The cache is part of the trash.

20.7k · January 3, 2008

I don't understand why this thread is so angsty.

Most people, I think, agree that they don't like trashy areas. For this reason, we promote CITO to clean up the trash.

Caches disguised as trash almost uniformly are hidden in trashy areas.

Caches hidden in these areas identify the problem that we make an effort to do away with. Cachers should be CITOing in these areas.

A cache disguised as trash might very well be lost because it is picked up with the trash. This is no different than the fact that my cache containers that are disguised as acorns could very well be carried off by fauna. If the cache goes missing, the cache owner will choose whether to replace it and, if the area no langer contains trash, might very well change the container to something else.

3.2k · January 3, 2008

The abandonment of good CITO practices. Cache In, Trash Out? Leaving trash at a location, even to camouflage the cache, goes against the whole second half of the title. C'mon now!
As you may recall, many posters in this thread have correctly pointed out that a fake-trash cache is not trash; it is a geocache disguised to look like trash.
As the guidelines say: For all physical caches and waypoints, think carefully about how your container and the actions of geocachers will be perceived by the public. If it looks like trash to the public, it is trash to the public.

I agree, but again, that doesn’t make fake-trash caches any different from most other types of geocaches, and your (correct) point is therefore not a reason to be specifically against fake trash caches. Almost any existing geocache can be reasonably mistaken for trash by an uninformed muggle; should all those caches be considered inappropriate as well?

As you prepare to parse out that last statement and split hairs, keep in mind that other posters have also pointed out that any geocache can be described as trash, depending on one’s point of view. What would you have thought if you’d found a piece of gladware in the woods back before you’d ever heard of Geocaching? Is it not reasonable to assume that any muggle is capable of mistaking any geocache as trash, especially if they are completely unaware of the game? Based on such a subjective interpretation (remember "subjective?") wouldn't that potentially require ALL caches to be removed under some folks' definition of "Trash Out?"

A fake-trash cache is not trash any more than a fake-birdhouse cache is a birdhouse. C'mon now!

The important difference is that the public will react favorably to a birdhouse, be it a real or a fake one, while they will react negatively to trash, be it trash or cache.

Agreed, but as you and I have also agreed: it totally depends on how it’s done. I have never been in favor of creating an eyesore where one does not already exist; besides, what sense would it make to put a fake piece of trash in a place where it’s going to stand out? The whole point of camouflage, by its very definition, is to blend in. Using a fake beer can as "camouflage" by leaving it all by itself in an otherwise pristine place doesn’t make any more sense than leaving a fake birdhouse lying on a beach or placing a treebark-encrusted ammo can in the middle of a parking lot. That’s not to suggest those things won’t be tried – cache hiders come in all flavors of competence – but in my observation it’s not an existing problem.

The creation of caches which employ warm steaming piles of dog poop as camouflage. The suggestion you keep referring to here was meant to be funny, as far as I can see. It's called irony.
I don’t think it was meant as a mere joke. I think TWU intended to ridicule my statements by equating the caches being defended by me and others in this thread with something hypothetical and ridiculous. It wasn’t ironic. At the very least it was an irrelevant exaggeration of my position – or more technically speaking, a Slippery Slope fallacy.
I think my real issue with the usage of this position is that almost everyone knows that the concept of making a cache out of "warm steaming piles of dog poop" is utterly ridiculous. Nobody's arguing the point but you. Do I hear a horse laughing?

I didn’t say it was NOT utterly ridiculous, and I wasn’t the one arguing the point; TWU was.

He presented the dog poop cache as a cartoonishly ridiculous example of what he wanted to imply certain folks were arguing in favor of. Intentional or not, it was an effort to confuse the issue with obfuscation instead of debating the issue with reason – that’s what made it a fallacy. He chose to imply what a terrible idea his fictitious dog poop cache would be instead of directly objecting to anything anyone had actually said in the thread.

3.2k · January 3, 2008

Overall, I think "traches" (apologies for using a term that has been used to put other types of caches down, but in this thread, the word works to cover the definition of the caches being discussed) are a bad idea as they are designed to look like litter. As the guidelines say: For all physical caches and waypoints, think carefully about how your container and the actions of geocachers will be perceived by the public. If it looks like trash to a muggle, it is trash to a muggle. If they find out that that trash is a geocache, they are more likely to associate geocaches with trash.

On the other hand, I think a geocache that utilizes such camouflage can be clever and in the right location, appropriate. The conditions necessary to make it clever and appropriate vs. nasty and just wrong are as yet undefined for me, one of the reasons for my interest in this thread ...

... I think we are on the same page here.

Thanks for providing your own viewpoint. It appears to me that your opinion and my opinion on this subject are similar enough that the differences are not worth arguing about. As I said in one of my earliest posts in this thread:

Common sense. Judgment call. No two people will draw the line in exactly the same place; therefore there is plenty of room for reasonable disagreement.

I’m glad it’s not a very common hide method, but I still say I don’t think ALL trash-camo caches are bad.

People in this thread have brought up some very good arguments, and they have presented some interesting viewpoints I had not previously considered. It has been enough to make me re-think the issue myself and to be a little less certain about my own original point of view.

Maybe I’ve returned the favor as well. Even if I haven’t, this thread has been very worthwhile for me.

Before I can explain which of your statements is a strawman I must first accuse you of committing a strawman, which I have not done.

I apologize for accusing you of doing such. Forum participants in other discussions have tried this tactic to obfuscate the issue, and I was having a knee-jerk pre-action.

No worries. I sort of figured it was something like that.

I think there’s certainly one point here where you and I can both completely agree: "Knee-Jerk Pre-Action" would be an awesome name for a rock band, a mixed drink, or a race horse. :anibad:

2.2k · January 3, 2008

The ammocan is typically hidden from sight, it isn't an added eyesore.

While reading through this thread, that is the one thing that kept going through my mind. An ammo can hidden away out of sight of the public is a lot different than something disguised as trash and left in plain sight.

I've only found one cache disguised as litter, it was a micro glued to the bottom of a crushed pop can. I thought it was a brilliant cammo job and praised the owner for it. However, it was hidden from the general public in between some rocks so that likely only someone Geocaching would see it, let along stumble across it. Heck, I DNF'ed it the first time because it was so well hidden in it's spot. That same hide thrown down in the middle of a vacant lot in plain sight is not a clever hide, it is just adding to the litter issue.

I would expect if I were to just drop an ammo can in the middle of the forest a lot of the general public would consider it littering too.

Why anyone would see a trashy area and then decide that would be a good place to bring other cachers is beyond me in the first place.

2.2k · January 3, 2008

...but I wonder how many have found caches that bothered them due to trash, location, or whatever and just either walked away or got the smiley and left a "TNLNSL" and the cache owner has no idea the cache might be a problem.

I have done both, but I made my comments in my log -- either a Note saying "Not a nice location for a search so I passed this one by." or my Found log stating "Glad to get this one off the list so I don't need to come back to this location again."

2.5k · January 4, 2008

If it looks like trash to the public, it is trash to the public.
I agree, but again, that doesn’t make fake-trash caches any different from most other types of geocaches, and your (correct) point is therefore not a reason to be specifically against fake trash caches. Almost any existing geocache can be reasonably mistaken for trash by an uninformed muggle; should all those caches be considered inappropriate as well?

I like DanOCan's thoughts on this:

...An ammo can hidden away out of sight of the public is a lot different than something disguised as trash and left in plain sight... I would expect if I were to just drop an ammo can in the middle of the forest a lot of the general public would consider it littering too.

A fake-trash cache is not trash any more than a fake-birdhouse cache is a birdhouse. C'mon now!
The important difference is that the public will react favorably to a birdhouse, be it a real or a fake one, while they will react negatively to trash, be it trash or cache.
Agreed, but as you and I have also agreed: it totally depends on how it’s done.

All I'm saying is if camo is done in a way that adds to an eyesore, I don't think it should be done. Doesn't matter how much it blends in. If it is blending with trash, it is adding to the eyesore.

He presented the dog poop cache as a cartoonishly ridiculous example of what he wanted to imply certain folks were arguing in favor of. Intentional or not, it was an effort to confuse the issue with obfuscation instead of debating the issue with reason – that’s what made it a fallacy. He chose to imply what a terrible idea his fictitious dog poop cache would be instead of directly objecting to anything anyone had actually said in the thread.

He made the statement once, then you bring it up 3 more times, even after he suggests you take it to PM's.

I will go to PM, rather then turn this into the TWU and KBI show.

I think he had the right idea, as this portion of the discussion has little value to the topic, especially since we both agree the idea wasn't serious, so I'm done with this part of the discussion here. If you'd like to talk more about doggy-doo, PM me.

Uhh...

On second thought...

Don't.

:anicute:

2.5k · January 4, 2008

I think there’s certainly one point here where you and I can both completely agree: "Knee-Jerk Pre-Action" would be an awesome name for a rock band, a mixed drink, or a race horse.

As I don't have the talent to start a rock band or the money to buy a race horse, I'm going to have to vote for the drink.

If you ever fly into MHT, we'll have to go find some traches together (reasearch for the thread, you know...) and then find a bar where we can develop the drink. :anicute:

3.2k · January 4, 2008

You're on!

I'll buy.

Let's get trached.

January 4, 2008

I agree, but again, that doesn’t make fake-trash caches any different from most other types of geocaches, and your (correct) point is therefore not a reason to be specifically against fake trash caches. Almost any existing geocache can be reasonably mistaken for trash by an uninformed muggle; should all those caches be considered inappropriate as well?

While muggles may see geocaching as littering. I think even a muggle would see a large difference between placing a nice container, camoed nicely, and filled with a clean log and nice items, and a crunched up pop can or beer bottle with a piece of paper inside. Most caches placed out in the open are camoed in a way that the majority of muggles wouldn't even notice them. But a smashed can laying on the ground, everyone notices despite the intent. And every person thinks it's a piece of trash. The difference between cachers and muggles is that we'll pick it up to look for a log.

While they are a creative container, they're not very practical in the sense that they do stand out and degrade their surroundings. I would, personally, be just as put off by an ammo can or bucket, etc. sitting right out in the open with no camo. And although there may be some of those out there, have not seen any in my limited caching history.

When I first found out about caching, I was really impressed to see the numbers of members who CITO. I didn't realize that it was a part of geocaching, and it really spoke to me as a newbie. I'd like to think that the majority of members on here feel the same way. I hope I'm not wrong about that.

While I'm not an environmental activist, I do see the value in keeping our planet clean the way nature was intended. And while I think there are many opportunities for some very creative containers, I don't think all of them have a good practical use. There might be the rare place that they could fit in without degrading the surroundings, but I don't think they should just be placed anywhere.

A beer can sitting on a windowsill outside of a bar would be funny and wouldn't trash up the surroundings as it would fit in there. Or, if you had a garbage can used specifically for a cache container and filled it with "trash" (not nasty stuff of course) and put the smashed up can on top as a container, that would be funny. Neither would promote muggles to deposit more trash in the area either. (However, the trash can concept wouldn't work well everywhere and would have to be outside a store you owned or a house or such where you could place something like that)

Edited January 4, 2008 by elmuyloco5

3.2k · January 4, 2008

I agree, but again, that doesn’t make fake-trash caches any different from most other types of geocaches, and your (correct) point is therefore not a reason to be specifically against fake trash caches. Almost any existing geocache can be reasonably mistaken for trash by an uninformed muggle; should all those caches be considered inappropriate as well?
While muggles may see geocaching as littering. I think even a muggle would see a large difference between placing a nice container, camoed nicely, and filled with a clean log and nice items, and a crunched up pop can or beer bottle with a piece of paper inside. Most caches placed out in the open are camoed in a way that the majority of muggles wouldn't even notice them. But a smashed can laying on the ground, everyone notices despite the intent.

Only if the camouflage was botched.

If "everyone" is noticing your smashed can, then it obviously wasn't camouflaged very well, was it?

There might be the rare place that they could fit in without degrading the surroundings, but I don't think they should just be placed anywhere.

I'm with you there.

If the smashed can is lying in a place where it blends in so well as to escape anyone’s awareness, or tricks you into being the very last place in that area you'd ever think to look for the cache, then you’ve got yourself some quality caching entertainment ... at least for people like me who enjoy a stimulating challenge, that is.

If it is creating visual dissonance with its environment, however, then it's not likely to please anyone, muggle OR cacher – and it's certainly not pulling its weight in the ol' camouflage department. That makes it both bad trash AND a bad cache.

January 4, 2008

Only if the camouflage was botched.

If "everyone" is noticing your smashed can, then it obviously wasn't camouflaged very well, was it?

The problem is that this sort of container isn't typically the type that would be placed in an appropriate area and hidden in an appropriate way, as we can see from the OP. I'm not saying all "trash caches" are hidden poorly, but I have come across one in my caching and it was not "hidden" at all. I would venture to guess, by the sheer nature of these containers, that most of them are not.

They are the type of "in plain view" hides, because the hider revels in the fact that they can place this out on the ground, in plain view, and it appears to be ordinary trash. The thrill of this sort of hide is that people can walk by this container every day, kick it even as they walk past, and still they think it's a piece of trash.

While these types of hides (something hidden but in plain sight) are commendably clever, in regards to this type of container, the hide ( or lack thereof), only does a disservice to our environment. You won't be likely to find a smashed can container hidden under a log or rock. You won't be likely to find it tucked away anywhere because it's not "natural" to find trash tucked away out of sight. How often do you go out in the woods and everything looks pristine and beautiful, to only then find that you move a pile of rocks and discover a piece of trash. Not likely, I'm sure, as this doesn't follow typical human nature. And since it isn't human nature to "hide" our trash, it wouldn't be a very well camoed hide to put the smashed can container in such a spot. This is why you won't be likely to find one. I'm sure it happens, but rare at best.

This is wherein the problem lies. Because, when the hider places a container, such as the above mentioned, they have created "visual" litter. Yes, it's technically not litter to us fellow cachers (and yes it could still be trash to muggles as well as any other container....this is not an issue to fight), but "visually" it is. If you walked past the smashed can and didn't know that a cache was located there, it would look to you like litter (where as, if you walked past a place you didn't know a cache was located and saw an ammo can, you as the cacher, would probably assume it was a cache....not litter).

This "visual" litter does enough to degrade the small space it inhabits, but the larger problem is that it invites other "litter-ers" to join in the dumping. No trashed up space got the way it did in one dumping instance. These are spaces that started little by little, and the trash that then existed enticed others, too lazy to handle their refuse properly, to dump their's in the space as well. And this goes on until someone decides to clean it up.

Now, I'm not saying geocaches disguised as trash have started all, or even most, of the trash heaps in our society. The point I'm trying to make is that placing that cache out in the open (as most will be) either adds to an already existing problem in the area, or entices a new one to start.

I'm not against these containers, personally, as long as they are thoughtfully placed in a way that will not have a negative impact on it's surroundings. It's possible to be done, I just doubt that it usually is.

20.7k · January 4, 2008

Only if the camouflage was botched.

If "everyone" is noticing your smashed can, then it obviously wasn't camouflaged very well, was it?

The problem is that this sort of container isn't typically the type that would be placed in an appropriate area and hidden in an appropriate way, as we can see from the OP. ...

I wonder who gets to decide what's an 'appropriate' area or what an 'appropriate' way to hide is. My thinking is that you are not using the guidelines to make this distinction since most of the caches in question would easily meet the guidelines. Edited January 4, 2008 by sbell111

January 4, 2008

Only if the camouflage was botched.

If "everyone" is noticing your smashed can, then it obviously wasn't camouflaged very well, was it?

The problem is that this sort of container isn't typically the type that would be placed in an appropriate area and hidden in an appropriate way, as we can see from the OP. ...
I wonder who gets to decide what's an 'appropriate' area or what an 'appropriate' way to hide is. My thinking is that you are not using the guidelines to make this distinction since most of the caches in question would easily meet the guidelines.

I never mentioned anything to do with the guidelines. If you read my first post, then KBI's and then my response to him, you'll see that I've referred to "appropriate" as choosing a location that follows the idea that the hider is being a good steward of the land. The guidelines are there to protect Groundspeak and to help the new cacher learn to place a cache. The unspoken duty of a cacher goes beyond those guidelines, however, if we would like to remain caching long in the future. We must take care of our land.

I've stated all along this is my opinion of these types of caches and my opinion of the placement being appropriate. I was referring to an "appropriate" area (from my first post) as being one that the cache is placed in such a way that it would not degrade it's setting in any manner. I gave a few examples as to where I felt something like this might be possible. And in my posts, I've explained why I think that not placing the cache in an "appropriate" manner (again, my opinion) would be detrimental to it's surroundings. The OP asked for everyone's opinions, so that's what I gave.

Edited January 4, 2008 by elmuyloco5

20.7k · January 4, 2008

Only if the camouflage was botched.

If "everyone" is noticing your smashed can, then it obviously wasn't camouflaged very well, was it?

The problem is that this sort of container isn't typically the type that would be placed in an appropriate area and hidden in an appropriate way, as we can see from the OP. ...
I wonder who gets to decide what's an 'appropriate' area or what an 'appropriate' way to hide is. My thinking is that you are not using the guidelines to make this distinction since most of the caches in question would easily meet the guidelines.
I never mentioned anything to do with the guidelines. If you read my first post, then KBI's and then my response to him, you'll see that I've referred to "appropriate" as choosing a location that follows the idea that the hider is being a good steward of the land. The guidelines are there to protect Groundspeak and to help the new cacher learn to place a cache. The unspoken duty of a cacher goes beyond those guidelines, however, if we would like to remain caching long in the future. We must take care of our land.

Part of taking care of the land is picking up trash. A cache located in these trashy locations, therefore, identifies the areas and allows cachers to clean them up.

January 4, 2008

Part of taking care of the land is picking up trash. A cache located in these trashy locations, therefore, identifies the areas and allows cachers to clean them up.

That is a possible outcome. But so is what someone else said in a previous post that frequently CITOs, they didn't clean up the area because they didn't want to take away the cache's surrounding camo. I think they mentioned how torn they were and how badly they felt leaving the trash behind. It's great to go into the whole thing assuming that someone will clean up there, but unfortunately we all know what assuming does for us. Not to mention that there is a relatively small percentage of people that actually do CITO frequently. Pointing out an area that needs to be CITOed on your local caching website, or holding a CITO event is a much better way to spread the word and actually get something done about it.

20.7k · January 4, 2008

Part of taking care of the land is picking up trash. A cache located in these trashy locations, therefore, identifies the areas and allows cachers to clean them up.
That is a possible outcome. But so is what someone else said in a previous post that frequently CITOs, they didn't clean up the area because they didn't want to take away the cache's surrounding camo. I think they mentioned how torn they were and how badly they felt leaving the trash behind. It's great to go into the whole thing assuming that someone will clean up there, but unfortunately we all know what assuming does for us. Not to mention that there is a relatively small percentage of people that actually do CITO frequently. Pointing out an area that needs to be CITOed on your local caching website, or holding a CITO event is a much better way to spread the word and actually get something done about it.

Who's to say that a note couldn't be put on the cache page regarding CITO (or every cache page, for that matter). BTW, I don't see how the presence of trash would pressure a CITOer into not picking up trash.

January 4, 2008

[Who's to say that a note couldn't be put on the cache page regarding CITO (or every cache page, for that matter). BTW, I don't see how the presence of trash would pressure a CITOer into not picking up trash.

I didn't experience the instance, someone else on here did, and I doubt they were lying about their own feelings on the subject. I've seen plenty of notes on people's caches to help clean an area up, as well as trash bags in their cache container to do so. Both are great ideas, however, when I get there, the trash is still strewn everywhere, which suggests to me that the "note" isn't working.

When I place a cache, personally, I CITO the entire area "visually" within my cache (with the exception of one that required too much help.....it's not at the cache site but along the way there. It's an unfortunate area where alot of muggles hang out near a hot springs. This area, I intend to hold an event next Spring. We went to CITO it prior to releasing it as part of our series and the snows had already begun for the year and you couldn't see the trash any longer.) I don't leave it up to other cachers as I know it's unlikely that it will be cleaned up that way. It's sad, but unfortunately the truth.

I would like to think that I'm wrong in my theory, but just the fact that this thread is here shows that the sites aren't being cleaned. Do geocachers perform CITO and thus provide a huge benefit to our community, sure. Does the average cacher partake in CITO on a regualar basis, sadly no (still a great idea someone gave on another thread to award a green smiley for CITO...might get a few more members a reason to clean up).

Can you place a note on a cache? Sure. Will it encourage some cachers to clean up a bit, sure. Will it ensure that the area is totally cleaned up and therefore "change" the area for the better? Highly unlikely. A "trash" container isn't likely to encourage anyone to clean up and given that many are found in areas of garbage, it shows that it just doesn't work towards that goal in any way. CITO events and spreading the word are still the most effective ways to clean up our environment.

20.7k · January 4, 2008

Can you place a note on a cache? Sure. Will it encourage some cachers to clean up a bit, sure. Will it ensure that the area is totally cleaned up and therefore "change" the area for the better? Highly unlikely. A "trash" container isn't likely to encourage anyone to clean up and given that many are found in areas of garbage, it shows that it just doesn't work towards that goal in any way. CITO events and spreading the word are still the most effective ways to clean up our environment.

It doesn't require all geocachers.

If five pieces of trash are on the ground and you pick one up. You've made a positive change. If four of the next twenty cachers do the same thing, the location will be cleaned up.

Also, it should be noted that the only encouragement that a cacher who practices CITO should need is the presence of trash. CITOing cachers are out there. Comments made in here about not liking it when caches are hidden in trashy areas are likely made by cachers who don't CITO, in my opinion, because those that do CITO would simply remove the trash.

Edited January 4, 2008 by sbell111

20.7k · January 4, 2008

... When I place a cache, personally, I CITO the entire area "visually" within my cache ...

Interesting. I often CITO when looking for caches.

January 4, 2008

... When I place a cache, personally, I CITO the entire area "visually" within my cache ...
Interesting. I often CITO when looking for caches.

I do too, and yes there are CITOers out there. But if we could look at these caches (or even all caches placed at least a year ago---we'll give them that amount of time), what percentage have been cleaned up? I know I haven't cached for a long time, but have found many many caches sitting amongst trash. These caches aren't new. They've been there for a year or more and therefore given the CITO cachers out there an ample opportunity to clean up. If your theory worked, the sites would be clean when I happened upon them. I cleaned where I could and hand time to. I did not clean at each cache as sometimes I just didn't have the time. I wish your way worked, I really do. It's great in theory and in a perfect world, it would take care of the problem. But, I think we can see when we cache, it just doesn't do enough.

20.7k · January 4, 2008

... When I place a cache, personally, I CITO the entire area "visually" within my cache ...
Interesting. I often CITO when looking for caches.
I do too, and yes there are CITOers out there. But if we could look at these caches (or even all caches placed at least a year ago---we'll give them that amount of time), what percentage have been cleaned up? I know I haven't cached for a long time, but have found many many caches sitting amongst trash. These caches aren't new. They've been there for a year or more and therefore given the CITO cachers out there an ample opportunity to clean up. If your theory worked, the sites would be clean when I happened upon them. I cleaned where I could and hand time to. I did not clean at each cache as sometimes I just didn't have the time. I wish your way worked, I really do. It's great in theory and in a perfect world, it would take care of the problem. But, I think we can see when we cache, it just doesn't do enough.

Perhaps your local organization should work harder to get the word out that CITO is the way to go. Talking about the problem in these forums is not going to fire up your local cachers. As the man said, it's just rabble, rabble, rabble.

24.7k · January 4, 2008

... that there is a relatively small percentage of people that actually do CITO frequently. Pointing out an area that needs to be CITOed on your local caching website, or holding a CITO event is a much better way to spread the word and actually get something done about it.

A CITO event is the best way to get a spot cleaned up. However a cache does a better job than mentioning in a forum since people visit caches and some percentage (even if small) will pick up trash.

When you are talking facts you have to remember that without the cache cachers were not visiting these areas even though they could have. The cache gets us off the couch.

3.2k · January 4, 2008

Only if the camouflage was botched.

If "everyone" is noticing your smashed can, then it obviously wasn't camouflaged very well, was it?

The problem is that this sort of container isn't typically the type that would be placed in an appropriate area and hidden in an appropriate way, as we can see from the OP. I'm not saying all "trash caches" are hidden poorly, but I have come across one in my caching and it was not "hidden" at all. I would venture to guess, by the sheer nature of these containers, that most of them are not.

While these types of hides (something hidden but in plain sight) are commendably clever, in regards to this type of container, the hide ( or lack thereof), only does a disservice to our environment.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but as for me, I do not support fake-trash caches which spoil the visual attractiveness of a surrounding environment. I have repeated this position at least a dozen times now, yet people keep quoting me and arguing against me as if I’ve said the opposite.

I think it’s unfair, however, to speculate and assume that most fake-trash caches are bad, and the reason I say its unfair is because there are plenty of places where the presence or absence of one more item of refuse just doesn’t matter (see below).

This is wherein the problem lies. Because, when the hider places a container, such as the above mentioned, they have created "visual" litter. Yes, it's technically not litter to us fellow cachers (and yes it could still be trash to muggles as well as any other container....this is not an issue to fight), but "visually" it is.

This "visual" litter does enough to degrade the small space it inhabits, but the larger problem is that it invites other "litter-ers" to join in the dumping. No trashed up space got the way it did in one dumping instance. These are spaces that started little by little, and the trash that then existed enticed others, too lazy to handle their refuse properly, to dump their's in the space as well. And this goes on until someone decides to clean it up.

"Visual" litter does not necessarily degrade its surrounding environment.

There are parts of every town that STAY trashed up. In these areas one finds food wrappers, cigarette butts, cans, bottles, clothing, tires, appliances and other assorted debris pretty much everywhere – roadsides, parks, parking lots, back yards, front yards, and whatever passes for the local public landscaping. My company doesn’t always choose hotels for us in the nicest parts of town, and I see this sort of thing occasionally during my long walks.

Is it pretty? No.

Is it pervasive? Yes.

Is it permanent? Relatively speaking ... yes.

Is it natural? Well, more on that in a moment.

Some areas are worse than others, but there are plenty of urban and suburban places where cleanup efforts just don’t seem to take. A thousand cachers could CITO the place spotless, yet within a week or two you’d never know they were ever there.

I fully comprehend your point about one piece of trash, even if it’s fake, inviting more real trash, but the people who live in some of these places I’ve seen apparently need no such encouragement. In these places a fake-trash cache would blend in very effectively with what could very reasonably be called the local natural environment, and that’s by any practical definition of the word "natural." The underlying cause is the dependably consistent economics of human nature, and 10,000 years of civilization (and nearly 100 years of expensive government social programs) haven’t changed human nature. In my mind that makes the specific areas of trash I’m describing "natural." Does that sound pessimistic? Maybe so, but I don't see it changing in my lifetime.

It follows, then, that any guideline-compliant use of natural camouflage should be just as acceptable as any other guideline-compliant use of natural camouflage. From that point of view it doesn’t matter whether it’s locally natural leaves, locally natural rocks, locally natural tree bark or locally natural garbage.

It would appear from your posts that you tend to agree with me that a fake-trash cache might be okay with us as long as it’s placed under the right circumstances; that idea would appear to put us in the majority opinion, at least according to this thread. My opposition to your statement is that I don’t believe an "out in the open" fake-trash cache is necessarily bad just because it’s out in the open.

You won't be likely to find a smashed can container hidden under a log or rock. You won't be likely to find it tucked away anywhere because it's not "natural" to find trash tucked away out of sight.

I’ll repeat: Such hides as you describe, in my opinion, represent very poor understanding of the concept of "camouflage." As you point out, the use of trash-camo in such an application just doesn’t make any sense, and doesn’t seem to be relevant to the topic.

They are the type of "in plain view" hides, because the hider revels in the fact that they can place this out on the ground, in plain view, and it appears to be ordinary trash. The thrill of this sort of hide is that people can walk by this container every day, kick it even as they walk past, and still they think it's a piece of trash.

If the fake-trash camo is out in the open and in a place where people are kicking it every day as they walk past, then it really hasn’t been hidden very well, has it? Reasonable folks may disagree with me, but in my own estimation that’s a poorly planned hide, and for a variety of reasons beyond, and maybe more important than, the trash issue.

An "in plain view" hide, when it’s properly done, is not necessarily a problem just because it’s "in plain view."

I'm not against these containers, personally, as long as they are thoughtfully placed in a way that will not have a negative impact on it's surroundings. It's possible to be done, I just doubt that it usually is.

By your own admission that is speculation and not fact. I have found over a thousand caches, mostly in urban and suburban areas in dozens of different cities, states and countries, and I have not observed the problem you speculate. I’m not saying you haven’t seen it, and I can’t say it’s not out there; I’m just saying that *I* haven’t seen it, and I like to think that my survey is plenty broad enough to be a meaningful sample.

I’m totally with you on your underlying opinion, though: If it ever does become a substantial and growing issue it would likely put me off supporting ANY type of fake-trash caches.

24.7k · January 4, 2008

....While I'm not an environmental activist, I do see the value in keeping our planet clean the way nature was intended. ...

Keep in mind. Nature is indifferent. Nature doesnt care about litter, your cache, or you. We as humans care and we are variable in what we choose to care about. Some people care enough to pick up litter in the wild. Others care more about keeping the litter off the floor of their car so they toss it out the window.

Litter is wrong becasue the majority of us have chosen to believe so and have enacted laws against it to show our resolve that it's wrong. A maintainced cache isn't litter even if it uses urban cammo. Abandoned ones are litter even if they are hidden perfectly using natural camo.

You are right about perception though I'm not sure you commented on it directly. If the public thinks it's litter it is litter. Perception is reality (though not always the truth) and we have to deal with reality. The perception would make it so that not ever spot is a good spot for urban camo.

January 4, 2008

I was the one that posted that I didn't CITO the area with one of these caches present.

I am very much into CITOing and have attended 3 CITO events since April of last year (would have been 4 but my wife was not feeling well the morning of one of them so we skipped that one).

I did indeed leave the trash at this particular cache (visited after a CITO event) because if I had removed the trash, the cache would have had no place to hide, since it was out in the open and visible from 40 feet away.

I still view myself as a newbie cacher since I have only been doing this since February of last year.

Just because someone doesn't understand why I did what I did, that doesn't mean I didn't do it.

Now I look back at that experience and know that I should have gone ahead and CITOed the area anyway, even though it would have left the cache with no place to hide anymore. However, at the time, I made the decision to leave the area alone mostly because it was hidden by a very high profile hider in our area that is also very active in the local geocaching community.

Being a little more experienced now, I would make a different decision than I did then.

I don't expect that everyone will understand my decision at the time, but that is what happened.

So I can tell you from first hand experience that yes, sometimes placing a cache disguised as trash might cause a geocacher not to CITO the area. (Even if it's because he's a noob)

Edited January 4, 2008 by Stargazer22

January 4, 2008

First off, how the heck do you get all of the different quotes into one post? I have yet to figure that part out.

I do practice CITO as much as possible when I cache. We always have trash bags with us and have carried out large pieces of cardboard, etc for several miles when we have found trash. Sometimes, the items are too big or heavy, so they have to be left. In the case of my original post, we found the cache accidentally when it was kicked and we heard a clanging noise. This turned out to be the bison tube in the beer can. The beer can was used, I believe, because it is some kind of cool, collectible Daytona 500 beer can. It was not smashed, crushed, or anything. We were already picking up cans in the area while looking for the cache. Once we found the cache, we felt obligated to leave it. Now, I am not so sure that I would feel obligated to leave it anymore. I wasn't thrilled to be brought to a trash pile and was even less thrilled when it did turn out that the cache was part of the trash. There were so many other nice areas where a cache could have been left. One of the next caches we went to that was hidden by the same cacher took us to what I call a debris pile. We didn't even bother with this one and I did leave a note on the cache page that I don't look in places like this. As far as I could tell, I was the first to post anything about having to look in a debris pile. I suspect that some people may have just seen it and kept on going and never posted anything. Some people have found it and maybe they liked it, maybe they didn't and just didn't write a log about it. This pile contained large rocks, pieces of concrete, old tires and a large mound of dirt. We did not CITO this area. The sad part was that this was a cool location since it was an old rural fire department building and there were lots of other places to leave a cache.

20.7k · January 4, 2008

It might be important to mention at this point that there is a difference between a CITO event and CITO.

A CITO event is when a bunch of cachers decend on a trashy location at the same time to clean it up (and typically talk about caching and do other event stuff).

CITO is merely the act of picking up trash while geocaching. We should need no event or public reminders to CITO. I would be shocked to find that every local organization doesn't routinely ring this bell.

3.2k · January 4, 2008

We were already picking up cans in the area while looking for the cache. Once we found the cache, we felt obligated to leave it. Now, I am not so sure that I would feel obligated to leave it anymore. I wasn't thrilled to be brought to a trash pile and was even less thrilled when it did turn out that the cache was part of the trash. There were so many other nice areas where a cache could have been left.

Some people have found it and maybe they liked it ... The sad part was that this was a cool location since it was an old rural fire department building and there were lots of other places to leave a cache.

I agree with you, in that I myself probably would not have placed those caches in the debris piles and would have preferred to put them someplace more pleasant nearby. A debris pile, however, is arguably a perfectly appropriate place for trash, especially if that’s where the land owner/manager dumps his debris.

Your post sounds less like being concerned about trash, however, and more like imposing your aesthetic values on others.

If the beer can you saw truly offended you in a visual or philosophical way in and of itself strictly because it was trash in an INappropriate place, then that is the factor that should have determined your choice whether to remove the cache.

However if, as you say, you wish you’d removed it because “there were so many other nice areas where a cache could have been left,” then it sounds like you’re more interested in imposing your personal hiding style preference on others. If you think a cache should be placed in one of those other areas, nobody’s stopping you. Removing someone else’s cache simply because they didn’t adequately satisfy your personal taste, or because they didn’t put it in the location you would have chosen, is not the same as removing a cache for practical reasons.

January 4, 2008

When you are talking facts you have to remember that without the cache cachers were not visiting these areas even though they could have. The cache gets us off the couch.

Yes, it is true that a cache gets us out there to the spot. However, you are assuming that because a cacher has arrived at the site, they will do the right thing by helping to clean up. The problem is that most will find, sign the log, and leave. The site will be no better off than it was before. CITO events go for the sole purpose to clean up, and a bonus to find the cache.

there are plenty of places where the presence or absence of one more item of refuse just doesn’t matter (see below).

That is the unfortunate mentality of those who leave the trash as well. "One more bag of trash won't change this area". I'm not saying that you are littering, so don't get all crazy about it. I'm just pointing out that litter-ers have this mentality as well.

"Visual" litter does not necessarily degrade its surrounding environment.

Some areas are worse than others, but there are plenty of urban and suburban places where cleanup efforts just don’t seem to take. A thousand cachers could CITO the place spotless, yet within a week or two you’d never know they were ever there.

Visual litter always degrades the surrounding environment. Whether the cache is placed first or after the other trash has accumulated doesn't affect the fact that trash makes an area look bad. Adding to the problem doesn't improve the situation. Once piece of trash may not make much of a difference in certain areas, but that mentality used by enough people can pile up to alot of trash.

It follows, then, that any guideline-compliant use of natural camouflage should be just as acceptable as any other guideline-compliant use of natural camouflage. From that point of view it doesn’t matter whether it’s locally natural leaves, locally natural rocks, locally natural tree bark or locally natural garbage.

I haven't commented on whether things are against the guidelines, again guys, this is my opinion of the situation as I clearly expressed. I merely stated why this form of camo doesn't suit my tastes and why.

You won't be likely to find a smashed can container hidden under a log or rock. You won't be likely to find it tucked away anywhere because it's not "natural" to find trash tucked away out of sight.

I’ll repeat: Such hides as you describe, in my opinion, represent very poor understanding of the concept of "camouflage." As you point out, the use of trash-camo in such an application just doesn’t make any sense, and doesn’t seem to be relevant to the topic.

I made this comment to address what you had said about a trash cache being ok if it was hidden or tucked away. (sorry I don't have your exact quote, it's not on the page I can scroll and forgot to click the quote button....but I'm sure you know what I'm referring to). I don't think that this happens often, which was my point. And certainly, it would make no sense to hide a trash cache this way. But, that's my point. These caches are placed out in the open.

....While I'm not an environmental activist, I do see the value in keeping our planet clean the way nature was intended. ...

Keep in mind. Nature is indifferent. Nature doesnt care about litter, your cache, or you. We as humans care and we are variable in what we choose to care about. Some people care enough to pick up litter in the wild. Others care more about keeping the litter off the floor of their car so they toss it out the window.

Litter is wrong becasue the majority of us have chosen to believe so and have enacted laws against it to show our resolve that it's wrong. A maintainced cache isn't litter even if it uses urban cammo. Abandoned ones are litter even if they are hidden perfectly using natural camo.

You are right about perception though I'm not sure you commented on it directly. If the public thinks it's litter it is litter. Perception is reality (though not always the truth) and we have to deal with reality. The perception would make it so that not ever spot is a good spot for urban camo.

I'm not sure how you got out of my comments that I thought nature "cared", but so be it. I commented in my quote above that I saw the value in keeping our planet clean as nature was intended, not how nature intended it to be. I'm not personifying nature. I'm saying that before humans took over an built up areas in nature, it was clean and not full of trash. Hence, the way nature was intended to be. Yes, now it's built upon, but trash strewn about and not contained in areas designated for such matter, is not a necessary or sanitary part of human existance. Controlling and confining our trash to specific places is popluar because it's just good practice for our health as well as aesthetics.

I commented on perception here:

This is wherein the problem lies. Because, when the hider places a container, such as the above mentioned, they have created "visual" litter. Yes, it's technically not litter to us fellow cachers (and yes it could still be trash to muggles as well as any other container....this is not an issue to fight), but "visually" it is. If you walked past the smashed can and didn't know that a cache was located there, it would look to you like litter (where as, if you walked past a place you didn't know a cache was located and saw an ammo can, you as the cacher, would probably assume it was a cache....not litter).

I think it's best to agree that we disagree on some points. There's no chance on Earth that I will change my mind that litter is bad and that any cache adding to the appearance of obvious litter is doing a disservice to the environment and the geocaching community. I do feel that these containers have their place and can be used, but that they work to all of our advantages when used in a way that doesn't negatively affect our surroundings.

Edited January 4, 2008 by elmuyloco5

January 4, 2008

This from a new cacher. I started caching in the beginning of December.

Now before I start, I am not saying anyone is wrong or right in this debate. This is MY opinion only but sometimes a new perspective from a new player helps.

I was told about geocaching from a co-worker. In his explaining I heard a lot about "seeing new areas", "learning about history", "hiking", "the thrill of the hunt" "excercise" and such.

He never mentioned diging through trash, examining trash strewn ground, looking in discarded beer cans, cigarette butts, or otherwise.

His description fascinated me and I was hooked before I even fount my first cache. 49 caches later and Im still hooked. I love this sport and I tell anyone willing to take the time to listen about it. Ive seen areas Ive never been to, learned about things I didnt know and have 10 pics for every one ive posted here from the places ive been. Ive hiked mountains Ive never been on, stood on cliffs and seen views Ive never seen and loved every minute of what Im doing.

Had his description included any of the things I said he never mentioned, I would have never gone to find my first one. Had I saw this thread, I would have never gone and gotten my first cache. And had any of my 49 caches included having to dig through trash to get a smiley, I wouldnt have promoted the sport like I do.

I am fortunate enough to live in an area that cachers hide challenging caches that test my endurance, intelligence, and perseverance rather than my tolerance for handling trash. Cachers that reward my efforts with a great view, history lesson or just a good feeling when I have made the find.

Again, this is just my opinion. I am not quoting anyone but taking this thread as a whole. I am not an extremist or activist when it comes to nature. Closest I get is a cubscout leader for my boys for 5 years. That has taught me that we respect what we have. Yes, trash is out there. No, we will never clean it all up. Yes, the more we clean up, the more gets dropped. But housing developers do not build run down shacks just because the area he is building in is run down. Auto makers do not make pre-broke cars (some might debate that ) just because junk yards are filled with broke cars. And just because there is a trash filled ditch, I will not place a cache there disguised as trash because "it was already trashed up so why not and its soooo challenging for the finder". There is way too much land and oportunity out there to make a challenging cache without asking people to become trash examiners. This is too great a sport to let people that dont play or just heard about this to percieve it like that.

I look at the home page to this site and have yet to see a pic of a cacher proudly holding a discarded beer can with the previous owner's spit dripping out while standing in a trash filled ditch. I see mountains, valleys, lakes, forests, caves and places I would love to be. I would never love to be in a ditch full of trash.

Just remember, any activity will only survive if new people join. Without new people, this sport will eventually die out. And for every 1 person that will be attracted to this sport for the opportunity to examine trash for a smiley, there are a lot more that would be turned off by it if that is how they were introduced.

Again. Just my opinion. I want to have fun, and share my experiences with others. Never will I go to work and share an experience of trash digging with my co-workers and tell them what a great sport this is.

And no, I will no longer use this forum as a place to point interested people to get info. I will let them find this on their own.

18.9k · January 4, 2008

I've seen just too many caches that were a part of a pile of litter that didn't belong. Any decent CITO would haul it all out of the area.

I walk away with my cito bag filled and no cache signed when ground zero and/or logs lead me to such spots. Mind you I don't hunt the cache down and trash it out but I scoop up the litter I see and don't dig through it looking for a logbook.

3.2k · January 4, 2008

I commented in my quote above that I saw the value in keeping our planet clean as nature was intended, not how nature intended it to be. I'm not personifying nature. I'm saying that before humans took over an built up areas in nature, it was clean and not full of trash. Hence, the way nature was intended to be. Yes, now it's built upon, but trash strewn about and not contained in areas designated for such matter, is not a necessary or sanitary part of human existance.

Whether you believe it or not you are imposing your own ideals on nature, including human nature.

Nature is always changing. Local plant and animal populations are dynamic, their relationships change, the ecosphere is never constant, and Earth's very geology is constantly re-designing itself. Human existence is an integral and inseparable part of that system. To take one momentary snapshot of that ever-changing environment and say that's what was "intended to be" is not only a presumptuous speculation about the "intended" design, but assumes any particular design was ever intended in the first place.

Humans are just as natural as birds and bees; therefore human litter is no less natural than old bird nests or abandoned bee hives.

You ARE personifying nature.

It’s fine that you think trash is ugly, and, like you, I generally feel like I’ve done something worthwhile when I follow the same CITO cleanup urges as you, but trash is never going to go away. There are some places where openly visible trash is perfectly appropriate and/or intrinsically permanent.

I think it's best to agree that we disagree on some points. There's no chance on Earth that I will change my mind ....

Oh.

In that case I will not trouble you with any further responses to your posts.

8.9k · January 4, 2008

I commented in my quote above that I saw the value in keeping our planet clean as nature was intended, not how nature intended it to be. I'm not personifying nature. I'm saying that before humans took over an built up areas in nature, it was clean and not full of trash. Hence, the way nature was intended to be. Yes, now it's built upon, but trash strewn about and not contained in areas designated for such matter, is not a necessary or sanitary part of human existance.

Whether you believe it or not you are imposing your own ideals on nature, including human nature.

Nature is always changing. Local plant and animal populations are dynamic, their relationships change, the ecosphere is never constant, and Earth's very geology is constantly re-designing itself. Human existence is an integral and inseparable part of that system. To take one momentary snapshot of that ever-changing environment and say that's what was "intended to be" is not only a presumptuous speculation about the "intended" design, but assumes any particular design was ever intended in the first place.

Humans are just as natural as birds and bees; therefore human litter is no less natural than old bird nests or abandoned bee hives.

You ARE personifying nature.

It’s fine that you think trash is ugly, and, like you, I generally feel like I’ve done something worthwhile when I follow the same CITO cleanup urges as you, but trash is never going to go away. There are some places where openly visible trash is perfectly appropriate and/or intrinsically permanent.

I think it's best to agree that we disagree on some points. There's no chance on Earth that I will change my mind ....

Oh.

In that case I will not trouble you with any further responses to your posts.

I find this very hard to believe!

January 4, 2008

We were already picking up cans in the area while looking for the cache. Once we found the cache, we felt obligated to leave it. Now, I am not so sure that I would feel obligated to leave it anymore. I wasn't thrilled to be brought to a trash pile and was even less thrilled when it did turn out that the cache was part of the trash. There were so many other nice areas where a cache could have been left.

Some people have found it and maybe they liked it ... The sad part was that this was a cool location since it was an old rural fire department building and there were lots of other places to leave a cache.

I agree with you, in that I myself probably would not have placed those caches in the debris piles and would have preferred to put them someplace more pleasant nearby. A debris pile, however, is arguably a perfectly appropriate place for trash, especially if that’s where the land owner/manager dumps his debris.

Your post sounds less like being concerned about trash, however, and more like imposing your aesthetic values on others.

If the beer can you saw truly offended you in a visual or philosophical way in and of itself strictly because it was trash in an INappropriate place, then that is the factor that should have determined your choice whether to remove the cache.

However if, as you say, you wish you’d removed it because “there were so many other nice areas where a cache could have been left,” then it sounds like you’re more interested in imposing your personal hiding style preference on others. If you think a cache should be placed in one of those other areas, nobody’s stopping you. Removing someone else’s cache simply because they didn’t adequately satisfy your personal taste, or because they didn’t put it in the location you would have chosen, is not the same as removing a cache for practical reasons.

The beer can offended me because as far as I knew and was concerned, it was litter in an already littered place. I am not tryiing to impose my personal style on anything. I only meant that given a choice of hiding a cache in: 1. a litter-strewn area, or 2. an area that was not littered, why would anyone choose to hide it in the litter? Especially when the hider's cache description states this is a beautiful and scenic area.

My decision at the time to NOT remove the cache after we accidentally discovered it was more out of a feeling that it would be like stealing once I knew what it was.

24.7k · January 4, 2008

....Yes, it is true that a cache gets us out there to the spot. However, you are assuming that because a cacher has arrived at the site, they will do the right thing by helping to clean up. The problem is that most will find, sign the log, and leave. The site will be no better off than it was before. CITO events go for the sole purpose to clean up, and a bonus to find the cache....

Do you just make things up because that's how you feel? You are saying that those few who do practice CITO don't matter. I am saying that some but not all cahers will do something and that a cache will get more cachers there than no cache at all. That most may TNLNSN and go, doesn't change that some will pick something up as they leave and things will be better. For me those few do make a different.

My assumption is based on the fact that some cachers do CITO. Not all, but you only need some to make a difference. My assumption is valid unless all the cachers who admit to doing CITO are comlete liars. Even if they are all liars I know that my wife and I will pick up a bit at some caches.

CITO doesn't have to be a 100% effort at 100% of the caches to make a difference. I've never left a cache more littered than I started* but I have picked up more than a few.

* I did have one bottle fall out of my pack on the hike to a cache and I never found it on the way back out. I felt bad, but I got over it. Life happens.

January 4, 2008

Whether you believe it or not you are imposing your own ideals on nature, including human nature.

Nature is always changing. Local plant and animal populations are dynamic, their relationships change, the ecosphere is never constant, and Earth's very geology is constantly re-designing itself. Human existence is an integral and inseparable part of that system. To take one momentary snapshot of that ever-changing environment and say that's what was "intended to be" is not only a presumptuous speculation about the "intended" design, but assumes any particular design was ever intended in the first place.

Humans are just as natural as birds and bees; therefore human litter is no less natural than old bird nests or abandoned bee hives.

Personification means to apply human qualities to a non-human object or subject. I'm not sure how I'm doing that, but it's not a point worth arguing.

I agree that nature is changing. And I can see your point that human litter can be in some ways compared to a bird's nest. However, a bird's nest (given that it is using natural products and not trash from humans) is completely biodegradable. That is not true of human trash. A bird's nest, in time, will have no adverse effect on the environment. We can't say that about all human trash.

I don't think my view takes a momentary snapshot of nature. If you take humans out of the picture (hence taking away any human produced item) there would not be human produced trash. Yes, humans are part of "nature", but in this thread "nature" isn't being referred to as human. It's speaking of the land, trees, animals, etc.

As you stated that nature is changing, so is how is we live as humans. It's "natural" for humans to work at making life and their surroundings better over time (i.e. advances in medicine, inventions, environmental advances like recycling, etc). In that spirit, it is human nature to want to clear our planet of trash (or at least to confine it to specified spaces). I don't think it's out of the ordinary to want to see that. If that's imposing my ideals on nature, that's ok with me. It's in my blood to want to improve life for others. I simply know no other way to be.

It's ok that you disagree with my views. I have no problem with that. But, it still won't change "Me".

24.7k · January 4, 2008

...Had his description included any of the things I said he never mentioned, I would have never gone to find my first one. Had I saw this thread, I would have never gone and gotten my first cache. And had any of my 49 caches included having to dig through trash to get a smiley, I wouldnt have promoted the sport like I do.....

That would be your loss. The world is a big place with all kinds of people. Some of whom will dump trash in a nice spot. Not eveone has your tastes but enough do to where you can find the caches you like, even allowing for the ones you don't like.

The first thing that entered my mind when I read your post was this. If before you were born someone said "the world is a beautiful place, you will find, love, friendship and see things of wonder, but you are also going to have to deal with bullies, unfairness, corruption, and random piles of dog crap would you have chosen not to be born?

You get out of this what you bring in. You may happen on a cache near trash, but you can choose to be brash, dash to the trash and put it in your CITO stash for later disposal thus making the world a better place for the next person to come along. That's reason to smile. If it's not, that's your choice.

8.9k · January 4, 2008

...Had his description included any of the things I said he never mentioned, I would have never gone to find my first one. Had I saw this thread, I would have never gone and gotten my first cache. And had any of my 49 caches included having to dig through trash to get a smiley, I wouldnt have promoted the sport like I do.....

That would be your loss. The world is a big place with all kinds of people. Some of whom will dump trash in a nice spot. Not eveone has your tastes but enough do to where you can find the caches you like, even allowing for the ones you don't like.

The first thing that entered my mind when I read your post was this. If before you were born someone said "the world is a beautiful place, you will find, love, friendship and see things of wonder, but you are also going to have to deal with bullies, unfairness, corruption, and random piles of dog crap would you have chosen not to be born?

You get out of this what you bring in. You may happen on a cache near trash, but you can choose to be brash, dash to the trash and put it in your CITO stash for later disposal thus making the world a better place for the next person to come along. That's reason to smile. If it's not, that's your choice.

Hide what you would want to find comes to mind...

RK, I agree the cache draws people to the area and some might help to clean it up, but if that's the reason for the cache, I'd acknowledge that in the description!! That way, no one will be overly surprised by the trash in the area and can even come prepared for some CITO!!

January 4, 2008

Do you just make things up because that's how you feel? You are saying that those few who do practice CITO don't matter. I am saying that some but not all cahers will do something and that a cache will get more cachers there than no cache at all. That most may TNLNSN and go, doesn't change that some will pick something up as they leave and things will be better. For me those few do make a different.

My assumption is based on the fact that some cachers do CITO. Not all, but you only need some to make a difference. My assumption is valid unless all the cachers who admit to doing CITO are comlete liars. Even if they are all liars I know that my wife and I will pick up a bit at some caches.

CITO doesn't have to be a 100% effort at 100% of the caches to make a difference. I've never left a cache more littered than I started* but I have picked up more than a few.

* I did have one bottle fall out of my pack on the hike to a cache and I never found it on the way back out. I felt bad, but I got over it. Life happens.

I'm not making things up. You even said that only "some" will pick up any trash. Will it make a difference? Maybe a bit. But if someone picks up a small bag of trash from a huge pile, little overall improvement is made. Is it some, yes.....enough to really improve the area...no. If most cachers picked up, then yes.

I didn't say CITOers don't matter, please don't put words in my mouth. I also never said that anyone who claims to CITO is lying, again please don't imply that I am. I'm not in any way against a cacher picking up at a cache. I do it myself and think it's great when others do too. But, I do believe there are too few of us willing to do it, to really clean up an entire area that is deeply trashed that a cache is placed in. Without a concentrated effort through CITO events, a large expanse will be highly unlikely to ever be completely cleaned up by waiting for the few CITOers (and by few, I mean in percentage when compared to the total numbers of cachers out there) to clean up a bit each time they cache.

My point was not directed at the overall effort of CITO, nor was it directed at the overall benefit that cachers have given by CITO while they are out caching. But, I think that you know that. You appear to be trying to pick a fight where none is needed. I'm not interested in an argument with you RK. I'm allowed to my opinions on here, no differently than you are. I never tried to change anyone's mind. I have stated from the beginning that these were MY personal feelings about the subject. Let's try to be nice.

3.2k · January 4, 2008

There's no chance on Earth that I will change my mind ....

In that case I will not trouble you with any further responses to your posts.

I find this very hard to believe!

What would be the point? Would you respond?

"There's no chance on Earth that I will change my mind" is a pretty strong stance. He has made it crystal clear to us that his mind is closed, and that he will not consider anything else anyone has to say on the subject.

I like elmuyloco5, but with that statement he has gone from debating to pontificating. I therefore see no logical reason to respond to elmuyloco5 in this thread any further.

January 4, 2008

There's no chance on Earth that I will change my mind ....

In that case I will not trouble you with any further responses to your posts.

I find this very hard to believe!

What would be the point? Would you respond?

"There's no chance on Earth that I will change my mind" is a pretty strong stance. He has made it crystal clear to us that his mind is closed, and that he will not consider anything else anyone has to say on the subject.

I like elmuyloco5, but with that statement he has gone from debating to pontificating. I therefore see no logical reason to respond to elmuyloco5 in this thread any further.

First of all, I'm not a "he". Secondly, I've read everyone's side, and even stated that I can see some people's points about certain aspects. But I consider my views on cleaning up the world/ keeping the world clean as part of my personal morals and values. If you call this "closed minded" then I guess I am. I call it standing for what I believe in, and keeping my moral belief system intact. I would feel like a hypocrite not to. I never said I wasn't willing to listen to your side. I simply said that sometimes we should agree to disagree as you wouldn't change my mind about this subject. Would you rather I lie to you?

Edited January 4, 2008 by elmuyloco5

January 4, 2008

...Had his description included any of the things I said he never mentioned, I would have never gone to find my first one. Had I saw this thread, I would have never gone and gotten my first cache. And had any of my 49 caches included having to dig through trash to get a smiley, I wouldnt have promoted the sport like I do.....

That would be your loss. The world is a big place with all kinds of people. Some of whom will dump trash in a nice spot. Not eveone has your tastes but enough do to where you can find the caches you like, even allowing for the ones you don't like.

The first thing that entered my mind when I read your post was this. If before you were born someone said "the world is a beautiful place, you will find, love, friendship and see things of wonder, but you are also going to have to deal with bullies, unfairness, corruption, and random piles of dog crap would you have chosen not to be born?

You get out of this what you bring in. You may happen on a cache near trash, but you can choose to be brash, dash to the trash and put it in your CITO stash for later disposal thus making the world a better place for the next person to come along. That's reason to smile. If it's not, that's your choice.

I feel there is a difference when i find a cache NEAR trash that can be picked up on my way out and a cache that is trash among other trash for the sole purpose of having people dig through the trash to find the cache that is trash. Wow, that was a mouthful. I can feel good finding a cache in a nice area that has some trash around because I can clean up the trash when i get done logging and the site will be much nicer for the next cacher. I cannot feel good about a site that is trash and the cache is trash. If i clean it, i eliminte the cache. If i dont, great, I dug through trash to get a smiley, left a trash pile, do not have anything memorable to glean from it and accomplished nothing. If I avoit it (my option of choice), it again accomplishes nothing for the sport, the site, or the chance muggle that actually finds the cache and wonders who in their right mind plays a game of hide and go seek in a trash pile.

I see nothing good that comes of hiding caches in trash. Fine. There is trash around. We cant do anything about it so lets play a game with it. Why? For the challenge? I have found enough caches so far that were very challenging without having to sift through trash.

And I see your analogy about being born into a world with good and bad. I know that with everything there is good and bad. But i find it funny that in your analogy, you refer trash caches as "bullies, unfairness, corruption, and random piles of dog crap" but yet people find this sort of caching acceptable. And your analogy is there is caches in beautiful scenic areas then there are caches in "bullies, unfairness, corruption, and random piles of dog crap" and it cant be helped. Yes it can. Take pride in our caches.

The main reason my wife and I have not hid a cache is we are doing research, finding a great area that people will thank us for getting them to, and being proud of it. Anyone can find a ditch full of trash, toss a pop can with a log inside into the pile and call it a cache. I choose to be inventive and thoughtful of my caches.

January 4, 2008

From where I see it, we are living in an era where its normal to have TV shows about people purposely doing stunts to hurt themselves or someone else (Jackass comes to mind) or seeing who can outdo themselves by eating the most disgusting thing (too many shows to name here). We have extreme everything nowadays and a lot of the time its to see how far we can push the limits. Thats fine if you are into that kinda stuff but I just dont see it in this sport (woah dude. I just found a cache in the bottom of that full septic tank).

Push the limits of intellect if ya want. Push the limits of endurance. Push the limits of creativity. Those all fit so well in this hobby. But why gravitate to mainstream ideas of disgusting? There is no point.

8.9k · January 4, 2008

There's no chance on Earth that I will change my mind ....

In that case I will not trouble you with any further responses to your posts.

I find this very hard to believe!

What would be the point? Would you respond?

"There's no chance on Earth that I will change my mind" is a pretty strong stance. He has made it crystal clear to us that his mind is closed, and that he will not consider anything else anyone has to say on the subject.

I like elmuyloco5, but with that statement he has gone from debating to pontificating. I therefore see no logical reason to respond to elmuyloco5 in this thread any further.

I was just "funnin'" with you KBI....carry on!! But to answer your question...SURE! I'd see that as a challenge! :unsure:

January 4, 2008

Heres my opinion as a noob to caching:

If I was searching for a particular cache and ended up at a pile of strewn garbage, I would walk away and not search for the cache. The last thing I want to do in any hobby is rummage through trash. Think about broken bottles and sharp tin or aluminum cans found in most trash and not to mention improperly disposed needles or anyother type of waste people might through out such as baby diapers.

I might make an exception or two. For example, a couple of forested areas where Ive mountain biked have had automobiles abandoned/dumped maybe 50 years ago. So youve got these old rusted-out shells of cars sitting in the middle of no-where with trees and bush overgrowing them. Id consider this to be big trash and to not belong there and many would call it an eyesore. I dont think these cars are going anywhere as any attempt to remove them would likely cause more damage to land and trees than the cars are doing by sitting there. Back on topic... I would consider placing a cache that may resemble a piece of one of these cars in the vicinity of where these cars sit.

This may seem contradictory or hypocritical but I just cant see the appeal of actual trash.

3.2k · January 4, 2008

There's no chance on Earth that I will change my mind ....

In that case I will not trouble you with any further responses to your posts.

I find this very hard to believe!

What would be the point? Would you respond?

"There's no chance on Earth that I will change my mind" is a pretty strong stance. He has made it crystal clear to us that his mind is closed, and that he will not consider anything else anyone has to say on the subject.

I like elmuyloco5, but with that statement he has gone from debating to pontificating. I therefore see no logical reason to respond to elmuyloco5 in this thread any further.

First of all, I'm not a "he". Secondly, I've read everyone's side, and even stated that I can see some people's points about certain aspects. But I consider my views on cleaning up the world/ keeping the world clean as part of my personal morals and values. If you call this "closed minded" then I guess I am. I call it standing for what I believe in, and keeping my moral belief system intact. I would feel like a hypocrite not to. I never said I wasn't willing to listen to your side. I simply said that sometimes we should agree to disagree as you wouldn't change my mind about this subject. Would you rather I lie to you?

Nope, not at all. I appreciate your honesty and I respect your principles. I get enough crap for expressing my own principles of fairness and tolerance; I completely understand.

As I said before, this thread has made me reexamine my own points of view on these caches. You and I have much more in common that we have differences, and of course I mean no personal offense. I just think you should be more willing to at least consider other points of view, even if you choose to reject them. Saying "There's no chance on Earth that I will change my mind" almost makes it sound like you’re afraid to do so, that you don't want to hear anything that might cause you to reconsider.

And my apologies for the "he" thing. If there has been any previous indication of your gender I must have missed it. :unsure:

3.2k · January 4, 2008

From where I see it, we are living in an era where its normal to have TV shows about people purposely doing stunts to hurt themselves or someone else (Jackass comes to mind) or seeing who can outdo themselves by eating the most disgusting thing (too many shows to name here). We have extreme everything nowadays and a lot of the time its to see how far we can push the limits. Thats fine if you are into that kinda stuff but I just dont see it in this sport (woah dude. I just found a cache in the bottom of that full septic tank).

Push the limits of intellect if ya want. Push the limits of endurance. Push the limits of creativity. Those all fit so well in this hobby. But why gravitate to mainstream ideas of disgusting? There is no point.

Your version of what is pleasant and what is unpleasant is not likely the same as mine or anyone else's.

You can bypass any cache you don't like. There is room in this game for a wide variety of preferences. Please don't presume to tell me what I should and shouldn't enjoy.

January 4, 2008

Heres my opinion as a noob to caching:

If I was searching for a particular cache and ended up at a pile of strewn garbage, I would walk away and not search for the cache. The last thing I want to do in any hobby is rummage through trash. Think about broken bottles and sharp tin or aluminum cans found in most trash and not to mention improperly disposed needles or anyother type of waste people might through out such as baby diapers.

I might make an exception or two. For example, a couple of forested areas where Ive mountain biked have had automobiles abandoned/dumped maybe 50 years ago. So youve got these old rusted-out shells of cars sitting in the middle of no-where with trees and bush overgrowing them. Id consider this to be big trash and to not belong there and many would call it an eyesore. I dont think these cars are going anywhere as any attempt to remove them would likely cause more damage to land and trees than the cars are doing by sitting there. Back on topic... I would consider placing a cache that may resemble a piece of one of these cars in the vicinity of where these cars sit.

This may seem contradictory or hypocritical but I just cant see the appeal of actual trash.

Now see, this is a great post. A car dumped 50 years ago rusting away in a forest surrounded by trees and brush is one thing. Can you CITO it out? No. Will it ever be gotten out? Probably not. Yes it is trash. But you are talking about historical trash that WOULD do more harm getting it out than leaving it be. There will NEVER be any historical significance to an empty beer can in a ditch filled with 40 other cans, fast food wrappers, discarded trash, used needles and who knows what else.

I see fun photo ops with the car abandoned 50 years ago. I see nothing resembling that with the beer can or cigg butt. I see fond memories of a very old car abandoned for 50 years with a cache hidden in it. Again, nothing with the trash.

8.9k · January 4, 2008

Heres my opinion as a noob to caching:

If I was searching for a particular cache and ended up at a pile of strewn garbage, I would walk away and not search for the cache. The last thing I want to do in any hobby is rummage through trash. Think about broken bottles and sharp tin or aluminum cans found in most trash and not to mention improperly disposed needles or anyother type of waste people might through out such as baby diapers.

I might make an exception or two. For example, a couple of forested areas where Ive mountain biked have had automobiles abandoned/dumped maybe 50 years ago. So youve got these old rusted-out shells of cars sitting in the middle of no-where with trees and bush overgrowing them. Id consider this to be big trash and to not belong there and many would call it an eyesore. I dont think these cars are going anywhere as any attempt to remove them would likely cause more damage to land and trees than the cars are doing by sitting there. Back on topic... I would consider placing a cache that may resemble a piece of one of these cars in the vicinity of where these cars sit.

This may seem contradictory or hypocritical but I just cant see the appeal of actual trash.

Now see, this is a great post. A car dumped 50 years ago rusting away in a forest surrounded by trees and brush is one thing. Can you CITO it out? No. Will it ever be gotten out? Probably not. Yes it is trash. But you are talking about historical trash that WOULD do more harm getting it out than leaving it be. There will NEVER be any historical significance to an empty beer can in a ditch filled with 40 other cans, fast food wrappers, discarded trash, used needles and who knows what else.

I see fun photo ops with the car abandoned 50 years ago. I see nothing resembling that with the beer can or cigg butt. I see fond memories of a very old car abandoned for 50 years with a cache hidden in it. Again, nothing with the trash.

Maybe, maybe not. Someone with cutting torches and a way to haul off the end results could clean that up without much damage. But yes, this is different than trash!!

January 4, 2008

From where I see it, we are living in an era where its normal to have TV shows about people purposely doing stunts to hurt themselves or someone else (Jackass comes to mind) or seeing who can outdo themselves by eating the most disgusting thing (too many shows to name here). We have extreme everything nowadays and a lot of the time its to see how far we can push the limits. Thats fine if you are into that kinda stuff but I just dont see it in this sport (woah dude. I just found a cache in the bottom of that full septic tank).

Push the limits of intellect if ya want. Push the limits of endurance. Push the limits of creativity. Those all fit so well in this hobby. But why gravitate to mainstream ideas of disgusting? There is no point.

Your version of what is pleasant and what is unpleasant is not likely the same as mine or anyone else's.

You can bypass any cache you don't like. There is room in this game for a wide variety of preferences. Please don't presume to tell me what I should and shouldn't enjoy.

Im sorry, but where did I ever tell you what you should and shouldn't enjoy? I have made it a point to say multiple times that this is just my opinion, I am in no way quoting anyone (unless answering something they posted to me) or asking, telling or implying that anyone should do anything based on my opinion.

I also find it mildly offensive that i made a general post about the thread in general addressed to nobody in particular and you took it personal.

I never asked you to do a thing. This is my opinion and therefore irrefutable but not meant to change yours.

The cache is part of the trash.

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