Destructive Cachers

[+Team DragonMoon]

I placed a relatively difficult multi-cache back on July 28th. Even though I stated there was no need to uproot or destroy anything and only simple moves were needed to find the parts, after a few emails saying the area was getting trashed, sure enough... stumps kicked in, bark torn, trees toppled, railings destroyed.. Needless to say I archived the cache. Sad part is that the two people who found it, one the day of publish and the other today right before I went to check said it was a really fun multi. I put a lot of work into it just to have it ruined by careless cachers. Saddest part is that it was members only, I thought that would help. guess I was wrong. The clue basically spelled out where to look if people would have taken the time to figure it out instead of doing the bull in the china shop routine.

 

Ok end rant. I know I can't control people, but Cmon.. seriously.

[+9Key]

Over the years its been my experience that the large majority of cachers do not read cache descriptions, no matter how relavant to the cache they are. Probably a learning experience for you in this case - don't place caches in sensitive areas as this behavior will almost certainly be repeated again.

[4wheelin_fool]

From what I have noticed, it's less likely to happen if the hint says exactly where it is.

[+Team DragonMoon]

From what I have noticed, it's less likely to happen if the hint says exactly where it is.

 

But then what's the point of making a difficult hide? That'd be great if I wanted to have a bunch of 1 difficulty caches.

[+wapahani]

We returned to a cache that we looked for a long while back. When we arrived the area had been trashed and all the plants had been mashed and just looked bad. We didn't give much effort and I know with 100% who did it. It won't matter if I say anything because the cache owner doesn't care and it was one of his buddies that killed the area.

 

Like was said before, many cachers aren't responsible and don't read the cache page.

 

So if its in a bad spot, then well, you know the results now.

[4wheelin_fool]

From what I have noticed, it's less likely to happen if the hint says exactly where it is.

 

But then what's the point of making a difficult hide? That'd be great if I wanted to have a bunch of 1 difficulty caches.

 

Difficult hides are great if you can find an area that is idiot proof. (which is difficult..)

[+DanOCan]

My experience is that the majority of cachers try to be responsible when hunting for a cache. But, in the normal course of a hunt things happens -- branches get snapped, bark comes loose, plants get stepped on...especially if it is a tricky hide. All of these little pieces of damage accumulate to make the area look destroyed even when the cachers are trying their best.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I placed a relatively difficult multi-cache back on July 28th. Even though I stated there was no need to uproot or destroy anything and only simple moves were needed to find the parts, after a few emails saying the area was getting trashed, sure enough... stumps kicked in, bark torn, trees toppled, railings destroyed.. Needless to say I archived the cache. Sad part is that the two people who found it, one the day of publish and the other today right before I went to check said it was a really fun multi. I put a lot of work into it just to have it ruined by careless cachers. Saddest part is that it was members only, I thought that would help. guess I was wrong. The clue basically spelled out where to look if people would have taken the time to figure it out instead of doing the bull in the china shop routine.

 

Ok end rant. I know I can't control people, but Cmon.. seriously.

 

I find you have to consider the lowest common denominator when it comes to cache placement. Expect that eventually the worst case behavior will happen and do not plant a cache in an area that can not support that. If you are unsure as to how folks will react, you can always have someone beta test it while you watch. This can be very educational and perhaps expose concerns that you didn't anticipate.

 

Overall my experience is that cachers are not destructive and disrespectful.

[+CCrew]

Overall my experience is that cachers are not destructive and disrespectful.

 

I don't know about that. I've seen a lot of things that just lead me to believe that many will just do whatever it takes to log the find. Time of access restrictions? Ignore it. Clearly define "stay on trail"? Bushwack. Not to mention the sheer inability to follow some of the worlds most simple instructions on a cache page.

 

There are times I've thought that there should be an automatic expiration on caches. If for nothing else than to minimize resource damage and give an area a chance to recover.

 

Heck, I've seen LPC's with the electrical covers ripped off of them. I don't buy your generalization. "Many" I can agree. But there are many more that only care about themselves and what they're trying to achieve at the moment. And the amount of damage is usually exponential to the difficulty of the hide.

 

-Roger

Edited August 13, 2008 by CCrew

[+briansnat]

It only takes one or two irresponsible people to trash an area. I think it's all part of the numbers game and the quest for the quick smiley. It takes time to carefully move things and replace them they way they were.

 

With that in mind I think that if you are placing a high difficulty cache, make sure it's in an area with a durable surface (pavement, rock outcrops, etc.) and not much to make a mess of.

 

Overall my experience is that cachers are not destructive and disrespectful.

 

It's been my experience too. Maybe it's just the area, but most caches here involve a bit of a hike and I think the kind of cacher who is willing to invest 30 minutes, an hour or more just to get to the cache is less likely to

do a scorched Earth search when he gets there. I bet that it's mostly the instant gratification, numbers hounds who want that smiley now so they can move on to the next cache who are responsible for most of this nonsense.

[+Dread_Pirate_Bruce]

My impression is that as cachers become more and more frustrated in searching for a cache, they tend to be less careful and also more intent on finding the cache at all costs. I have never intentionally caused damage in searching for a cache. In fact, I try to be very careful to avoid stepping on vegetation or even wearing a geo-path. However, out of frustration I often joke about using destructive forces.

 

For example, there is a cache hidden in a tree on a very busy street. I know its a micro. I know what tree it is. I know about how high it is. I know its there. Yet, despite somewhere around 8 visits and 4 hours of searching, I can't find the cache. Don't ask why. As a result, I've joked about cutting the tree down, hauling it home and then cutting it apart an inch at a time until I find the cache.

 

Similarly, I've joked about taking a weed-whacker to ivy where I know a cache is hidden.

 

There are times I've really wanted to do these things. Of course, I never would. But frustration makes people do peculiar things.

 

If a cache is sufficiently hard that someone may feel the need to act like General Sherman, don't put it in a sensitive area.

[+Parabola]

I've come across a few that the areas where completey trashed and figured it was best to just walk away from the and I send the owner an e-mail about what's going on. I don't know if muggles may have done it or cachers but I don't want the blame passed on to me. So the ones I find like that I walk away.

 

As far as e-mailing the owners I've had good reply's thanking me for letting them know and I've had some pretty bad reply's about how really it's none of my business and if I didn't like it to just move on. Which on those I kind of thought well, you know if one area is torn up like this then caching could get a bad rap for one cache and that could spoil the ablity to hide for me and others. So I like to think I'm doing my part and just let the owner know of what's going on privatly via e-mail.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Overall my experience is that cachers are not destructive and disrespectful.

 

I don't know about that. I've seen a lot of things that just lead me to believe that many will just do whatever it takes to log the find. Time of access restrictions? Ignore it. Clearly define "stay on trail"? Bushwack. Not to mention the sheer inability to follow some of the worlds most simple instructions on a cache page.

 

There are times I've thought that there should be an automatic expiration on caches. If for nothing else than to minimize resource damage and give an area a chance to recover.

 

Heck, I've seen LPC's with the electrical covers ripped off of them. I don't buy your generalization. "Many" I can agree. But there are many more that only care about themselves and what they're trying to achieve at the moment. And the amount of damage is usually exponential to the difficulty of the hide.

 

-Roger

 

Roger.. you missed one important part about the statement I made. Read "my" experience, in Hawaii, has been very positive with cachers. I'm really sorry "your" experience where you cache is not the same as mine.

 

If you don't mind me asking, what are you personally doing to educate or encourage people to not act like they do in areas where you are observing this behavior? Or, do you find grumbling about it in the Groundspeak Forum to be a positive way of curtailing this?

[+wkmccall]

I placed a relatively difficult multi-cache back on July 28th. Even though I stated there was no need to uproot or destroy anything and only simple moves were needed to find the parts, after a few emails saying the area was getting trashed, sure enough... stumps kicked in, bark torn, trees toppled, railings destroyed.. Needless to say I archived the cache. Sad part is that the two people who found it, one the day of publish and the other today right before I went to check said it was a really fun multi. I put a lot of work into it just to have it ruined by careless cachers. Saddest part is that it was members only, I thought that would help. guess I was wrong. The clue basically spelled out where to look if people would have taken the time to figure it out instead of doing the bull in the china shop routine.

 

Ok end rant. I know I can't control people, but Cmon.. seriously.

 

I've noticed that when it comes to a single cacher, most are pretty good about keeping the cache and cache area healthy, but when it comes to teams... that's sometimes a different matter.

Usually (from things I've noticed), they are on a mission - usually a delorme/challenge type mission - not a lot of time to spend on each cache so a quick drive by, grab the cache, sign the log, throw the cache back into the general vicinity, and head to the next one.

 

This is why I'm considering archiving a few of my hides.

 

.... i've gotta quit reading the forums.. it's really not helping me stay enthusiastic about my hobby....

[+Userzero]

We placed our only cache in a stump that was appropriate for what we had in mind, but we did not notice that the stump was right in the middle of a delicate moss cover. So of course, after 6 or 7 cachers, the ground is torn up and the cache location is pretty obvious. We did our best with the knowledge we had at the time. I believe the cachers mostly tried their best and if they trashed our cache, it's mainly our fault. Same thing for a cache we visited the other day. The cache was hidden in a moss covered fallen tree. We touched it fairly delicately and the moss fell to the ground instantly. Were we careless? Or was the cache owner the culprit?

[+edscott]

My experience is that the majority of cachers try to be responsible when hunting for a cache. But, in the normal course of a hunt things happens -- branches get snapped, bark comes loose, plants get stepped on...especially if it is a tricky hide. All of these little pieces of damage accumulate to make the area look destroyed even when the cachers are trying their best.

 

Very true... Usually the hider leaves some evidence of his presence at the scene and the clues accumulate rapidly from there. Is everyone careful to replace rocks right side up? (lichens don't grow in the dark) Not to crush leaves and compact the soil where you stand to sign the log? Do you sit on logs and crush the moss or polish the bark in the process. We all leave clues every time we visit a cache and although the example cited is extreme, damage to the cache area is something every cacher should attempt to minimize.

[4wheelin_fool]

Quite often the term "destroyed" is also loosely used to describe a spot where things have been moved around, but nothing has been damaged. If it is a sensitive area, there should not be any caches there in the first place. Nature reclaims most areas fairly quickly.

Edited August 13, 2008 by 4wheelin_fool

[+whistler & co.]

We've seen destruction of cache sites before, but none as egregious as this. The whole area was ransacked. Obviously, the searchers did not have a very good fix on GZ.

Our Log

 

Sometimes I think destruction of the cache site is due to new people who simply don't understand why it is necessary to keep disturbance to a minimum, but I have also seen areas where experienced cachers have made quite a mess.

[+Mule Ears]

...

Ok end rant. I know I can't control people, but Cmon.. seriously.

 

This is reminiscent of the problems faced by engineers who design consumer products--they send their perfect baby out into the world, only to be horrified at the stupid things normal users do. They install the batteries backwards, twist controls till they snap, pound buttons till they break, run the gadget through the dishwasher, swing it around by the power cord, leave it in the car in Minnesota in February and then take it into the steam bath, leave it in the car in Arizona in July and then take it into the walk-in freezer... and so on.

 

Having a product, or a cache, field-tested by the great unwashed is an eye-opening experience. It makes great war stories to share with others who've been through it, and it provides a great store of knowledge to incorporate into your next idiot-proof design

 

After which you repeat the process for the next, truly (and this time I mean it) idiot-proof design.

[+briansnat]

Quite often the term "destroyed" is also loosely used to describe a spot where things have been moved around, but nothing has been damaged...

 

I've seen the term used when a bunch of rocks were turned over. Is it necessary? No. Is it unsightly? Somewhat. Is it good for the sport if a park ranger were to see it? Probably not. But it is really destruction? In reality it's nothing more than a bear would do looking for grubs and if you go back in a year you'd never know it happened.

[+Star*Hopper]

Overall my experience is that cachers are not destructive and disrespectful.

 

I don't know about that. I've seen a lot of things that just lead me to believe that many will just do whatever it takes to log the find. Time of access restrictions? Ignore it. Clearly define "stay on trail"? Bushwack. Not to mention the sheer inability to follow some of the worlds most simple instructions on a cache page.

 

There are times I've thought that there should be an automatic expiration on caches. If for nothing else than to minimize resource damage and give an area a chance to recover.

 

Heck, I've seen LPC's with the electrical covers ripped off of them. I don't buy your generalization. "Many" I can agree. But there are many more that only care about themselves and what they're trying to achieve at the moment. And the amount of damage is usually exponential to the difficulty of the hide.

 

-Roger

 

That. & couldn't-a said it better myself.

 

And especially frustrating when 99% of the damage is done by this one guy in my small town, who also happens to be an FTF Fiend. ('Hound' doesn't do him full justice.) His favorite method of scoring a find seems to be, "If you destroy everything else in sight, the cache is what will remain."

 

In fact, he is responsible for destroying 2 of my caches - one of which he did NOT find, and has damaged others. Well, three, if you count the one where he bent the cover plate open on a pole such that it couldn't be replaced - and the property owner got P.O.'d and made me remove the cache, plus expected me to pay the $135 it will take to repair it. And the cache wasn't even on or in the pole - it was in a small tree 10' behind it.

 

And yes I know it was him.....process of elimination on the order-of-finds, & backed up by a witness.

 

It's like the 'bad apple' -- it only takes one to screw it up for everyone else. That's also why I wish Groundspeak would add an owner privilege that would let you ban certain individuals from seeking one or more of your caches that you so designate.

 

~*

[+Wesbo]

Forgive me for suggesting that Geocaching has gotten certain folks into the outdoors who might have not done so without the 'gadget' factor. Give an outdoor newbie a sport with an attainment/achievement factor and you'll get the odd bird who doesn't know how to act outside. Let me quote:

 

"The best thing about geocaching is that everyone can play"

"The worst thing about geocaching is that everyone can play"

[+edscott]

Forgive me for suggesting that Geocaching has gotten certain folks into the outdoors who might have not done so without the 'gadget' factor. Give an outdoor newbie a sport with an attainment/achievement factor and you'll get the odd bird who doesn't know how to act outside. Let me quote:

 

"The best thing about geocaching is that everyone can play"

"The worst thing about geocaching is that everyone can play"

 

Agree it does get a lot of people into the outdoors that appear to have very little prior outdoor experience. Not sure that experience and environmental awareness are strongly correlated.

[+izce.nine]

In my experience (73 finds) I have seen cacher trails leading to a cache, and then some moose decided to FOLLOW the line the GPS gave exactly. I can't believe what I see sometimes. Other times its pretty necessary to bushwhack to your spot because the last find was before summer and the growing of the bushes. In terms of knocking over stumps, I have come across some pretty decayed wood and the simple act of leaning breaks it. There are going to be some casualties in Forrest land where there are caches and the trails leading to them. I try to keep my presence at a minimum when I am headed to caches. I think the best Rx is to confront people you suspect may be responsible for damage done to the landscape. I really don't know what a good fix for this would be.

[+Bad_CRC]

caches destroy the area where they are located. I've yet to see a cache in the woods older than a couple months that didn't have a clear "nerd trail" (as my gf calls it) leading right to it, and a compacted area all around the site itself. If you watch for them, caches are much easier to find.

 

a difficult hide in the woods will cause greater damage, and a cache in a sensitive area is just irresponsible in my opinion.

 

yes, I know there are some people who deny this happens, but it's pretty tough to pretend that for long.

[+Team GeoBlast]

caches destroy the area where they are located. I've yet to see a cache in the woods older than a couple months that didn't have a clear "nerd trail" (as my gf calls it) leading right to it, and a compacted area all around the site itself. If you watch for them, caches are much easier to find.

 

a difficult hide in the woods will cause greater damage, and a cache in a sensitive area is just irresponsible in my opinion.

 

yes, I know there are some people who deny this happens, but it's pretty tough to pretend that for long.

 

I think where the denial starts is with the choice of wording. I have yet to see a cache that has the same impact of a volcano or a hurricane. That's destruction.

 

On the side, have you ever asked your gf what sets you apart from the unknown "nerd" that came before you and made this trail? Think about it, when you aren't around and she's with her gfs.. who do you think the nerd is then?

[+Renegade Knight]

...Ok end rant. I know I can't control people, but Cmon.. seriously.

Now you are a wiser cache owner. Place your caches with this in mind. Hard caches where knuckle draggers who will imitate a grizzy digging up an area for Camas Root should be placed where they can't cause much harm. Easy caches should be placed where you want folks to tread lightly.

 

There is an art to being a cache owner and this is one of the harder lessons to learn.

[+Renegade Knight]

caches destroy the area where they are located. I've yet to see a cache in the woods older than a couple months that didn't have a clear "nerd trail" (as my gf calls it) leading right to it, and a compacted area all around the site itself. If you watch for them, caches are much easier to find. ...

 

True. It falls short of destruction though. There is a difference between real harm and what will start to raise the eybrows of a caring cache owner.

[+Bad_CRC]

On the side, have you ever asked your gf what sets you apart from the unknown "nerd" that came before you and made this trail? Think about it, when you aren't around and she's with her gfs.. who do you think the nerd is then?

 

I assumed it was widely accepted that most of us would be considered nerds (I certainly count myself as one), and that few people took offense to that term anymore. If I offended, I apologize.

 

And most of us don't have the luxury of excellent caches such as some of the ones in your area. I doubt that even one numbers grabber who was likely to trample an area and cause destruction has ever found H3 Summit saddle.

[+Bad_CRC]

True. It falls short of destruction though. There is a difference between real harm and what will start to raise the eybrows of a caring cache owner.

 

True, I would imagine one person's definition of destruction would vary from the next.

 

An area that used to be full of wildflowers and natural fauna which is transformed into a barren, compacted area of mud in an area around a deteriorating fallen log has certainly been harmed by most standards, but the definition of "destroyed" is of course up for debate. The area would likely recover over time if the cache was removed and frequent visits stopped, at least I'd imagine so, so is that really destruction? I don't know, but I suppose it depends on who you ask.