Responsibility of the cache owner vs. the responsibility of the cacher

[+9Key]

I had an incident this weekend where a cacher visit one of my new caches and got very upset that there was poison ivy near the first stage. They left this in their log: "you obviously have little concern for others when you place a cache that could be very dangerous for others".

 

Frankly I thought this was rather a ridiculous statement as you always can walk away from a cache. No one is forcing you to walk through poison ivy, and in this case it could be avoided by approaching from a few yards to the north or from the west.

 

Is it my responsibility as a cache owner to warn about every possible danger that a cacher might encounter? Isn't that covered in the disclaimer?

If I hide a 5/5 and someone goes for it and they do not have the required skills to do the cache am I responsible if they get hurt?

 

How much responsibility do I have as a cacher to walk away if conditions would hurt or make me uncomfortable, or if I am not prepared like the case in question?

[+Mule Ears]

Shrug it off. You've seen the list of humorous complaints and suggestions gathered by the Forest Service, haven't you? Some gems:

 

"Escalators would help on steep uphill sections."

 

"Ban walking sticks in wilderness. Hikers that use walking sticks are more likely to chase animals."

 

"Trails need to be reconstructed. Please avoid building trails that go uphill."

 

"Too many bugs and leeches and spiders and spider webs. Please spray the wilderness to rid the area of these pests."

 

"Please pave the trails so they can be plowed of snow in the winter."

 

"Chairlifts need to be in some places so that we can get to wonderful views without having to hike to them."

 

"The places where trails do not exist are not well marked."

 

"Too many rocks in the mountains."

 

"Need more signs to keep area pristine."

 

And, "Warn people about the poison ivy!"

[+Prime Suspect]

Ridiculous is right. In North Texas, PI and thorny vines should be expected, as well as mosquitoes the size of a Mini Cooper during the summer months. Caveat Petitor!

[vagabond]

Maybe mama is a little thin skinned

[+Isonzo Karst]

One of the cachers in my area has almost no write up on any of his caches besides this disclaimer :

 

People that do not wish to do a cache because of any danger they might perceive to be present is certainly within their right to not procede. However you do not have the right to try to ruin the enjoyment of others in attempting a find, that is beyond your capabilities, but not beyond theirs. This goes for almost every caching event there is. After all one might run into spiders, snakes, poisonous plants, trips and falls and the list goes on.

 

Safety First! .......Take a friend, Look out for others, take a cell phone if possible, watch where you're stepping, NEVER UNCOVER ANY CACHE WITH YOUR HANDS OR FEET, USE A STICK! If you feel uncomfortable in doing a cache, for any reason, just walk away!!!

 

Every cache, that's it. Someone once gave him a hard time about the possible electrical hazard on a lamp pole hide.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Isonzo Karst

[+MustangJoni]

I happen to know the OP and know he has over 400 hides. Here is another question. If he hides a cache in winter, when there is no PI is he then responsible to go back and check it later to make sure that PI hasn't sprouted up around it. Does he need to check every cache to make sure that conditions haven't changed since he's hidden it?

[+StarBrand]

Thats ok - I have one hide where 4 or 5 visitors per year will comment on the poison ivy growing nearby. It is just a vine - some kind of creeper. Not poison ivy. My wife (with a degree in botany) assures me it isn't. But I get the accusations just the same.

 

Some people just want nature to be 100% safe.

[+Jhwk]

Responsibility of the cache owner vs. the responsibility of the cacher?

 

owner - maintain cache or archive

cacher - find

 

that's what you were looking for, right?

[+Driver Carries Cache]

Wow... where I live, any non-urban cache without nearby poison oak would be an anomaly.

 

If folks find it so scary and dangerous outside, maybe they'd be better off in the house.

 

DCC

[+Renegade Knight]

As an owner you have ZERO responsiblity whatsoever to warn people about anything that they may encounter at your cache. People have been in the area without the presences of the cache for a heck of a long time before the cache was there and did ok.

 

As a finder you have all the obligation to make sure you are safe. After all most finders have been in the world and getting around long before there were caches sprinkled about it. The ones that haven't have parents.

 

That said, if as an owner you know of something out of the ordinary (Poison Ivy is ordinary) like an uncapped well casing that can cause harm, it's a good idea to point it out.

 

If you start selling tickets to seek out your cache this all changes.

 

One of the things is that some people are getting off the couch for the first time and are discovering things like Ticks, Chiggars, Wasps, Poison Oak, Ivy, Snakes and all the icky things that are out there. They are learning why some of us carry first aid kids.

[+sbell111]

The cache owner has the responsibility to ensure that the information given on the page is as accurately as possible. This basically means that the coords are as good as possible and the difficulty and terrain ratings are correct. Beyond that the cache owner is responsible for all maintenance issue related to the cache.

 

The cache seeker is responsible for all of their actions while searching for the cache (or doing anything else). If the cache seeker encounters any dangerous situation, he is solely responsible for determining whether that danger is is too much for him. If the danger is determined to be too great, the cache seeker should then abort the hunt and avoid the danger.

 

If the cache seeker discovers a maintenance problem with the cache. He has a responsibility to notify the cache owner of the problem.

Edited October 29, 2007 by sbell111

[+carleenp]

I had an incident this weekend where a cacher visit one of my new caches and got very upset that there was poison ivy near the first stage. They left this in their log: "you obviously have little concern for others when you place a cache that could be very dangerous for others".

 

Frankly I thought this was rather a ridiculous statement as you always can walk away from a cache. No one is forcing you to walk through poison ivy, and in this case it could be avoided by approaching from a few yards to the north or from the west.

 

Is it my responsibility as a cache owner to warn about every possible danger that a cacher might encounter? Isn't that covered in the disclaimer?

If I hide a 5/5 and someone goes for it and they do not have the required skills to do the cache am I responsible if they get hurt?

 

How much responsibility do I have as a cacher to walk away if conditions would hurt or make me uncomfortable, or if I am not prepared like the case in question?

 

Unless you deliberately planted the cache in poison ivy in a manner that might lure cacher into it without seeing it--which I am pretty sure you did not do-- I don't think you had any responsibility toward the finder on this one. Basically it looks like the finder is ignorant or of the type who wants the world to accomodate them at all times, or both....

 

I suppose now that you know about it, the polite thing might be to note on the cache page that poisonous plants are present in teh area of the cache, although I won't go so far as to say that you have any responsibility or duty to do so.

Edited October 29, 2007 by carleenp

[+Mule Ears]

Wow... where I live, any non-urban cache without nearby poison oak would be an anomaly.

 

If folks find it so scary and dangerous outside, maybe they'd be better off in the house.

 

DCC

 

Ain't that the truth!

 

The good thing about Geocaching is that it encourages couch potatoes to get outside and get some fresh air. It's also the bad thing about Geocaching

[+JegMag]

We have sort of a reputation for having caches near PI. We don't intend to do it, as we both can have severe reactions, but it happens. We just call it our Township plant and place warnings in the cache description.

That is about all you can do.

We have one cache placement that is different everytime we go due to different weeds growing (however, no PI there, how about that?).

[+9Key]

Wow... where I live, any non-urban cache without nearby poison oak would be an anomaly.

 

If folks find it so scary and dangerous outside, maybe they'd be better off in the house.

 

DCC

 

Ain't that the truth!

 

The good thing about Geocaching is that it encourages couch potatoes to get outside and get some fresh air. It's also the bad thing about Geocaching

I couldn't agree with this more!

 

I've been pleasantly surprised at the reaction to my original post.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Shrug it off. You've seen the list of humorous complaints and suggestions gathered by the Forest Service, haven't you? Some gems:

 

"Escalators would help on steep uphill sections."

 

"Ban walking sticks in wilderness. Hikers that use walking sticks are more likely to chase animals."

 

"Trails need to be reconstructed. Please avoid building trails that go uphill."

 

"Too many bugs and leeches and spiders and spider webs. Please spray the wilderness to rid the area of these pests."

 

"Please pave the trails so they can be plowed of snow in the winter."

 

"Chairlifts need to be in some places so that we can get to wonderful views without having to hike to them."

 

"The places where trails do not exist are not well marked."

 

"Too many rocks in the mountains."

 

"Need more signs to keep area pristine."

 

And, "Warn people about the poison ivy!"

I loved your post and the examples from the Forest Service! And, it is true that for some of my Terrain 5 caches, such as one which is located on an island which is covered in poison ivy, I DO warn potential seekers of the "'hazard" of poison ivy, on the cache listing page, but the reality is that poison ivy is simply a commonplace and everyday part of nature, as are spiders, snakes, alligators, thorns, bears, lightning, gravity, hypothermia and flash floods.

 

I personally see the issue raised by the OP (9Key) as just one more sign of a major shift in the demographics of the people entering our sport. We are seeing an increasingly larger number of persons entering the world of geocaching who cannot exercise responsibility and accountability for their own actions, and who are more akin to runny-nosed babies than to adults. In fact, this is a very timely thread, as I just announced an hour ago on our local forums that I am planning to archive one of my more sensitive and fragile Psycho Urban Caches, because of the mindless damage done to the container by recent seekers and left unremediated as they moved on to their next find. If I have the time before I leave (I am busy getting ready for an 8-day research field trip to Utah, Nevada and Colorado starting on Thursday , Nov. 1; I will be operating out of Salt Lake City as the home base for my adventures) I will later post a separate reply on this thread devoted just to the story of that cache and its imminent archival.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Okay, I found the time, and here is the promised follow-up post concerning details of my recent decision to archive one of my Psycho Urban caches, which is rated at a D/T rating of 4.5/5. A few hours ago, I posted the following note (it is actually a concatenation of two posts from my thread therein) to the Maryland Geocaching Society (MGS) forums:

 

Hi folks:

 

I am posting this notice as a public service announcement in light of the mini-firestorm that erupted months after I archived Psycho Urban Cache #4 - Where is Padre Pio? http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...5d-98ee3d2e49fe (even though I HAD announced the planned archival well in advance via the forums...).

 

We recently temporarily disabled Psycho Urban Cache #6 - Downtown Wuthering Heights http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...c3-7f29a87d0000 , a sister cache to the above-mentioned and now-archived PUC #4, in light of the repeated damage that the container(s) have suffered after having been accidentally knocked to the ground by a number of previous finders and seekers. After a month of reflection upon the matter, and after learning that an out-of-state cacher went after this cache this weekend (despite the fact that it was listed as disabled), and then later notified us that the last finder had left behind a magnet and a torn piece of duct tape on the pole as a remnant of the cache, I have largely decided to archive this cache. Here's why:

 

I feel that this cache "...has had it run". Not all caches are meant to stay active forever. The sad fact is that a majority of the finders and seekers have, while retrieving the cache or replacing it, managed to knock the container to the ground, thus shattering the container and destroying it (a good number of them have then taped the cache container together and replaced it, which is admittedly a very temporary and makeshift solution.) While I bear no blame toward any of the folks who have dropped and damaged the container(s), I also have no interest in repeatedly playing "lets-fix-the-damage" in the wake of those less-than-optimal retrieval efforts. I also do not like keeping active ANY cache of mine which turns into a high-maintenance cache, as has this one.

 

Actually, as one long-term cacher mentioned to me recently at an event, in many ways, my decision to archive this cache, and my reason for doing so, is a reflection of a massive shift in the demographics or this sport, a shift which had already started by the time that Sue and I entered the caching world in early 2005. At one time in the history of a sport, if a finder had accidentally destroyed the container while hunting a 4.5/5 cache, they would have promptly replaced the container with a new one before restoring it to its hide spot. And indeed, it is true that the early finders of this cache, and of its sister cache PUC #6, took great care in handling the cache container so that it was not damaged during retrieval, and, if and when damage did occur, they replaced the container promptly and competently and notified me privately of that fact.

 

However, the sport has changed, and the type of people entering the sport has shifted, and nowadays, the new breed of cachers think nothing of personal responsibility and accountability when tackling a 4.5/5 cache such as this one (the sad fact is that many of these seekers should know better than to go after a cache such as this one), and they have no qualms about destroying the container and replacing it as-is (or wrapped in a bit of duct tape or masking tape as a stop-gap measure.) And, as we have seen, the latest finders have simply left a rusty magnet and a piece of torn tape sitting on the pole as they logged a "find". (Hello?... Earth to Mars?) This type of behavior is not my cup of tea, as I have no desire to play nanny to the messes left behind by runny-nosed babies, and so I will be archiving this cache in about two weeks, upon my return from my upcoming field trip to the Rockies.

 

One point that several veteran cachers -- both local and from across the world -- have made to me lately regarding this phenomenon is that we are seeing an increase in the number of incidents where reckless cachers knowingly choose to tackle caches that are well beyond their ability level in terms of Difficulty or Terrain, or both, and then they leave behind a path of destruction in the wake of their efforts (worse, in some cases that we are seeing in other states, they either get injured or shot at by irate landowners.) It is simply NOT my intention to support that infantile subset of the caching community. In the case of PUC #6, there is also a modest amount of grace and stealth that is expected of all seekers, and I am hearing repeatedly that such qualities are falling by the wayside more and more as the unqualified lumpen proletariat try their hand at such caches. In fact, if the truth be known, I am considering archiving a few of my other Psycho Urban Caches due to the same concerns.

 

This notice is being posted as a public service because of the volume of complaints which I received after archiving PUC #4 last year.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+briansnat]

Is it my responsibility as a cache owner to warn about every possible danger that a cacher might encounter?

 

No, but I think known, hidden dangers should be mentioned.

 

PI isn't exactly a hidden danger. I've found caches hidden among patches of PI and I remember thinking "What was this moron thinking when he hid it here?", but it was my choice to continue with the hunt.

[+Mama Cache]

I don't think you need to carry that responsiblity. Some of us are in fact, PI ignorant. I have gotten half my cases by standing in it, wondering if it is really it!

I have also made educated choice to go for it! That is usually followed by a DR's visit! LOL!

But hey! I signed the log! My husband asks "why do you do it?" Simple because it is FUN!!

 

You keep hiding them 9key and I will find them!

[+Clothahump]

I had an incident this weekend where a cacher visit one of my new caches and got very upset that there was poison ivy near the first stage. They left this in their log: "you obviously have little concern for others when you place a cache that could be very dangerous for others".

 

???

 

I thought it was pretty much a requirement that there be poison ivy or thorns or bears or something along those lines to make it interesting.

 

 

 

[+Zop]

I too would expect to see a note in the description or attributes for any known potential dangers but let's face it... PI or out here PO is a very common place among urban or rural caches. I expect it as much as I would expect getting wet in the rain .

 

Fortunately, I can roll around in the stuff only to complain that my feet hurt from the hike.

 

We all have to agree to the terms and conditions of using the site and the disclaimer clearly states that the Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

Should I complain about a tick? Snake bite? Spider bite? Twisted ankle? I suppose I would have every right to complain (free speech) but for anyone to take me seriously? Uhuh..

 

Let it slide but out of curtesy, you may want to make mention of the ivy in the description.

[+Bamboogirl]

"I had an incident this weekend where a cacher visit one of my new caches and got very upset that there was poison ivy near the first stage. They left this in their log: "you obviously have little concern for others when you place a cache that could be very dangerous for others"."

 

Oh please. Unless there's rattlesnakes, PI or PO, a couple of spiders and maybe an enraged ground squirrel around, where's the fun of the hide? We have a rule in my house - my husband sticks his hands in places to get a cache (ewww, spiders!) and I do the squishy mud grabs. PO and rattlesnakes and spiders are expected factors in a cache hunt.

 

Loved the Forest Service warnings. There are a few folks I've seen hiking where we live that are just annoyed as heck at the intrusion Nature makes on their afternoon jaunts. Folks that don't want to face any itchy plants or other challenges should perhaps stick to low terrain ratings or wide paved trails.

 

To calm the traumatized cache hunters, maybe posting a picture of PI in the description and leaving a little bottle of Tencu would help?

[+Snoogans]

Is it my responsibility as a cache owner to warn about every possible danger that a cacher might encounter?

 

No, but I think known, hidden dangers should be mentioned.

 

PI isn't exactly a hidden danger. I've found caches hidden among patches of PI and I remember thinking "What was this moron thinking when he hid it here?", but it was my choice to continue with the hunt.

 

Did I skim past mention of it? There are cache attributes for most of the dangers/complaints mentioned.

 

I hid 4 NEW caches this weekend. All but 1 has the poison plant and thorn attribute displayed.

 

Folks are mentioning the P.I. near my caches in their logs, but not in an accusatory way.

[4wheelin_fool]

You obviously have little concern for the poison ivy plant which could get damaged by the cache seekers. But don't worry about it, it's a good muggle deterrent.

Edited October 29, 2007 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Sagefox]

If he hides a cache in winter, when there is no PI is he then responsible to go back and check it later to make sure that PI hasn't sprouted up around it. Does he need to check every cache to make sure that conditions haven't changed since he's hidden it?

 

I say Nope! We lived in poison oak country for 30 years. When you go outside - you keep your eyes open for it.

 

I have hidden and found caches where just such a condidion existed. Comments on the cache page will let you know if trouble arises in the spring. For hiders, you can either move the cache or edit the cache page to add the warning.

 

In fairness to visitors that don't know what the stuff is it would be a good idea to do one or the other.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Two cases of Lyme disease later, and a wonderful case of allergic dermatitis (that might have started off as poison ivy.) Nope. It's my responsibility to beware of the dangers of geocaching. As someone said, once you get out of the city, here's PI and ticks everywhere. Not to mention bears.

[+BlueDeuce]

Poison ivy will typically thrive in areas where they mow the grass along the trails. Right on the edge between grass and woods.

 

There, you've been warned.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I had an incident this weekend where a cacher visit one of my new caches and got very upset that there was poison ivy near the first stage. They left this in their log: "you obviously have little concern for others when you place a cache that could be very dangerous for others".

 

Frankly I thought this was rather a ridiculous statement as you always can walk away from a cache. No one is forcing you to walk through poison ivy, and in this case it could be avoided by approaching from a few yards to the north or from the west.

 

Is it my responsibility as a cache owner to warn about every possible danger that a cacher might encounter? Isn't that covered in the disclaimer?

If I hide a 5/5 and someone goes for it and they do not have the required skills to do the cache am I responsible if they get hurt?

 

How much responsibility do I have as a cacher to walk away if conditions would hurt or make me uncomfortable, or if I am not prepared like the case in question?

No, now it is your responsibility to eradicate all poison ivy within or about a 1/4 mile radius of said cache and maintain the constant eradication thereof for a period of twelve months or the duration of twelve lunar cycles, whichever comes first.

[+Snoogans]

Two cases of Lyme disease later, and a wonderful case of allergic dermatitis (that might have started off as poison ivy.) Nope. It's my responsibility to beware of the dangers of geocaching. As someone said, once you get out of the city, here's PI and ticks everywhere. Not to mention bears.

 

[+Prime Suspect]

Not to mention bears.

 

But you should mention them. They're America's #1 threat!

 

[+simpjkee]

If that dude is scared of poison ivy he should have walked away. your cache is fine and I look forward to logging it found since my goal is to find every cache on the planet tommorrow.

[+Dawgies]

Responsibility?????

 

I've never placed a beer can cache in an alley in downtown gang land, but I did go find it at 3 in the morning.

 

You have some fantastic caches out there 9key!

 

One never knows what they're getting into, but can be sure it's gonna be fun!

[anital76]

I just read the replies in this thread and cant help but wonder..... why would anyone want to do a sport that takes you into fields and bush if they were that concerned about poison ivy? Sorry I am new to geocaching, but grew up in the bush... PI is a fact of life, if they are that concerned about it they can carry a bottle of water with them to rinse off their hands after handling the cache (ie to wash off as much PI toxins as possible). Also it should be a given to wear long pants walking through the bush which would help to aviod it on your legs.

 

As for bears, snakes, spiders, etc..... they all move so you never know if they will be around or not (bears have HUGE territories, though they also generally wont stay around long if they hear you talking..... you would likely smell a bear though never actually see it)

[+9Key]

I just read the replies in this thread and cant help but wonder..... why would anyone want to do a sport that takes you into fields and bush if they were that concerned about poison ivy?

Great question! Just to complain about it I guess.

[+sbell111]

or they primarily don't go after 'off the beaten path' caches.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I know I have already commented about the matter in this thread, but it still amazes me that someone who lives in North America could complain about poison ivy. I visited the cache listing page for 9Key's cache in question last nite to read the logs in question, and, after having read them, I could not avoid leaving the following note:

I just stumbled upon this page, and, after reading some of the more recent logs, I am stunned. Sheesh... no insult intended, 9Key, but you all must live in a very wimpy and sterile part of the country if your locals are so spoiled and innocent that they would dare to complain about poison ivy. Sounds like they should stick to mall caches and parking lot park-n-grabs. Where I live, and indeed in most places across the USA and around the world where I have cached, poison ivy, spiders, rattlesnakes, other venemous reptiles, thorns, poison oak and sumac, bees, wasps, raging floodwaters, unmarked open pits and wells, sheer cliffs and the ever-present force of gravity, bears, rabid bats, rabid skunks, rabid raccoons, ticks, hantavirus, typhus, bubonic plague (no, I am not joking) and Lyme disease are simply a given, and are all part of the fun.

 

I would soo hate to see your local cachers who complain about poison ivy go caching in the rural "no man's land" outlaw regions of Nicaragua or India, where at any turn in the road you can encounter a roadblock set up by armed bandits or an armed rebel group who want to blow your head off because you say you want to travel on "their road" to reach something called a "geocache." Wow. And, golly, don't let your locals go after the legacy cache -- dating back to 2001 -- which is located just on a ridgetop just a mile from our home, and which is one of the oldest caches in Maryland; the cache is located in a rattlesnake den on a bear-infested mountain. At this cache, you gratefully slither through the poison ivy on your belly in hopes of avoiding at least the majority of the ever-vigilant bears and rattlesnakes. And, don't let them go after our Psycho Urban Cache #9, the final stage of which is located in the abandoned reactor housing of a 1960's research nuclear reactor, where high levels of ionizing radiation are the least of the worries facing seekers, where the toxic wastes and the flea-borne thypus and plague pose much more of an immediate threat than the radiation, and where you are sure that there are little red eyes in the viscous yellow sludge in the toxic waste pit which are watching you.

 

Well, now I finally know why God invented Park-n-Grab caches; I guess that is all that some able-bodied people can handle nowadays.

[+Arrow One]

Oh Geeze!! Some people think they have to make a comment about any cache they dont like that they cant find, due to whatever it is they dont like. (poison Ivy, thorns, water, whatever) I am not affected by poison ivy / oak etc... and a lot of caches around here are in or near thorns and stuff. Duh! You're OUTSIDE! The stuff grows. If you have a problem with certian plants or whatever, dont look for those caches. They cant all be lamp post hides.

 

Ok... I'm done ranting