They destroyed my cache area, why?

[+w2b]

I placed a really tricky caches out in the desert, listed it as such, and asked cachers to please respect the area and the desert life. cache GC1A4YH. Well the first to log their visit said that the area looked liked a grenade went off. I have listed this as a premium members only with the

hopes that this would help in this matter of tearing things up. Don't cachers realize that this is exactly why we aren't allowed in the National Parks, and that is why private owners will start to not allow us, or do they just not care?

sorry for the rant but I just have to vent.

There should be some way that cachers like that could be reported if they are discovered and removed from geocaching and lose the ability to get coords!

At least that is the way I feel.

[+Cardinal Red]

Why? Perhaps because they never read the cache page or the hint.

And of course there is a smiley at stake, and they need it for their INATN stats.

Aren't profile stats and paperless caching great?

 

And remember: It's the Premium Members that are doing this.

The Regular Members are at least going to the cache page to get their info.

$3 per month doesn't buy you common sense.

[J.A.R.S.]

I placed a really tricky caches out in the desert, listed it as such, and asked cachers to please respect the area and the desert life. cache GC1A4YH. Well the first to log their visit said that the area looked liked a grenade went off. I have listed this as a premium members only with the

hopes that this would help in this matter of tearing things up. Don't cachers realize that this is exactly why we aren't allowed in the National Parks, and that is why private owners will start to not allow us, or do they just not care?

sorry for the rant but I just have to vent.

There should be some way that cachers like that could be reported if they are discovered and removed from geocaching and lose the ability to get coords!

At least that is the way I feel.

Strange, one day after the cache was published, the very first person to log said it already looked like a hand grenade had gone off. Have you been by the location to confirm the condition? If it's true and you really feel that geocachers did the damage as a result of searching for your cache perhaps the cache needs to be archived. What kind of damage? Could the damage have been done by wild animals rooting around for food or was it definitely human-induced damage?

[+Coyote Raven]

What a bummer! I don't see how it was a Geocacher who made the mess. Mugglers'd be my thoughts. Maybe they found the cache and tore the place up looking for more. If it were some one cache hunting, they must've been a super jerk(s) or a totally ignorant amateur(s) who should read up on cache etiquette.

[+Coyote Raven]

I just started paperless caching and I have all the info I would have if I printed a page. Hints, maps, images, everything. Are you saying some paperless cachers don't have all this info and lacking it, are bulldozing their way to a find?

 

Aren't profile stats and paperless caching great?

 

And remember: It's the Premium Members that are doing this.

The Regular Members are at least going to the cache page to get their info.

$3 per month doesn't buy you common sense.

[+Ebranscom1123]

What is a Muggle

[+Coyote Raven]

non-geocachers

 

What is a Muggle

[+Confucius' Cat]

What is a Muggle

It is our term for a person that does not know about geocaching. It was borrowed from Harry Potter.

 

To the topic:

 

You might want to read some of this topic. (especially pages 2,3) where there is quite a lively discussion of our collective responsibility for damage done by cachers.

 

The fact that you "placed a really tricky caches out in the desert" makes the above linked topic especially relevant.

 

As has been oft stated in the other thread, a hider cannot PREVENT stupidity on the part of seeking cachers, but common knowledge of human nature does permit the PREDICTION of such bad behaviour.

 

Perhaps a tricky hide in a sensitive area is not a really good idea all-in-all?

[Trinity's Crew]

What is a Muggle

From the Harry Potter series, it's a non-wizard. Someone who can't or doesn't see the magic that surrounds them.

 

As far as geocaching is concerned, it means pretty much the same thing. A person who isn't aware of the hobby/sport/game/obsession/floor wax/dessert topping and can't or doesn't see the caches that surround them.

 

Many people also use it interchangeably to refer to someone who stumbled upon (and destroyed) a cache.

 

There are also cache maggots. These people are assumed to actively seek and steal or destroy caches for jollies.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Trinity's Crew

[+Coyote Raven]

hah~! That's a new one for us. I know some turds who aren't cachers, but if they were, they'd be maggots. From where (whence) does that term originate?

 

 

There are also cache maggots. These people are assumed to actively seek and steal or destroy caches for jollies.

[Trinity's Crew]

It looks as though a pretty good number of cachers have logged a DNF on your cache. Is the difficulty rating too low?

 

Also, based on everything you said on your cache page, you seem to be REALLY worried about possible damage to the area, almost as though you expected it. If the hide is too devious or the area is too sensitive you can probably count on more damage. Sad, but true. Maybe you should archive it if you are really concerned. If you don't want to go that far, consider making the hint a little more specific.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Trinity's Crew

[+PhxChem]

Aren't profile stats and paperless caching great?

 

Actually, yes. But what does that have to do with clueless people tearing up an area for a cache?

[+Driver Carries Cache]

Why? Perhaps because they never read the cache page or the hint.

And of course there is a smiley at stake, and they need it for their INATN stats.

Aren't profile stats and paperless caching great?

 

And remember: It's the Premium Members that are doing this.

The Regular Members are at least going to the cache page to get their info.

$3 per month doesn't buy you common sense.

 

Could you clarify your offensive statement... I'd love to know how stats cause damage to a cache site. I just spent an entire day caching and somehow the stats on my profile page didn't cause any damage at any site we visited. Neither did the fact that we were operating paperless.

 

DCC

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Time to repeat Rambler's Mantra:

The best thing about geocaching is that it is open to anybody.

The worst thing about geocaching is... that it is open to anybody!

Fortunately the good far outweighs the bad, be it people or hides.

[+Bad_CRC]

I hate when people hide caches in sensitive areas that cause this kind of damage.

 

spin it however you want, it's the hider's responsibility to avoid this. If every cacher even looks in one area, and 100 cachers try to find it, the area is destroyed.

 

do everyone a favor and archive it.

[+PhxChem]

If every cacher even looks in one area, and 100 cachers try to find it, the area is destroyed.

 

[4wheelin_fool]

I placed a really tricky caches out in the desert, listed it as such, and asked cachers to please respect the area and the desert life. cache GC1A4YH. Well the first to log their visit said that the area looked liked a grenade went off. I have listed this as a premium members only with the

hopes that this would help in this matter of tearing things up. Don't cachers realize that this is exactly why we aren't allowed in the National Parks, and that is why private owners will start to not allow us, or do they just not care?

sorry for the rant but I just have to vent.

There should be some way that cachers like that could be reported if they are discovered and removed from geocaching and lose the ability to get coords!

At least that is the way I feel.

I read the log and I suspect that the person was exaggerating. DNFs sometimes have side effects which cause cachers to do that. Well I couldn't find it, and it looked like several hundred bloodhounds stampeded through here and couldn't find it either.

 

I have also heard that phrase "looked liked a grenade went off" to describe an area where it was clear that it had been searched thoroughly - but nothing was damaged. After caching for awhile you tend to notice evidence of previous cachers that only a forensic scientist would notice. Also when someone is looking for a FTF they sometimes get highly paranoid that someone may have already just found the cache before them and when they see anything that had been moved ever so slightly it tends to justify their fears..

 

There's a big difference between things being moved around, and an area being "torn up".

Edited March 16, 2008 by 4wheelin_fool

[Clan Riffster]

Two people logged that they attempted a find, which resulted in DNF's, the day after it was published. Both people mention that there was damage already present when they arrived. Do you have any reason to believe a third person searched for the cache before they arrived and caused all the damage, then decided not to log their efforts?

 

5 DNF's in a row, especially from experienced cachers, suggests that the cache may not be there any more. If that's the case, it's possible that someone saw you hide it, (maybe some secret squirrel ninjas on the tanks in the background?), then Blitzkrieged the area to see what you were hiding, eventually stumbling on your cache and carrying it off.

 

Or you could just blame the mystery cacher.

[+w2b]

It looks as though a pretty good number of cachers have logged a DNF on your cache. Is the difficulty rating too low?

 

Also, based on everything you said on your cache page, you seem to be REALLY worried about possible damage to the area, almost as though you expected it. If the hide is too devious or the area is too sensitive you can probably count on more damage. Sad, but true. Maybe you should archive it if you are really concerned. If you don't want to go that far, consider making the hint a little more specific.

The cache is tricky but does not require turning every rock over for a country mile. It does require using some thought and a pair of eyes.

Its just my feeling that the responsible party is so concerned to get #100 or #500 (etc) that they probably do this everywhere. The area in question is not especially sensitive but I still wish a little care had been taken.

[+w2b]

I hate when people hide caches in sensitive areas that cause this kind of damage.

 

spin it however you want, it's the hider's responsibility to avoid this. If every cacher even looks in one area, and 100 cachers try to find it, the area is destroyed.

 

do everyone a favor and archive it.

Jumping to the conclusion that archiving it is the answer is a bit premature. The hide is good but not impossible like some in this desert. The area is not especially environmentally sensitive, it's just that it torques me to see a total lack of care by a fellow cacher. This kind of person would do the same damage in a parking lot without a thought or a care!

[+Isonzo Karst]

There are two points that have already been made in this thread that I would re-emphasize

 

.... a tricky hide in a sensitive area is not a really good idea ....

 

Ellipsis mine, to emphasize the notion that "tricky" hides should be on hardscape, not in a slow recovering sensitive desert.

 

And the other point, you've assumed that there's is extensive damage, and that it was done by geocachers.

Have you returned to the site? Is there really a lot of damage? DNF logs tend to be somewhat defensive, with a dash of "blame the cache owner". And if there is damage, was it necessarily caused by cachers?

 

If there is damage, I think you should archive the hide, regardless of how it was caused. Cachers will certainly be blamed.

[+w2b]

Two people logged that they attempted a find, which resulted in DNF's, the day after it was published. Both people mention that there was damage already present when they arrived. Do you have any reason to believe a third person searched for the cache before they arrived and caused all the damage, then decided not to log their efforts?

 

5 DNF's in a row, especially from experienced cachers, suggests that the cache may not be there any more. If that's the case, it's possible that someone saw you hide it, (maybe some secret squirrel ninjas on the tanks in the background?), then Blitzkrieged the area to see what you were hiding, eventually stumbling on your cache and carrying it off.

 

Or you could just blame the mystery cacher.

I was very careful to not be seen in the hiding, and without giving the cache away I seriously don't think it was casually carried off.

The first DNF logged was by cachers that are known to me so I can believe what they have reported as they don't tend embelish.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I was very careful to not be seen in the hiding, and without giving the cache away I seriously don't think it was casually carried off.

The first DNF logged was by cachers that are known to me so I can believe what they have reported as they don't tend embelish.

Whoa! All this about a cache you have not gone to check on, don't know what the supposed damage looks like, much less who did what or why?

 

Go check on the thing! Facts are a lot easier to deal with than fantasy.

[+gof1]

I think you really should archive the cache to prevent further damage. At the very least disable it until you can get out there and see for yourself what has been done. Or you can just let it go on accumulating more damage.

 

At this point it isn't what has been done, it's what will be done. We can't change the past, but we can impact the future.

[+quadcity007]

I think you really should archive the cache to prevent further damage.

 

Agreed. I'd also be curious to see the area first-hand if I hid a cache and was later told that the area was "ransacked". At the very least, I'd ask someone to take a picture of the area and send it to me.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I hate when people hide caches in sensitive areas that cause this kind of damage.

 

spin it however you want, it's the hider's responsibility to avoid this. If every cacher even looks in one area, and 100 cachers try to find it, the area is destroyed.

 

do everyone a favor and archive it.

 

Did someone say the area was sensitive?

 

Edit: Here's the text from the cache page: "Small and tricky? Okay this is a bit hard, but let's not tear up the environment! Have a little respect for mother nature!!! "

 

This cache appears to be in the middle of nowhere. Who cares? Respect for mother nature? I think she can handle herself. She's done it for quite some time now. Was there anything sensitive in this area? From the looks of it, NO

Edited March 16, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[+victorymike]

I hate when people hide caches in sensitive areas that cause this kind of damage.

 

spin it however you want, it's the hider's responsibility to avoid this. If every cacher even looks in one area, and 100 cachers try to find it, the area is destroyed.

 

do everyone a favor and archive it.

 

I have to agree with this. Very well phrased.

 

From my personal experiences: Hiding a micro cache in a rock in a rock pile..well...expect that entire rock pile to move. I know of cache owners who can't even find their own cache again because of similar circumstances.

[+briansnat]

I'd check out the area and see for myself. I've had a few logs where someone decried the "destruction" around the cache and upon checking it out I saw nothing but some disturbed leaves or bent blades of grass.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Its just my feeling that the responsible party is so concerned to get #100 or #500 (etc) that they probably do this everywhere. The area in question is not especially sensitive but I still wish a little care had been taken.

That's a pretty rash assumption given that there has not even been verification of damage yet nor any good evidence that the alleged damage, if it indeed exists, was done by a cacher at all.

 

If the area is "not especially sensitive," perhaps it's best just to let it go. As others have stated, Mother Nature has been taking care of herself for quite a few million years before WE came along to worry and fret over it.

[+victorymike]

Mother Nature doesn't see what the land manager sees. And if he sees a mess created by geocaching he'll start petitioning that caches be banned in his area. It has happened in the past.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Mother Nature doesn't see what the land manager sees. And if he sees a mess created by geocaching he'll start petitioning that caches be banned in his area. It has happened in the past.

Not sure there IS a land manager. Topo6 does not indicate any national or state forest or other park land type designation. This appears to be nothing more than unused land on the outskirts of a city.

 

Could be no more of a big deal than placing a cache by the roadside in a city as far as "sensitivity" is concerned. Hard to judge by just looking at topo maps and sat images. (Nor am I familiar with the fragility or "sacredness" of desert flora.)

 

The OP is upset about it being torn up in the first post then later states it is "not especially sensitive."

 

I think the concern is more for the principle than the actual impact.

[+w2b]

Went and checked on the cache and discovered rocks turned over and that kind of thing but no uprooted plants, also someone had tried to turn the rocks back over. Some damage but not nearly as bad as the desert free dumps within walking distance, or the quad runners free track association in the area.

I still am in awe of how many gave a first response of " archive it" as if this is always the answer.

I have a hard time archiving a cache that I have a lot of personal time in the creation of just because the first few couldn't find it and one jerk decided to disturb every rock within 50 ft. Most of the damage has been repaired and chances are the perp won't return because they don't log dnf's and aren't going to return and waste their time trying to find something after tearing up that much without a find the first time.

Anyway I do appreciate the responses which did help me decide to get back out there and check sooner than I would have otherwise.

As far as my being concerned about damage because of the cautionary statements in my cache listing. I am always concerned about damage in the desert, but the only way to have zero damage with a desert cache is to not have a desert cache at all. Which would put cachers in the great southwest out of business. I just ask that people be aware of their surroundings a little.

Edited March 21, 2008 by w2b

[+JohnnyVegas]

I only saw one log but that I would consider and experienced cacher.

My guess is that any damaged that was done may have been done by a cacher that did not log a DNF.

Maybe the coordinated should be checked.

[+Renegade Knight]

I placed a really tricky caches out in the desert, listed it as such, and asked cachers to please respect the area and the desert life. cache GC1A4YH. ...

There should be some way that cachers like that could be reported if they are discovered and removed from geocaching and lose the ability to get coords!

At least that is the way I feel.

There are laws that you can use to report and have prosecuted cachers that break them. That's not easy. That said, now you know not to place tricky caches in areas that cachers should not employ blunt instrument search tactics on.

 

While I've never met a stupid cacher, I swear I see their work when I'm out caching.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I read the log and I suspect that the person was exaggerating. DNFs sometimes have side effects which cause cachers to do that. Well I couldn't find it, and it looked like several hundred bloodhounds stampeded through here and couldn't find it either. ...

 

Another good point. Take logs with a grain of salt.

[+Sioneva]

Went and checked on the cache and discovered rocks turned over and that kind of thing but no uprooted plants, also someone had tried to turn the rocks back over. Some damage but not nearly as bad as the desert free dumps within walking distance, or the quad runners free track association in the area.

I still am in awe of how many gave a first response of " archive it" as if this is always the answer.

I have a hard time archiving a cache that I have a lot of personal time in the creation of just because the first few couldn't find it and one jerk decided to disturb every rock within 50 ft. Most of the damage has been repaired and chances are the perp won't return because they don't log dnf's and aren't going to return and waste their time trying to find something after tearing up that much without a find the first time.

Anyway I do appreciate the responses which did help me decide to get back out there and check sooner than I would have otherwise.

As far as my being concerned about damage because of the cautionary statements in my cache listing. I am always concerned about damage in the desert, but the only way to have zero damage with a desert cache is to not have a desert cache at all. Which would put cachers in the great southwest out of business. I just ask that people be aware of their surroundings a little.

 

*scratches head* So there was no evidence "a grenade went off", to quote your first post? But you started this thread without even checking that first? And then you scold people for jumping to the "archive it" conclusion?

 

I'm confused. Wouldn't it have been better to check first and post after, or not at all, since it doesn't seem warranted now?

[Clan Riffster]

While I've never met a stupid cacher, I swear I see their work when I'm out caching.

I see another snarky T-shirt in my near future!

[+w2b]

Went and checked on the cache and discovered rocks turned over and that kind of thing but no uprooted plants, also someone had tried to turn the rocks back over. Some damage but not nearly as bad as the desert free dumps within walking distance, or the quad runners free track association in the area.

I still am in awe of how many gave a first response of " archive it" as if this is always the answer.

I have a hard time archiving a cache that I have a lot of personal time in the creation of just because the first few couldn't find it and one jerk decided to disturb every rock within 50 ft. Most of the damage has been repaired and chances are the perp won't return because they don't log dnf's and aren't going to return and waste their time trying to find something after tearing up that much without a find the first time.

Anyway I do appreciate the responses which did help me decide to get back out there and check sooner than I would have otherwise.

As far as my being concerned about damage because of the cautionary statements in my cache listing. I am always concerned about damage in the desert, but the only way to have zero damage with a desert cache is to not have a desert cache at all. Which would put cachers in the great southwest out of business. I just ask that people be aware of their surroundings a little.

 

*scratches head* So there was no evidence "a grenade went off", to quote your first post? But you started this thread without even checking that first? And then you scold people for jumping to the "archive it" conclusion?

 

I'm confused. Wouldn't it have been better to check first and post after, or not at all, since it doesn't seem warranted now?

you may misunderstand me. There was evidence of searching going on but a lot of it had had some attempt at repair by following cachers. I didn't scold anyone about the archiving, it just strikes me as something that the first conclusion by some are to archive it. Oh, there may be a problem ...archive it! Have a cache you did a good job on so its hard to find....archive it! You know what I mean?

I did a good job of the camo, the cache is in plain sight! People are making it a lot harder than it has to be, all they have to do is walk over to it , pick it up, open it and log it.

[+XopherN71]

People are making it a lot harder than it has to be, all they have to do is walk over to it , pick it up, open it and log it.

 

Easy for you to say, you know where it is and what it looks like. Remember, not all GPS units are going to show the same exact location you had when you marked it. Other people could be 5, 10, even 30 feet away (or more) and still think it's THE spot to search and find nothing in the area.

 

Not trying to argue, but you have to try and see it from another point of view. In one post you say it's well hidden, yet now you say it's in plain site - just walk over and get it.

 

I'm confused.

[+gof1]

So, what is it you want here? You posted saying "They destroyed my cache area, why?" Then went on to talk about how concerned you were. The obvious answer is to eliminate the cause of the damage. Now you go out to the site days later and say "All's well, why did you guys over react?" or words to that effect. Truth of the matter is YOU should have gone out and checked on YOUR cache in the first place.

I seem to recall a saying about having a cake and eating it to.

[Neos2]

Didn't this cache have some additional logs on it the other day, and photos.

 

What was up with those?