Killing a tree to find a cache

July 8, 2007

I have ran into a few caches in my area placed in the middle of trees and bushes. As a result these trees and bushes have been destroyed. This is not right both parties are to blame, the hider and the searcher. Can anything be done about this? Is this breaking some type of caching rule?

Thanks

6.4k · July 8, 2007

14.3k · July 8, 2007

I have ran into a few caches in my area placed in the middle of trees and bushes. As a result these trees and bushes have been destroyed. This is not right both parties are to blame, the hider and the searcher. Can anything be done about this? Is this breaking some type of caching rule?

Thanks

It isn't against the rules unless the hider damaged the tree/bush (i.e. by drilling into it). If they are just placed there then some of the finder(s) must be inconsiderate.

2.7k · July 8, 2007

Do you have specific examples of damage known to be caused by cachers?

It is my observation that trees and bushes tend to deteriorate and/or change over time.

What you see as "damage" could possibly be the natural cycle of the plant. For instance, it is common to place a cache in a hollow tree. The tree became hollow because of rotting and insect/animal activity among other things. These forces continue with or without a cache in the tree and the hollow place gets bigger, the tree gets weaker, and eventually the tree falls and the deterioration process continues on the ground. All with or without a cache.

The preservation of life in all forms is an important thing, but the life of a specific single unit of life is by definition finite and in the overall scheme of things, with the exception of human life, pretty much meaningless.

Even if it is assumed every cache will kill a tree (including those caches residing under lamppost skirts), the total impact of caching on tree-kind is negligible because there simply aren't that many caches compared to the number of trees.

Conservation efforts are much more vital when an issue effects an entire species or a substantial proportion of life for example in a given area.

Oh, and I'm a tree hugger.

July 8, 2007

This is what I refer to as "when good caches are hidden in bad places." What is so fun about digging through a bush and having all that pollen spread everywhere and then having to sneeze for the next hour and then having an ashtma attack and all the scratched up your arms and the destruction to the bushes themselves. Yes i have seen the damamge. One cache I went to that was hidden in the bushes (the clue was "don't scratch your arms up looking for it.") and I gently looked and did not find it. I came back three months later and out of the 12 bushes there, the 8 within 10 feet of ground zero were destroyed. You could see all the way through them except down towards the center bottom. I made my note about it in the online log and displayed the pictures of the damage.

Why, why does any cachers find this fun for us?? Most commonly these hide of caches are from people who have less than 100 finds and/or having been caching less than 6 months.

These style of hiding places along with caches placed in parks right in the playground. There is this huge park but yet they have to put it where people are so you have to come back AFTER the park closes so people don't think you are a ******** lurking around little kids with what looks like a camera. "Quick, someone call the cops on this pervert!!"

July 8, 2007

This is what I refer to as "when good caches are hidden in bad places." What is so fun about digging through a bush and having all that pollen spread everywhere and then having to sneeze for the next hour and then having an ashtma attack and all the scratched up your arms and the destruction to the bushes themselves. Yes i have seen the damamge. One cache I went to that was hidden in the bushes (the clue was "don't scratch your arms up looking for it.") and I gently looked and did not find it. I came back three months later and out of the 12 bushes there, the 8 within 10 feet of ground zero were destroyed. You could see all the way through them except down towards the center bottom. I made my note about it in the online log and displayed the pictures of the damage.

Why, why does any cachers find this fun for us?? Most commonly these hide of caches are from people who have less than 100 finds and/or having been caching less than 6 months.

These style of hiding places along with caches placed in parks right in the playground. There is this huge park but yet they have to put it where people are so you have to come back AFTER the park closes so people don't think you are a ******** lurking around little kids with what looks like a camera. "Quick, someone call the cops on this pervert!!"

Im a so called 'Newbie' to hiding caches and looking for them. But I really like leaving them more than finding them. I take offense when listening to you talk of the cachers that have less than 100 finds and that they are the ones abusing the local parks that include playgrounds with children nearby. I love caching and ive only taken the time to find 12 caches, mainly cause their MICRO CACHES, log only. They arent as fun for the work and insanity they cause looking for them. Thats my opinion. Unless you live in a rural area, theres not many places to park and find medium sized traditional caches. So if you have some really excited kids like I do who want to find a REAL TREASURE, meaning something tangible, we got to go to parks around here that arent on private land and place it under or in a bush sometimes.

2.7k · July 8, 2007

More and more it seems to me there just isn't any place or any style of cache that is without flaws. I guess it is inherent in the game that there will be some negative aspect of every cache hide.

A cache hider can only do so much to render damage less likely. It does not matter if the hider has 10,000 finds and helped Jeremy start the site.

The best placed cache will attract all kinds of people. Some will be gentle and some will be negligent.

One can only assume responsibility for one's own actions.

*sigh* I'd like to know when taking pictures of kids in a public place became "perverted."

</digression>

July 8, 2007

Cachers kill trees all the time. All those print outs of cache pages indirectly kill trees.

2k · July 8, 2007

This is what I refer to as "when good caches are hidden in bad places." What is so fun about digging through a bush and having all that pollen spread everywhere and then having to sneeze for the next hour and then having an ashtma attack and all the scratched up your arms and the destruction to the bushes themselves. Yes i have seen the damamge. One cache I went to that was hidden in the bushes (the clue was "don't scratch your arms up looking for it.") and I gently looked and did not find it. I came back three months later and out of the 12 bushes there, the 8 within 10 feet of ground zero were destroyed. You could see all the way through them except down towards the center bottom. I made my note about it in the online log and displayed the pictures of the damage.

Why, why does any cachers find this fun for us?? Most commonly these hide of caches are from people who have less than 100 finds and/or having been caching less than 6 months.

These style of hiding places along with caches placed in parks right in the playground. There is this huge park but yet they have to put it where people are so you have to come back AFTER the park closes so people don't think you are a ******** lurking around little kids with what looks like a camera. "Quick, someone call the cops on this pervert!!"

Im a so called 'Newbie' to hiding caches and looking for them. But I really like leaving them more than finding them. I take offense when listening to you talk of the cachers that have less than 100 finds and that they are the ones abusing the local parks that include playgrounds with children nearby. I love caching and ive only taken the time to find 12 caches, mainly cause their MICRO CACHES, log only. They arent as fun for the work and insanity they cause looking for them. Thats my opinion. Unless you live in a rural area, theres not many places to park and find medium sized traditional caches. So if you have some really excited kids like I do who want to find a REAL TREASURE, meaning something tangible, we got to go to parks around here that arent on private land and place it under or in a bush sometimes.

I dont think that JDub is inferring that n00bs are abusing parks. I think JDub has two simple requests:

1. That cache is not placed in a way that will lead to the inevitable annihilation of the landscaping

2. That the cache is not placed in a way that will lead grown men to look like child molesters win a park with a "camera looking" device. Which in turn may then lead the finder to attend the park when it is closed to avoid inadvertantly threatened muggles.

It just happens that, in JDub's opinion, a majority of the micro caches in parks are hidden in bushes or right near playground equipment. It also just so happens that, in JDub's opinion, that these caches are placed by n00bs. I think the reason for this is that an experienced cacher with numerous finds may consider these two issues while placing a cache whereas a n00b may not. For example, an experienced cacher may say "I want to hide a cache in a park, but I won't put it in a bush, because I don't want to damage the landscaping." Whereas, a n00b may say "I want to place a cache in a park.......OOOh that bush looks perfect." without realizing that the placement will inevitably cause damage. Needless to say, I agree with JDub.

My argument to this, and I think JDub would agree with me, is that there are tons of ways to hide caches without putting them in a spot where the landscaping will be destroyed. So what's the point of putting them in a bush when you can hide them a few feet away in a spot that won't lead to the bushes being destroyed? Furthermore I want to add that just beause the cache is urban does not mean it has to be a micro. If you get a little creative then you can hide regular sized caches in urban areas. I think a more experienced cache would better be able to creatively hide a regular sized urban cache than a n00b with less than 100 finds. To be honest, I've 208 and I'm still working on deciding how to hide my 1st. It definately won't be in a bush cuz, like JDub, I've seen how bushes get destroyed by geocachers.

In the end, you can hide a cache wherever, within reason. No one will tell you not to hide a cache. However, do you want to be responsible for a cache that leads to the destruction of landscaping? I sure don't. Especially when there are much more creative ways to hide caches in the same area without ever laying a finger on a helpless bush.

July 8, 2007

This is what I refer to as "when good caches are hidden in bad places." What is so fun about digging through a bush and having all that pollen spread everywhere and then having to sneeze for the next hour and then having an ashtma attack and all the scratched up your arms and the destruction to the bushes themselves. Yes i have seen the damamge. One cache I went to that was hidden in the bushes (the clue was "don't scratch your arms up looking for it.") and I gently looked and did not find it. I came back three months later and out of the 12 bushes there, the 8 within 10 feet of ground zero were destroyed. You could see all the way through them except down towards the center bottom. I made my note about it in the online log and displayed the pictures of the damage.

Why, why does any cachers find this fun for us?? Most commonly these hide of caches are from people who have less than 100 finds and/or having been caching less than 6 months.

These style of hiding places along with caches placed in parks right in the playground. There is this huge park but yet they have to put it where people are so you have to come back AFTER the park closes so people don't think you are a ******** lurking around little kids with what looks like a camera. "Quick, someone call the cops on this pervert!!"

Im a so called 'Newbie' to hiding caches and looking for them. But I really like leaving them more than finding them. I take offense when listening to you talk of the cachers that have less than 100 finds and that they are the ones abusing the local parks that include playgrounds with children nearby. I love caching and ive only taken the time to find 12 caches, mainly cause their MICRO CACHES, log only. They arent as fun for the work and insanity they cause looking for them. Thats my opinion. Unless you live in a rural area, theres not many places to park and find medium sized traditional caches. So if you have some really excited kids like I do who want to find a REAL TREASURE, meaning something tangible, we got to go to parks around here that arent on private land and place it under or in a bush sometimes.

I dont think that JDub is inferring that n00bs are abusing parks. I think JDub has two simple requests:

1. That cache is not placed in a way that will lead to the inevitable annihilation of the landscaping

2. That the cache is not placed in a way that will lead grown men to look like child molesters win a park with a "camera looking" device. Which in turn may then lead the finder to attend the park when it is closed to avoid inadvertantly threatened muggles.

It just happens that, in JDub's opinion, a majority of the micro caches in parks are hidden in bushes or right near playground equipment. It also just so happens that, in JDub's opinion, that these caches are placed by n00bs. I think the reason for this is that an experienced cacher with numerous finds may consider these two issues while placing a cache whereas a n00b may not. For example, an experienced cacher may say "I want to hide a cache in a park, but I won't put it in a bush, because I don't want to damage the landscaping." Whereas, a n00b may say "I want to place a cache in a park.......OOOh that bush looks perfect." without realizing that the placement will inevitably cause damage. Needless to say, I agree with JDub.

My argument to this, and I think JDub would agree with me, is that there are tons of ways to hide caches without putting them in a spot where the landscaping will be destroyed. So what's the point of putting them in a bush when you can hide them a few feet away in a spot that won't lead to the bushes being destroyed? Furthermore I want to add that just beause the cache is urban does not mean it has to be a micro. If you get a little creative then you can hide regular sized caches in urban areas. I think a more experienced cache would better be able to creatively hide a regular sized urban cache than a n00b with less than 100 finds. To be honest, I've 208 and I'm still working on deciding how to hide my 1st. It definately won't be in a bush cuz, like JDub, I've seen how bushes get destroyed by geocachers.

In the end, you can hide a cache wherever, within reason. No one will tell you not to hide a cache. However, do you want to be responsible for a cache that leads to the destruction of landscaping? I sure don't. Especially when there are much more creative ways to hide caches in the same area without ever laying a finger on a helpless bush.

Point taken

July 8, 2007

Im a so called 'Newbie' to hiding caches and looking for them. But I really like leaving them more than finding them. I take offense when listening to you talk of the cachers that have less than 100 finds and that they are the ones abusing the local parks that include playgrounds with children nearby. I love caching and ive only taken the time to find 12 caches, mainly cause their MICRO CACHES, log only. They arent as fun for the work and insanity they cause looking for them. Thats my opinion. Unless you live in a rural area, theres not many places to park and find medium sized traditional caches. So if you have some really excited kids like I do who want to find a REAL TREASURE, meaning something tangible, we got to go to parks around here that arent on private land and place it under or in a bush sometimes.

It aggravates me when people get snippy about what a person post. Do you not realize this is a discussion forum? I am simply commenting on the post topic. It is sad, I usually do not post comments on forums unless I make a comment that is useful or helpful but I do not tell people they offend me. This is the FIRST post I have ever made about people with less then 100 caches. (I once had less than 100 caches too.) And notice I used the words “MOST COOMONLY” which means “not always but usually.” I’m not against park caches. Read thoroughly what I said. “Caches placed in parks right in the playground. There is this huge park but yet they have to put it where people are.” I love park caches; I scope them out all the time to place one of my own. And I don’t really have a problem with caches in the bushes. Just when it is placed in the center of the bush. This is when people tend to tear them up. If it’s placed at/under the bush, then it is easier to find and probably less likely that the bush won’t get destroyed. I love caches of all styles for all reasons. Here is the signature I put at the end of all my geocache logs.

There is a different style of cache for every cacher and a different style of cacher for every cache. Thanks for taking your time to place this one.

“Oh great satellites from above, we ask that you give us strong signals today on our quest, that the caches are always a find, fun, challenging and that the urban micros are muggle free.”

More and more it seems to me there just isn't any place or any style of cache that is without flaws. I guess it is inherent in the game that there will be some negative aspect of every cache hide.

A cache hider can only do so much to render damage less likely. It does not matter if the hider has 10,000 finds and helped Jeremy start the site.

The best placed cache will attract all kinds of people. Some will be gentle and some will be negligent.

One can only assume responsibility for one's own actions.

*sigh* I'd like to know when taking pictures of kids in a public place became "perverted."

</digression>

With all the different opinions of different people, people will always look at things in their own eyes and see it the way they want. People hate micros, people love them. People like the hide, people are only after the numbers. People question a cache hidden close to an edge of a cliff; people love the excitement of it being there. People hate a challenge, people love the challenge. You like milk, I hate it. Shall I go on? This is what makes us human or else we would all think alike and there would be no creativity in this world.

But what if you don’t have kids? Then an adult male at a park alone can seem a little weird to over protective mothers with little kids. Have you not watched or read the news lately about all the kids being kidnapped? I have read in these forums of this happening to cachers being stopped by police because a mother wanted to know why that old man was taking pictures of their daughter on a swing sey. Actually, I don’t even want to continue this DISCUSSION. Thanks, ya’ll remind me why I only read the forums and don’t post. There are always people who just like to argue and point people out instead of just posting a comment.

Edited July 8, 2007 by JDubPooch

July 8, 2007

Im a so called 'Newbie' to hiding caches and looking for them. But I really like leaving them more than finding them. I take offense when listening to you talk of the cachers that have less than 100 finds and that they are the ones abusing the local parks that include playgrounds with children nearby. I love caching and ive only taken the time to find 12 caches, mainly cause their MICRO CACHES, log only. They arent as fun for the work and insanity they cause looking for them. Thats my opinion. Unless you live in a rural area, theres not many places to park and find medium sized traditional caches. So if you have some really excited kids like I do who want to find a REAL TREASURE, meaning something tangible, we got to go to parks around here that arent on private land and place it under or in a bush sometimes.

It aggravates me when people get snippy about what a person post. Do you not realize this is a discussion forum? I am simply commenting on the post topic. It is sad, I usually do not post comments on forums unless I make a comment that is useful or helpful but I do not tell people they offend me. This is the FIRST post I have ever made about people with less then 100 caches. (I once had less than 100 caches too.) And notice I used the words “MOST COOMONLY” which means “not always but usually.” I’m not against park caches. Read thoroughly what I said. “Caches placed in parks right in the playground. There is this huge park but yet they have to put it where people are.” I love park caches; I scope them out all the time to place one of my own. And I don’t really have a problem with caches in the bushes. Just when it is placed in the center of the bush. This is when people tend to tear them up. If it’s placed at/under the bush, then it is easier to find and probably less likely that the bush won’t get destroyed. I love caches of all styles for all reasons. Here is the signature I put at the end of all my geocache logs.

There is a different style of cache for every cacher and a different style of cacher for every cache. Thanks for taking your time to place this one.

“Oh great satellites from above, we ask that you give us strong signals today on our quest, that the caches are always a find, fun, challenging and that the urban micros are muggle free.”

More and more it seems to me there just isn't any place or any style of cache that is without flaws. I guess it is inherent in the game that there will be some negative aspect of every cache hide.

A cache hider can only do so much to render damage less likely. It does not matter if the hider has 10,000 finds and helped Jeremy start the site.

The best placed cache will attract all kinds of people. Some will be gentle and some will be negligent.

One can only assume responsibility for one's own actions.

*sigh* I'd like to know when taking pictures of kids in a public place became "perverted."

</digression>

With all the different opinions of different people, people will always look at things in their own eyes and see it the way they want. People hate micros, people love them. People like the hide, people are only after the numbers. People question a cache hidden close to an edge of a cliff; people love the excitement of it being there. People hate a challenge, people love the challenge. You like milk, I hate it. Shall I go on? This is what makes us human or else we would all think alike and there would be no creativity in this world.

But what if you don’t have kids? Then an adult male at a park alone can seem a little weird to over protective mothers with little kids. Have you not watched or read the news lately about all the kids being kidnapped? Actually, I don’t even want to continue this DISCUSSION. Thanks, ya’ll remind me why I only read the forums and don’t post. There are always people who just like to argue and point people out instead of just posting a comment.

Get in line JDubb, your not the only one aggrivated this week. I had to get used to my new REVIEWER, and succumb to thier higher knowledge, just to enjoy this hobbie/Dont be mad

Edited July 8, 2007 by mimi0674

July 8, 2007

I dont think that JDub is inferring that n00bs are abusing parks. I think JDub has two simple requests:

1. That cache is not placed in a way that will lead to the inevitable annihilation of the landscaping

2. That the cache is not placed in a way that will lead grown men to look like child molesters win a park with a "camera looking" device. Which in turn may then lead the finder to attend the park when it is closed to avoid inadvertantly threatened muggles.

It just happens that, in JDub's opinion, a majority of the micro caches in parks are hidden in bushes or right near playground equipment. It also just so happens that, in JDub's opinion, that these caches are placed by n00bs. I think the reason for this is that an experienced cacher with numerous finds may consider these two issues while placing a cache whereas a n00b may not. For example, an experienced cacher may say "I want to hide a cache in a park, but I won't put it in a bush, because I don't want to damage the landscaping." Whereas, a n00b may say "I want to place a cache in a park.......OOOh that bush looks perfect." without realizing that the placement will inevitably cause damage. Needless to say, I agree with JDub.

My argument to this, and I think JDub would agree with me, is that there are tons of ways to hide caches without putting them in a spot where the landscaping will be destroyed. So what's the point of putting them in a bush when you can hide them a few feet away in a spot that won't lead to the bushes being destroyed? Furthermore I want to add that just beause the cache is urban does not mean it has to be a micro. If you get a little creative then you can hide regular sized caches in urban areas. I think a more experienced cache would better be able to creatively hide a regular sized urban cache than a n00b with less than 100 finds. To be honest, I've 208 and I'm still working on deciding how to hide my 1st. It definately won't be in a bush cuz, like JDub, I've seen how bushes get destroyed by geocachers.

In the end, you can hide a cache wherever, within reason. No one will tell you not to hide a cache. However, do you want to be responsible for a cache that leads to the destruction of landscaping? I sure don't. Especially when there are much more creative ways to hide caches in the same area without ever laying a finger on a helpless bush.

Thanks for understanding my point.

July 8, 2007

Get in line JDubb, your not the only one aggrivated this week. I had to get used to my new REVIEWER, and succumb to thier higher knowledge, just to enjoy this hobbie/Dont be mad

I'm in line. I'm not mad. Just posting my opinion and I don't like it when people criticize me for my opinion. This is forums and not a place to ridicule me for my opinions. Post your opinion that is fine with me but don’t point me out when making a negative comment. (This is not directed toward you. You only made your opinion) and you are correct that placing a cache does not make you responsible for what others may do but when I place a cache, I take into consideration what bad cachers will do over what the good ones will do. It is the bad (destructive) cachers that ruin it for the good ones and I don’t want to place a cache somewhere if I think it will allow for a destructive cacher to make me wish not to have placed it there because of how people will think geocachers are in general when it is only the bad few.

If someone does not understand what my post is saying, then question it but don’t point me out negatively.

I enjoy this hobby with the good and the bad.

July 8, 2007

Get in line JDubb, your not the only one aggrivated this week. I had to get used to my new REVIEWER, and succumb to thier higher knowledge, just to enjoy this hobbie/Dont be mad

I'm in line. I'm not mad. Just posting my opinion and I don't like it when people criticize me for my opinion. This is forums and not a place to ridicule me for my opinions. Post your opinion that is fine with me but don’t point me out when making a negative comment. (This is not directed toward you. You only made your opinion) and you are correct that placing a cache does not make you responsible for what others may do but when I place a cache, I take into consideration what bad cachers will do over what the good ones will do. It is the bad (destructive) cachers that ruin it for the good ones and I don’t want to place a cache somewhere if I think it will allow for a destructive cacher to make me wish not to have placed it there because of how people will think geocachers are in general when it is only the bad few.

If someone does not understand what my post is saying, then question it but don’t point me out negatively.

I enjoy this hobby with the good and the bad.

One last thing jdubb, on your signature, it says friends help you move, but real friends help you move bodies??????????? I just wanted know what kind of bodies. Thanks you.

July 8, 2007

One last thing jdubb, on your signature, it says friends help you move, but real friends help you move bodies??????????? I just wanted know what kind of bodies. Thanks you.

It is just a joke. I saw it on someone's shirt and I thought it was funny. And i just thought it was funny towards the fact that I always read cachers making comments about cachers knowing the best hiding places and the best places to hide a body. Shall I remove that if it offends? I removed it just in case. The signature I was refering to was my geocaching cache page logs.

Back to only reading logs again. I don't know why I bothered. The only interesting topic around these forums seem to be the topic CCC cool cache containers.

Edited July 8, 2007 by JDubPooch

2k · July 8, 2007

Im a so called 'Newbie' to hiding caches and looking for them. But I really like leaving them more than finding them. I take offense when listening to you talk of the cachers that have less than 100 finds and that they are the ones abusing the local parks that include playgrounds with children nearby. I love caching and ive only taken the time to find 12 caches, mainly cause their MICRO CACHES, log only. They arent as fun for the work and insanity they cause looking for them. Thats my opinion. Unless you live in a rural area, theres not many places to park and find medium sized traditional caches. So if you have some really excited kids like I do who want to find a REAL TREASURE, meaning something tangible, we got to go to parks around here that arent on private land and place it under or in a bush sometimes.

It aggravates me when people get snippy about what a person post. Do you not realize this is a discussion forum? I am simply commenting on the post topic. It is sad, I usually do not post comments on forums unless I make a comment that is useful or helpful but I do not tell people they offend me. This is the FIRST post I have ever made about people with less then 100 caches. (I once had less than 100 caches too.) And notice I used the words “MOST COOMONLY” which means “not always but usually.” I’m not against park caches. Read thoroughly what I said. “Caches placed in parks right in the playground. There is this huge park but yet they have to put it where people are.” I love park caches; I scope them out all the time to place one of my own. And I don’t really have a problem with caches in the bushes. Just when it is placed in the center of the bush. This is when people tend to tear them up. If it’s placed at/under the bush, then it is easier to find and probably less likely that the bush won’t get destroyed. I love caches of all styles for all reasons. Here is the signature I put at the end of all my geocache logs.

There is a different style of cache for every cacher and a different style of cacher for every cache. Thanks for taking your time to place this one.

“Oh great satellites from above, we ask that you give us strong signals today on our quest, that the caches are always a find, fun, challenging and that the urban micros are muggle free.”

More and more it seems to me there just isn't any place or any style of cache that is without flaws. I guess it is inherent in the game that there will be some negative aspect of every cache hide.

A cache hider can only do so much to render damage less likely. It does not matter if the hider has 10,000 finds and helped Jeremy start the site.

The best placed cache will attract all kinds of people. Some will be gentle and some will be negligent.

One can only assume responsibility for one's own actions.

*sigh* I'd like to know when taking pictures of kids in a public place became "perverted."

</digression>

But what if you don’t have kids? Then an adult male at a park alone can seem a little weird to over protective mothers with little kids. Have you not watched or read the news lately about all the kids being kidnapped? I have read in these forums of this happening to cachers being stopped by police because a mother wanted to know why that old man was taking pictures of their daughter on a swing sey. Actually, I don’t even want to continue this DISCUSSION. Thanks, ya’ll remind me why I only read the forums and don’t post. There are always people who just like to argue and point people out instead of just posting a comment.

There aren't that many kids being kidnapped. It's just the news trying to scare people to get ratings. Unfortunately, it is working since a grown man can't walk in a park next to a playground without mommies getting suspicious. They are only overprotective because the news has scared them in to being overprotective. It's a really unfortunate phenomenon.

21.9k · July 8, 2007

The subject of this thread is damage to trees by those who hide or find caches. Let's get back to that, please. Other conversations can be conducted privately.

Thanks.

July 8, 2007

Post deleted for sensitivity reasons.

Edited July 8, 2007 by Blue_stone

38.2k · July 8, 2007

How does one kill a tree while looking for a cache? Unless of course you bring an axe or chainsaw.

6.5k · July 8, 2007

I have ran into a few caches in my area placed in the middle of trees and bushes. As a result these trees and bushes have been destroyed. This is not right both parties are to blame, the hider and the searcher. Can anything be done about this? Is this breaking some type of caching rule?

Thanks

You are painting with a pretty broad brush aren't you? I found a few caches yesterday, and many of them were in trees and bushes. It's a good location to place a cache as it gets seekers out into green space. They can be easily cammo'd to prevent the casual passer by from spotting the cache and possibly muggling it. One cache even required climbing a tree for retrieval. If we aren't supposed to climb trees, why do they have nice sturdy branches?

Just because a cache is in a tree/bush doesn't mean the seeker needs to damage anything in order to find it. The problem is that too many want to be over aggressive and not look with their eyes and brain as much as their hands. They are probably the same people who grab a drive thru coffee and drink it with one hand while gabbing on the cell phone with the other hand on the way to work every morning. So you see we have an overall societal problem, not just a geocaching problem.

Sheesh, first we have multiple threads bemoaning the lack of caches in green space and the death of the sport due to the megaspewage of the urban micro, now complaints about caches in trees and bushs.

Maybe I'll just put my next one out in the middle of a grassy field. :lol:

No wait, someone will complain about the grass getting trampled.

July 8, 2007

I am a noob and do appreciate this thread. My first few cache finds were all adrenaline and not focused on where I was. Bushwhacked everything. I am pretty sure I did not permanently destroy the landscape but definately changed it a bit temporarily. After a few experiences, I began to take the time to appreciate the surroundings around me and instead of bushwhacking my way into every cache, I am now taking my time to find the easiest route on the surroundings..and my body. But it took a few times to figure out the way the GPS works. (A straight line is not necessary) This sort of search has added to my enjoyment of geocaching.

2k · July 8, 2007

I have ran into a few caches in my area placed in the middle of trees and bushes. As a result these trees and bushes have been destroyed. This is not right both parties are to blame, the hider and the searcher. Can anything be done about this? Is this breaking some type of caching rule?

Thanks

The problem is that too many want to be over aggressive and not look with their eyes and brain as much as their hands. They are probably the same people who grab a drive thru coffee and drink it with one hand while gabbing on the cell phone with the other hand on the way to work every morning. So you see we have an overall societal problem, not just a geocaching problem.

speaking of painting with broad brushes

July 8, 2007

Cachers kill trees all the time. All those print outs of cache pages indirectly kill trees.

Hear, hear!

24.7k · July 8, 2007

Cachers kill trees all the time. All those print outs of cache pages indirectly kill trees.

That's Carbon Banking. It helps with Global Warming.

24.7k · July 8, 2007

I have ran into a few caches in my area placed in the middle of trees and bushes. As a result these trees and bushes have been destroyed. This is not right both parties are to blame, the hider and the searcher. Can anything be done about this? Is this breaking some type of caching rule?

Thanks

You are right and wrong.

You are right in that the hider could keep in mind that some finders are complete idiots and do things like that and try to hide accordingly. You are 100% wrong that it's the finders fault. That I can do things that make me a lot more likely to get mugged never under any circumstances makes the mugger only partially to blame for the mugging. Some with a cache hide.

When you see a cache like that and you suspect that it's the hide have created a situation where the morons can do their best work while seeking the cache...then email the cache owner your suspicions. They they are good cache owners they will assess the situation and archive the cache or note that the mess is exactly like it was when they place it and no action is needed.

2.2k · July 8, 2007

If a tree dies from a few people poking at it and moving it's branches around, then it doesn't deserve to live. Let natural selection run it's course. (I know I'll get blasted for this, but it's just a tree folks.. Relax)

8.9k · July 8, 2007

Placing a cache in a nice spot and then seeing the spot destroyed is annoying to say the least! YES, you CAN be a bit less destructive while searching for the container! I had one hidden quite well in an area that was not overly sensitive to the onslaught of cachers (in other words, it didn't really matter if the area got torn apart). When I hid the cache, there was a dead tree standing beside the actual hiding place, a LARGE log laying on the ground nearby and several scrub bushes in the area.

Two months later, the standing dead tree was no longer standing or even in one piece, the LARGE log was reduced to kindling and the bushes were a WHOLE lot more scrubbed than before. Would hate to think how it would have been if that cache were placed in a more sensitive area (like a more public area than the deep field I used).

For crying out loud, look with care! Yes, the cache was well hidden, MY fault for adding to the fun of the search? Not likely. If I'm looking for my car keys in my house, I won't overturn every coffee table and such during the search! Why must someone go in and be so destructive?

Maybe caches need to be hidden in plain sight with a nice sign pointing the way?

14.3k · July 8, 2007

Cachers kill trees all the time. All those print outs of cache pages indirectly kill trees.

That's Carbon Banking. It helps with Global Warming.

So people that don't go paperless are helping to cause Global Warming!

My son was complaining about Global Warming a few months ago. I told him that he could do his part by not leaving leaving all the lights on in the house and his computer running when he is sleeping.

July 8, 2007

OK, I'm gonna sit the fence on this one...

I agree with both viewpoints.

I have seen experienced cachers go in and tear places up looking for caches. One thing people really need to ask themselves about when they hit GZ is "OK...Whats the difficulty on this one, again?"

Then search accordingly...Easy spots first, then progressively search harder. Dont just go in and start tearing things up on a difficulty 1 or 2 cache...

They also need to realize its only polite to try to put the logs, stones, camoflage back as close to exactly as they found it to maintain both the difficulty and quality of the hide for future finders.

thats MY biggest beef with going in and tearing things up looking for the cache.

The other side:

Sheesh!...Everyone who hides a cache has to realize the location is going to get quite a bit of wear and tear...Its the nature of the beast. Hiders need to think about this when hiding the cache.

"Hmmm...In this bush 10ft into a hedgerow at the edge of a village park looks like a good spot..."

Then 6mos, a year later, whenever, they wonder why there is now a "highway" going straight to the cache, and all that great leaf and foliage cover that hid the cache so great is now gone!...Or the dead tree or log it was hidden is now nothing but moldy, wet sawdust on the ground...Those darn finders who tear everything up!"

If you're gonna place a cache, you need to think about how often it might get hit, and if its a lot, you might want to think about having to come back and slightly move it every once in awhile.

Every cache is gonna get wear and tear in the immediate vicinity. If you dont like it, move the cache slightly, or if you can't replicate that "great " hiding spot, maybe its time YOU as a hider archived or temporarily disabled the cache, so the area can "rejuvenate its oh-so precious" natural state.

Nature changes...Stuff dies, rots, new stuff grows...Get over it...plan caching (hiding AND finding) accordingly.

Edited July 8, 2007 by Blue_stone

July 8, 2007

I disagree about cachers being "idiots" when things get destroyed. Yes, I think people should be careful when searching, but hiders have to remember that the more they camaflouge their containers, the more destroying there is going to be. Realistically, when a searcher gets to mark 0 and does not immediately see the container, the instinct (I believe) is to move obstacles, such as branches, out of the way. I don't like to have to move a branch or part a bush and especially do not like it when one snaps in my hands. But just as searchers have to think like hiders to find a cache, so do hiders have to think like searchers. As a searcher, if I'm standing in close range and can't find it, and there are mosquitos squealing in my ear and vultures flying above, I'm not going to stand there staring. And the more clever people become with their hides, the more tearing up there's going to be (i.e. see "cool containers" thread). I once found a cache disguised as an in ground sprinkler. I thought it was brilliant (still do), but they wisened me up to what "could" be a cache. So now if I can't find a cache, I unscrew sprinkler heads. If the sprinkler is not a cache container, then I'm defacing property. But how do I know until I've opened it?

By the same token, if you've hidden a cache NEAR a bush and I don't already know where it is, I'm going to look in the bush. Some people will go so far as to part the bush or even tear branches.

I'm rambling...but I'm just saying that there is a certain element of roughing up involved in geocaching so when hiding, if you don't want people to tear up the area, give a good hint or make the cache more visible.

2.5k · July 8, 2007

There is also the force of nature to consider. It's possible that most of the damage was not done by cachers.

We hid a cache near some bushes in a fairly recently landscaped area created by the city and then apparently neglected. At the time (late summer) the bushes looked just awful. They were dry and bare in places. As I predicted, we got a few notes from cachers saying the cache was having a negative impact on the area. I stopped by to do some maintenance on the cache a couple of months ago, and the bushes were lush and green and just beautiful. I was by there yesterday on an errand, and noticed the bushes are once again dry and bare--seems they just don't do well in the summer when it's dry.

Trees that have hollow spots are dying already, to some extent, and they will continue to rot. Eventually they will fall. Sometimes they stand for years, sometimes they fall over while they still have green parts left on them. Logs that are fallen will be more quickly consumed by decomposers. Obviously, a soft wood in a moist climate, covered in fungal growth will decay much more rapidly than a hardwood in a dry climate with no fungus present. I've even seen what look to be solid logs lying on the ground crumble at the slightest touch.

My point is the logs will decompose even if no cacher ever goes near them. If cachers hasten the decomposition, well, that just hastens the return of the wood to the food chain, and works to the nutritional benefit of the ecosystem. It also mean the cache will have to be relocated and that will take cachers away from that area for a time, allowing it to regenrate.

I'm not saying we should deliberately tamper with the natural cycle, but we also shouldn't underestimate the force of nature and overstate our impact on a natural rhythm.

July 8, 2007

I have ran into a few caches in my area placed in the middle of trees and bushes. As a result these trees and bushes have been destroyed. This is not right both parties are to blame, the hider and the searcher. Can anything be done about this? Is this breaking some type of caching rule?

Thanks

You are right and wrong.

You are right in that the hider could keep in mind that some finders are complete idiots and do things like that and try to hide accordingly. You are 100% wrong that it's the finders fault. That I can do things that make me a lot more likely to get mugged never under any circumstances makes the mugger only partially to blame for the mugging. Some with a cache hide.

When you see a cache like that and you suspect that it's the hide have created a situation where the morons can do their best work while seeking the cache...then email the cache owner your suspicions. They they are good cache owners they will assess the situation and archive the cache or note that the mess is exactly like it was when they place it and no action is needed.

I agree with your point. Interesting thread.

July 8, 2007

You are 100% wrong that it's the finders fault.

Disagree, we are all 100% responsible for our actions. If a person cannot look for a cache without causing significant damage to the vegetation (native or planted), irrigation equipment, electrical equipments, etc., than he/she should find another hobby. "the hider made me do it" is just a cop out. But I certainly agree that owners have a responsibility to not place caches in areas that invite geo-idiot vandalism.

July 8, 2007

OK. I guess i should have done a little more explaining when i say that bushes and landscaping get destroyed. I'm refering to the natural areas, I'm more refering to bushes and landscaping in parks or other properties like in the parking lot of a plaza center. I'm a tree huger but also, nature has destroyed itself even without the help of humans. It's part of nature. A forest fire destroys a forest but it's nature way of cleaning itself up. Here in Arizona, the hippies throw a fit when the goverment tries to do burn outs. (going through and burning out dead trees and things) but now we have a problem that when there is a fire it gets out of control because of NOT doing these burn outs. (forgive me, I can't remember the technical name for it.)

This is life and I'm not saying we as animals should not destroy but I have a cache placed in a parking lot at a plaza center and they paid a lot to landscape the area and maintain it. When people start destroying the landscape I will archive it. The most that usually happens is the water spinkler covers get left unopened and I go by there about once a week and put them back on. Trees fall, branches break off, bushes get blown to pieces by the wind. In the natural areas this is ok for cachers to do what ever. But when it is in a maintained area, this isn't good. Why did I come back to this topic again?

July 8, 2007

I'm sorry if you feel this is harsh, JDub, but from what you have just explained, that is EXACTLY what I am talking about.

It sounds to me like your cache needs to be hidden away from the "maintained landscaping", or archived.

I dont agree with people hiding caches in "landscaping".

Obviously, some agency paid good money to create it, and maintain it. Also, those are prime spots to attract muggle attention, and I would bet that kind of attention would be bad.

People are talking about not hiding caches in the ground, or drilling holes in trees, even DEAD ones for godsakes. I would think the kind of hide you're talking about in maintained landscaping is one of THE worst possible places to put a cache.

11.3k · July 8, 2007

I agree. That is one place I do not like to look for a cache, unless the hide is very obvious -- to a Geocacher -- right away, like the ABS Plastic drain cleanout installed in the gravel between some plants and obviously out-of-place.

I have, unfortunately, seen many areas disturbed and damaged by over-zealous cachers.

July 8, 2007

I'm sorry if you feel this is harsh, JDub, but from what you have just explained, that is EXACTLY what I am talking about.

It sounds to me like your cache needs to be hidden away from the "maintained landscaping", or archived.

I dont agree with people hiding caches in "landscaping".

Obviously, some agency paid good money to create it, and maintain it. Also, those are prime spots to attract muggle attention, and I would bet that kind of attention would be bad.

People are talking about not hiding caches in the ground, or drilling holes in trees, even DEAD ones for godsakes. I would think the kind of hide you're talking about in maintained landscaping is one of THE worst possible places to put a cache.

If you saw where i had it placed, you wouldn't find a problem with it. It is not the kind of lanscaping you may be thinking of. It's rocks a couple of trees and a wall. It is a theme cache for a tropical spot I like to have smoothies at. There is nothing in the area to destroy and that is why I placed it there.

Edited July 8, 2007 by JDubPooch

10.1k · July 8, 2007

Yes, the maintained landscaping is a sore point with me. There is one local who favors this sort of hide. I do not search for that hider's caches anymore. (Said cacher has not seemed ever to maintain a cache either.)

At the memorial at the Little League field, next to the monument. Very nice yew, and yew is a hardy plant. A few cachers pawing through the shrubbery chouldn't cause too much problem. A few hundred cachers pawing through the yew would be a different story.

A small manicured park. (Okay, not well manicured... The Christmas decorations were still up in July...) Coords led to the middle of the street. (In actuality, the coords were 72 feet off.) That gives a large area in which to search. Yes. We searched the Christmas tree, and the evergreens bordering the nearby parking lot, and the gazebo. The bison tube was hidden in the prickly evergreen behind the gazebo. Another one that didn't last very long. A few hundred cachers pawing through all of those trees and bushes would have caused damage. (Not to mention the few cache hunters who were questioned by the police.)

The hider's fault? Or the hunter's fault? I'll blame the hider. Manicured landscaping is not a good place to hide a cache. Did one today in the yew outside the public library. Not a good hiding place!

I also have problems with caches hidden in or near stone walls and/or historic ruins. Yes, people will tear those places apart!

Cache hiders need to have some common sense. Some places are just not good places to hide caches!

8k · July 9, 2007

You can't blame the hider because some idiot tore up a bush looking for a cache. After all the hider was able to hide the container without damaging the tree or bush (assuming that the cache meets the guidelines). My rule is to tread lightly. I look for existing paths instead of bushwhacking. If I bushwhack its in an area where the vegetation will grow back quickly. I look for existing holes in shrubbery where a cache may be hidden. I carefully bend branches to look inside a bush being careful not to break them. If I can't find the cache I don't resort to a scorched earth policy. I post a DNF. If trees and shrubs are harmed by geocachers it's not the cache hiders fault. It's a cacher looking in the wrong place or one not willing to DNF a cache that is either missing or one that has become inaccessible over time.

1.8k · July 9, 2007

If you're gonna place a cache, you need to think about how often it might get hit, and if its a lot, you might want to think about having to come back and slightly move it every once in awhile.

Every cache is gonna get wear and tear in the immediate vicinity. If you dont like it, move the cache slightly, or if you can't replicate that "great " hiding spot, maybe its time YOU as a hider archived or temporarily disabled the cache, so the area can "rejuvenate its oh-so precious" natural state.

Nature changes...Stuff dies, rots, new stuff grows...Get over it...plan caching (hiding AND finding) accordingly.

Great idea. Don't even have to move it far, maybe just to the other side of a tree or bush, not even far enough to require coord change. Just have to keep it hidden from muggles, and odd enough a cacher wants to check it out.

However, more than 3 steps, recheck coords please.

24.7k · July 9, 2007

Cachers kill trees all the time. All those print outs of cache pages indirectly kill trees.

That's Carbon Banking. It helps with Global Warming.

So people that don't go paperless are helping to cause Global Warming! ...

Maybe that wasn't worded right.

Print it out, then file it forever. Carbon Banking. Removing Carbon from the worlds system and helping in a good way with global warming.

14.3k · July 9, 2007

You can't blame the hider because some idiot tore up a bush looking for a cache. After all the hider was able to hide the container without damaging the tree or bush (assuming that the cache meets the guidelines). My rule is to tread lightly. I look for existing paths instead of bushwhacking. If I bushwhack its in an area where the vegetation will grow back quickly. I look for existing holes in shrubbery where a cache may be hidden. I carefully bend branches to look inside a bush being careful not to break them. If I can't find the cache I don't resort to a scorched earth policy. I post a DNF. If trees and shrubs are harmed by geocachers it's not the cache hiders fault. It's a cacher looking in the wrong place or one not willing to DNF a cache that is either missing or one that has become inaccessible over time.

That's how I feel. After 10 years of scouting with my son, we all learned and followed the "Leave No Trace" credo. It works! :laughing:

July 9, 2007

In my interpretation If there is any question on whether or not the cache owner is responsible for their placement and what happens to the area it is placed in at near or around, the guidelines clearly states

"As the cache owner, you are responsible for the placement and care of your cache."

So when I place a cache I take into consideration what bad things may happen around the cache. I would never place it somewhere I think it would destroy or else mess with it's surrounding area. If I found out it was a problem I would most certainly archive the cache or disable it until I can figure out a better way for it to be hidden or move it to a better location. I tend to my caches almost once a week. Almost all of my caches that are hidden are places I drive past almost daily if not at least once a week. I don't always show a maintenance log unless it has been a while since the last time I log one or it has not been found for a while.

Edited July 9, 2007 by JDubPooch

14.3k · July 9, 2007

In my interpretation If there is any question on whether or not the cache owner is responsible for their placement and what happens to the area it is placed in at near or around, the guidelines clearly states

"As the cache owner, you are responsible for the placement and care of your cache."

So when I place a cache I take into consideration what bad things may happen around the cache. I would never place it somewhere I think it would destroy or else mess with it's surrounding area. If I found out it was a problem I would most certainly archive the cache or disable it until I can figure out a better way for it to be hidden or move it to a better location. I tend to my caches almost once a week. Almost all of my caches that are hidden are places I drive past almost daily if not at least once a week. I don't always show a maintenance log unless it has been a while since the last time I log one or it has not been found for a while.

This is true. However, the finders need to take care and not trample all over beds and landscaping because their GPS is off. I'm actually not sure how a tree could get killed in this case. I have seen bushes that have been fairly thrashed but not killed.

July 9, 2007

I just killed a bush yesterday. I wasn't caching, I just didn't like the way it was looking at me ... all judgy and stuff.

14.3k · July 9, 2007

I just killed a bush yesterday. I wasn't caching, I just didn't like the way it was looking at me ... all judgy and stuff.

14.3k · July 9, 2007

I just killed a bush yesterday. I wasn't caching, I just didn't like the way it was looking at me ... all judgy and stuff.

Edit: not sure how I got two posts when I clicked it once....

Edited July 9, 2007 by TrailGators

July 9, 2007

I don't know... I'm just not seeing this rampant destruction that so many seem to be seeing. I also haven't seen a bush or tree killed by a geocache.

18.9k · July 9, 2007

The worst I have seen is a broken live branch - and I can't even swear that a seeker did that.....

Killing a tree to find a cache

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