I bet the cache owner, and members of the local caching community would brand me as a "problem cacher."

[+Prime Suspect]

I really don't have anything to add. I just wanted to post something so I can be a big wheel someday. Can someone tell me what the graduation line is from georookie to bigwheel? I would think over 5000 posts...eh?

Yes it is. Now. But it's always moving up.

[+briansnat]

I think many of us have found PVC pipes in the ground with a smaller PVC cache inside. Those are buried. However, there are so many exceptions made, how are we supposed to know if permission and an exception wasn't given for these caches? Exceptions are nice but they sure can muddy the water....

 

There aren't exceptions other than caches on hidden on private property and buried with the permission of the land owner. Even those are rarely knowiingly published because most reviewers will try to discourage it. Reviewers know that it sets a bad precedent and clueless cachers might try to duplicate it elsewhere.

 

If a cache requries digging to hide it, it is a likely violation of the guidelines. If an exception has been made the reviewer should be aware of it, so if you report it and if all is in order then no harm done.

 

We only are allowed to practice our sport by the good graces of land managers. All we need is for one land manager of some huge tracts of land like the BLM or US Forest Service, or a state park system to find a buried cache and we could be done for on those lands.

[+chuckwagon101]

Man! I don't care where you put that cache, just as long as you follow two cardinal rules:

 

***BIGGGG pile of sticks

 

***LOTTTS of nice SWAG!!!

 

 

 

 

 

Potential Problem Cachers:

 

Every area has them. Folks who’s noses are a tad too long and who think their way of thinking about your cache is the right way. .

[+TrailGators]

I think many of us have found PVC pipes in the ground with a smaller PVC cache inside. Those are buried. However, there are so many exceptions made, how are we supposed to know if permission and an exception wasn't given for these caches? Exceptions are nice but they sure can muddy the water....

 

There aren't exceptions other than caches on hidden on private property and buried with the permission of the land owner. Even those are rarely knowiingly published because most reviewers will try to discourage it. Reviewers know that it sets a bad precedent and clueless cachers might try to duplicate it elsewhere.

 

If a cache requries digging to hide it, it is a likely violation of the guidelines. If an exception has been made the reviewer should be aware of it, so if you report it and if all is in order then no harm done.

 

We only are allowed to practice our sport by the good graces of land managers. All we need is for one land manager of some huge tracts of land like the BLM or US Forest Service, or a state park system to find a buried cache and we could be done for on those lands.

I always try to follow the "leave no trace" rule (especially in parks). All of the "minor" violations, I have seen have been urban caches. You don't know if these cachers got permission from the property owner or not. Since these caches have been approved the assumption is that they did. But this is an inherit weakness of the system. People have no knowledge of what permissions or exceptions were given. There is nothing on the cache page. So they would have to blindly report these potential violations. On top of that I think most people do not want to be the bad guy and they give the benefit of the doubt to the hider. I think that if there was a way to anonymously report a potential cache violation then more people would do it.

[X-isle]

The subject crosses my mind...What if geocaching was banned, altogether? I mean, they can't eat us. The sport would be driven underground, but still played by stealthy renegade cachers. Many would nolonger play, but there would be a serious following of nervy outlaw cachers.

[+briansnat]

All of the "minor" violations, I have seen have been urban caches. You don't know if these cachers got permission from the property owner or not. Since these caches have been approved the assumption is that they did.

 

The reviewers can only go by what is on the cache page, so it is not safe to assume that the cache is OK because it has been published.

 

People who knowingly are hiding a cache that violates the guidelines are likely to leave out any info that will preclude the listing of their cache. People who inadvertantly violate the guidelines sometimes out themselves on the cache page and those are flagged by the reviewer, but not always.

[+Jhwk]

The subject crosses my mind...What if geocaching was banned, altogether? I mean, they can't eat us. The sport would be driven underground, but still played by stealthy renegade cachers. Many would nolonger play, but there would be a serious following of nervy outlaw cachers.

I thought we were pretty underground now.

 

Stop talking to the press.

Be stealthy - if a Marvin catches you and asked what you are doing, you are not stealthy enough.

Stop telling your friends Booger, Cletus, and Cooter about geocaching.

[DragonRebel]

Nah, nevermind. Ignore this

Edited March 30, 2007 by DragonRebel

[+Confucius' Cat]

You don't know if these cachers got permission from the property owner or not. Since these caches have been approved the assumption is that they did. But this is an inherit weakness of the system. People have no knowledge of what permissions or exceptions were given. There is nothing on the cache page. So they would have to blindly report these potential violations. On top of that I think most people do not want to be the bad guy and they give the benefit of the doubt to the hider. I think that if there was a way to anonymously report a potential cache violation then more people would do it.

This is one of the prime reasons I no longer log most caches at all and I will abort any hunt at the first sign of a potential problem.

 

Reporting a problem on a cache (on the cache page) is often taken by the cache owner as "calling their baby FAT".

 

I don't need the aggravation of being "the bad guy".. i play for fun, not to be b*****d at.

 

Emailing the reviewer is currently the only "anonymous" option we have. Actually it is a pretty good option.

 

A TRULY anonymous option is really not desirable. We have too many in the sport that would abuse it for their petty little feuds.

 

Still, I stand by my oft posted idea to make the "needs archived" post anonymous or invisible on the cache page but identified to the reviewer. If anything really needs to be on the cache page, it is just the icon... the reviewer could post the details after it is reviewed.

 

I don't think it would be too much to ban any individual that would abuse the "needs archived" button if it were anonymous.

[+Sileny Jizda]

How does placing a cache in a cemetery work? Does the age of the cemetery exempt it from permission or are they considered public lands? Just curious. It seems OH has a ton of them around here. I'm just wondering since I recently obtained permission to place 3-4 possible caches in my area from the land owners before placing them. One of them I even asked to place it only after they felt comfortable with restrictions such as access hours and such on the cache.

Edited March 30, 2007 by Sileny Jizda

[+"fish"]

i like this thread

[+Renegade Knight]

... Does the age of the cemetery exempt it from permission or are they considered public lands?...

 

Cemetaries vary in who ownes them. When I bought my first home I was suprised to see on my property tax bill a tax assessment for the local cemetary. Thus I owned it after a fashion in the same way I own a park. It's public. None of my family was buried there but there I was paying for the greater public good. Naturally I'm for caches in my public cemetary. Others are private, traditional family lands etc. Some are historic, some aren't. It's all going to depend on the specific cemetary that you are interested in.

[+VKsnr]

Just reading over older topics and came across this one. Had to add my two cents about caches on BLM lands. Especially since I have lived in and around BLM lands for a long time and make heavy recreational use of them. Considering the archival of GCKJTJ Cabin Creek Cache:

 

<public lands usage rant>

It seems odd that you can prospect on BLM and Forest Service lands, and when you stake a claim you are *required* to drive a post or pipe into the ground, or build a clearly recognizable cairn, or in some other way "deface" the land to mark the claim. If you are a rancher you can run cattle to graze the bejibbers out of it and leave tons of feces laying all over especially around riparian areas. You can plow new roads to new gas and oil drilling sites and run thousands of tons of truck traffic over them. (And here in CO you can do the same across private lands too). You can log thousands of acres of forest leaving rutty erosion prone logging roads for heavy trucks. Geodetic survey markers literally dot the landscape with posts, rods, and concrete pylons driven into or poured onto the land (we even use them for part of our game)..

 

But we can't place a small PVC pipe out there, even well hidden or buried, because people are paranoid that the BLM will shut us down? (Oh-Brother-Eye-Roll). Isn't moving a bunch of rocks around to hide a cache equally as defacing? I guess it's OK if I hide my bag of trash under some rocks out there. Isn't it littering with all those metal and plastic cache containers laying around out there, even if under some rocks or brush? Oh - I see - just because I have a logbook jammed into them makes them non-litter. Really though, it seems like the placement of a geocache on public lands, in whatever form, is in no way in the "defacing" category that the other allowed or disallowed uses of public lands are.

 

I suppose my main complaint is that my minimal impact use of the public lands is so heavily controlled out of fear of "defacing" the lands when the real defacers get to do it all day every day. Not that I want to be able to deface lands, but that I can't enjoy my public lands fully with minimal impact recreation while others get to pollute them with relative impunity.

</public lands usage rant>

 

I understand the reasoning behind the no burying rule. Just irritated that I can't hide or enjoy finding such a cache on public lands considering what you can legally do to these lands that is much much worse in every conceivable way. Sheesh.

 

VKsnr

 

P.S. <wink mode> And under this current administration do you really think we would be pursued for this on public lands? </wink mode>

[+benh57]

Hmm, i wonder if we could find a friendly congresscritter to sneak a little pork into a huge bill for us...

 

Explicitly allowing geocaching on all federal property and BLM land.

 

Noone reads the bills, anyway, who'd notice.

Edited April 18, 2007 by benh57

[vtmtnman]

The biggest problem cachers that I have seen are the pompous (expletive deleted) that think that they can go where they want and do what, regardless of how it effects others around them.

 

Also the fools with over the top post counts who think that there two-bit opinion matters more than anybody elses.

 

It's a wonder that there is room in these forums at all with the giant egos around here.

 

LOL....

 

If I recall, you ARE from VT, right Flask?

 

uh, yes, i am. only place that really matters.

 

YES!LOL....

 

everyone whoi IS anyone knows you should never waste maple syrup.

 

At 50 dollars a gallon,sadness.Im sure it's in there somewhere in the Vermont state law books...Somewhere between deer season shall be an unoffical state holiday and waving to passing vehicles on dirt roads.

 

Anybody have a link to where this thread started?

[vtmtnman]

Nevermind....

Edited April 19, 2007 by vtmtnman

[+4leafclover]

So was that a hypothetical story or a real story?

 

<snippage>

 

Of course other times, they are absolutely right about their concerns. The hope then is that they consider who to express those concerns to, and when, where, and how to do so instead of just running off and stiring up trouble that could be avoided.

 

Most of the annoyances I have seen could have been amicably solved if the person doing the complaining was a little more discrete and used a bit more tact.

 

OMGosh, Carleen. I am just getting around to reading this thread, and you have NO IDEA how correct you are.

 

I won't go into details, but suffice it to say, there are plenty of cachers who should recognize themselves in this description, and have hopefully learned a little more about how this game and its players can get along better.

[+Miragee]

Just reading over older topics and came across this one. Had to add my two cents about caches on BLM lands. Especially since I have lived in and around BLM lands for a long time and make heavy recreational use of them. Considering the archival of GCKJTJ Cabin Creek Cache:

 

<public lands usage rant>

It seems odd that you can prospect on BLM and Forest Service lands, and when you stake a claim you are *required* to drive a post or pipe into the ground, or build a clearly recognizable cairn, or in some other way "deface" the land to mark the claim. If you are a rancher you can run cattle to graze the bejibbers out of it and leave tons of feces laying all over especially around riparian areas. You can plow new roads to new gas and oil drilling sites and run thousands of tons of truck traffic over them. (And here in CO you can do the same across private lands too). You can log thousands of acres of forest leaving rutty erosion prone logging roads for heavy trucks. Geodetic survey markers literally dot the landscape with posts, rods, and concrete pylons driven into or poured onto the land (we even use them for part of our game)..

 

But we can't place a small PVC pipe out there, even well hidden or buried, because people are paranoid that the BLM will shut us down? (Oh-Brother-Eye-Roll). Isn't moving a bunch of rocks around to hide a cache equally as defacing? I guess it's OK if I hide my bag of trash under some rocks out there. Isn't it littering with all those metal and plastic cache containers laying around out there, even if under some rocks or brush? Oh - I see - just because I have a logbook jammed into them makes them non-litter. Really though, it seems like the placement of a geocache on public lands, in whatever form, is in no way in the "defacing" category that the other allowed or disallowed uses of public lands are.

 

I suppose my main complaint is that my minimal impact use of the public lands is so heavily controlled out of fear of "defacing" the lands when the real defacers get to do it all day every day. Not that I want to be able to deface lands, but that I can't enjoy my public lands fully with minimal impact recreation while others get to pollute them with relative impunity.

</public lands usage rant>

 

I understand the reasoning behind the no burying rule. Just irritated that I can't hide or enjoy finding such a cache on public lands considering what you can legally do to these lands that is much much worse in every conceivable way. Sheesh.

 

VKsnr

 

P.S. <wink mode> And under this current administration do you really think we would be pursued for this on public lands? </wink mode>

Just wanted to say I agree with you.

 

I am still sad about what happened to the "Cabin Creek Cache" which was hidden in a really great area and which had no impact whatsoever on the environment.

 

The cachers who found it enjoyed it but someone "turned it in" to Groundspeak . . . Why?

[+Team GeoBlast]

Just reading over older topics and came across this one. Had to add my two cents about caches on BLM lands. Especially since I have lived in and around BLM lands for a long time and make heavy recreational use of them. Considering the archival of GCKJTJ Cabin Creek Cache:

 

<public lands usage rant>

It seems odd that you can prospect on BLM and Forest Service lands, and when you stake a claim you are *required* to drive a post or pipe into the ground, or build a clearly recognizable cairn, or in some other way "deface" the land to mark the claim. If you are a rancher you can run cattle to graze the bejibbers out of it and leave tons of feces laying all over especially around riparian areas. You can plow new roads to new gas and oil drilling sites and run thousands of tons of truck traffic over them. (And here in CO you can do the same across private lands too). You can log thousands of acres of forest leaving rutty erosion prone logging roads for heavy trucks. Geodetic survey markers literally dot the landscape with posts, rods, and concrete pylons driven into or poured onto the land (we even use them for part of our game)..

 

But we can't place a small PVC pipe out there, even well hidden or buried, because people are paranoid that the BLM will shut us down? (Oh-Brother-Eye-Roll). Isn't moving a bunch of rocks around to hide a cache equally as defacing? I guess it's OK if I hide my bag of trash under some rocks out there. Isn't it littering with all those metal and plastic cache containers laying around out there, even if under some rocks or brush? Oh - I see - just because I have a logbook jammed into them makes them non-litter. Really though, it seems like the placement of a geocache on public lands, in whatever form, is in no way in the "defacing" category that the other allowed or disallowed uses of public lands are.

 

I suppose my main complaint is that my minimal impact use of the public lands is so heavily controlled out of fear of "defacing" the lands when the real defacers get to do it all day every day. Not that I want to be able to deface lands, but that I can't enjoy my public lands fully with minimal impact recreation while others get to pollute them with relative impunity.

</public lands usage rant>

 

I understand the reasoning behind the no burying rule. Just irritated that I can't hide or enjoy finding such a cache on public lands considering what you can legally do to these lands that is much much worse in every conceivable way. Sheesh.

 

VKsnr

 

P.S. <wink mode> And under this current administration do you really think we would be pursued for this on public lands? </wink mode>

Just wanted to say I agree with you.

 

I am still sad about what happened to the "Cabin Creek Cache" which was hidden in a really great area and which had no impact whatsoever on the environment.

 

The cachers who found it enjoyed it but someone "turned it in" to Groundspeak . . . Why?

 

I think there's some that do not know when to let common sense guide them or worse case..perhaps it is empowering to them in some way.

[+Miragee]

That's what I thought since it was Archived by Groundspeak directly.

 

Someone really thought they were great to contact Groundspeak and get action like that . . .