Nailed

[+Kit Fox]

 

So why are night caches approved? Just about every night cache uses fire tacks that are NAILED to a tree. Seems like is some cases it is okay and in others it is not.

 

Jim

 

If you're referring to homemade reflectors using reflective tape and fat roofing nails, then I see your point.

 

I've hidden a few night caches, and I use reflectors that use super thin thumbtacks. I push the tacks into extra thick, bark covered trees like Cottonwoods. The pins rarely penetrate more than 1/8 inch into the bark. Any attempt to push them deeper is met with a pin that bends onto itself. This pins never reach the inner layers of the tree.

I'm pretty sure that the guidelines don't state that nails of a certain size are OK.

 

Most of Groundspeak's guidelines are written in such a manner as to assuage any concerns that land managers might have regarding allowing caches on lands they are responsible. The guidelines have been ammended to address such concerns.

 

I highly doubt a single, ultra thin, thumbtack would kill a tree, when you look at the damage caused by trail blazers, environmental kooks, tree carving vandals, or tree knocking skunk apes, and the trees have lived.

[+sbell111]

 

So why are night caches approved? Just about every night cache uses fire tacks that are NAILED to a tree. Seems like is some cases it is okay and in others it is not.

 

Jim

 

If you're referring to homemade reflectors using reflective tape and fat roofing nails, then I see your point.

 

I've hidden a few night caches, and I use reflectors that use super thin thumbtacks. I push the tacks into extra thick, bark covered trees like Cottonwoods. The pins rarely penetrate more than 1/8 inch into the bark. Any attempt to push them deeper is met with a pin that bends onto itself. This pins never reach the inner layers of the tree.

I'm pretty sure that the guidelines don't state that nails of a certain size are OK.

 

Most of Groundspeak's guidelines are written in such a manner as to assuage any concerns that land managers might have regarding allowing caches on lands they are responsible. The guidelines have been ammended to address such concerns.

 

I highly doubt a single, ultra thin, thumbtack would kill a tree, when you look at the damage caused by trail blazers, environmental kooks, tree carving vandals, or tree knocking skunk apes, and the trees have lived.

That is exactly the same logic that was used earlier in the thread and discarded by Keystone in post 12.

[+BadAndy]

I'll be very interested in a reviewers ruling on firetacks vs nails. They both cause the same amount of harm to the tree (none), but they both deface the tree all the same.

 

The digging a hole issue was solved by not allowing the use of even a "pointy stick"

 

Seems to me their are only 2 choices left to the reviewing staff.

 

1. No fire tacks allowed or...

2. pretend firetacks were never brought up.

[geocache911crew]

What would do if you found a cache, on commercial property, that was nailed to a tree? The cache is a bison tube on a small cable that is nailed to the tree.

I went on our local forum but found no help. It may be because the forum is dominated by the by the cache owner.

The only real suggestion was that it should be left between the reviewer and the cache owner. I don't want to blow the whistle on the owner so how would the reviewer get involved? Is this OK?

Thanks.

P.S. By the way, at no time did I identify the cache or the owner.

 

While this has been another amusing thread about the if's and or's of the Groundspeak guidelines, all of you following the thread might be interested to know that the geocaching account "Work for caches" is a sock puppet account for Konnarock Kid who has been here before complaining about

things happening locally after he was banned from his local group.

 

It might also be interesting to note that he tends to complain about the

actions of those who he feels were behind his banning...."notice no names

were mentioned", but those of us locally know who this cache belongs to and

also know who he has issues with locally.

 

The offending "nail" in question is a small tack that was already in the tree to start with.

 

-now back to your regularly scheduled program...

[+Kit Fox]

 

So why are night caches approved? Just about every night cache uses fire tacks that are NAILED to a tree. Seems like is some cases it is okay and in others it is not.

 

Jim

 

If you're referring to homemade reflectors using reflective tape and fat roofing nails, then I see your point.

 

I've hidden a few night caches, and I use reflectors that use super thin thumbtacks. I push the tacks into extra thick, bark covered trees like Cottonwoods. The pins rarely penetrate more than 1/8 inch into the bark. Any attempt to push them deeper is met with a pin that bends onto itself. This pins never reach the inner layers of the tree.

I'm pretty sure that the guidelines don't state that nails of a certain size are OK.

 

Most of Groundspeak's guidelines are written in such a manner as to assuage any concerns that land managers might have regarding allowing caches on lands they are responsible. The guidelines have been ammended to address such concerns.

 

I highly doubt a single, ultra thin, thumbtack would kill a tree, when you look at the damage caused by trail blazers, environmental kooks, tree carving vandals, or tree knocking skunk apes, and the trees have lived.

That is exactly the same logic that was used earlier in the thread and discarded by Keystone in post 12.

 

Then lets all wait for Groundspeak to ban night caches using trail tacks/reflectors. I'm willing to hedge a bet that many of the reviewers have found and enjoyed night caches.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Doesn't anyone bother to use the search function anymore?

 

Nail A Tree?, Calling all huggers.

 

"Trees"- How far is too far? Drilling holes, thumb tax, and nails

 

Be kind to trees

 

Which proves my theory that an IQ test would thin the ranks of stupid cache hiders that give the rest of us a bad name.

 

 

This is not a minor violation but indead a serious one. It may take some time but the tree will surly die from driving a nail into it. Besides why would someone be so totally ill responsible as to deface a natural living thing?

 

Then why do the environmental freeks feel comfortable doing it?

 

I don't use the search function for a couple of reasons...

 

1. It usually turns up a bunch of stuff that I can't see the connection to what I'm interested(I guess I'm not using it right)

 

2. If I have a question, I'm interested in a current discussion from the players here now, rather than some old discussion that took place among some other players in the past.

 

If you are at a gathering of friends and someone wants to talk about some book of movie of some news event, do you ever tell them...

 

"Those people over there already talked about this, here's a transcript of what they said for you to read"

 

Even if someone reads through an old discussion and then posts any reply, there will be somebody harping on them for bring an old topic back into the light.

Edited September 8, 2008 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[+OzzieSan]

This is not a minor violation but indead a serious one. It may take some time but the tree will surly die from driving a nail into it. Besides why would someone be so totally ill responsible as to deface a natural living thing?

 

Huh?

 

I know loggers and lumber mills hate nails in trees, but I've never seen a tree die from a nail or many nails...

 

Of course I've only put nails into about 30ish different kinds of trees so I suppose there are one or two out there that may succomb to a nail. 30+ years later many of these trees are sill growing, and the ones that are not were removed for other reasons, developments, firewood...

[Mushtang]

I don't use the search function for a couple of reasons...

I agree with you.

 

It's ironic that someone who often links back to multiple old posts of a topic as if to say "this has been discussed so why talk about it further?" usually goes on to contribute to the current discussion. Often within the same post!

 

Perhaps an IQ test should be required in order to post?

[+KBI]

I highly doubt a single, ultra thin, thumbtack would kill a tree, when you look at the damage caused by trail blazers, environmental kooks, tree carving vandals, or tree knocking skunk apes, and the trees have lived.

I agree. I highly doubt those things too, but then I'm no treeologist.

 

I think the only thing we can really be sure about is that "The Tree Knocking Skunk Apes" would make an awesome name for a rock band.

[+WRASTRO]

I don't think a nail or two will cause any problems for any healthy tree. I am bad at posting pictures in threads so just do an internet search for Vashon Island Tree. In most cases anything short of girdling the tree won't have any real lasting impact.

 

This is a perception issue for Geocaching, not an actual problem for the tree.

[+gof1]

Here you go.

 

[+Guinness70]

one of OP's caches got the boot? OP wanting to settle a score with the nail in a tree cache owner who wore said boot?

 

Here you go. -//-

that is the weirdest thing ive seen in a long while

for real? or photo chopped? pardun the typo pun

[Clan Riffster]

Here you go.

I found one of those at this cache.

[+Guinness70]

LOLOLOLOL

 

those beat the armyshoes swung inthe tree things outside barracks.

[+briansnat]

There is a cache in this tree, but it's hidden in what appears to be an existing nailed on object

 

\

 

There is also a bike hanging in the tree that is a bit out of view

[+sbell111]

I'll be very interested in a reviewers ruling on firetacks vs nails. They both cause the same amount of harm to the tree (none), but they both deface the tree all the same.

 

The digging a hole issue was solved by not allowing the use of even a "pointy stick"

 

Seems to me their are only 2 choices left to the reviewing staff.

 

1. No fire tacks allowed or...

2. pretend firetacks were never brought up.

Personally, I hope they go with #2.

 

I don't use the search function for a couple of reasons...

I agree with you.

 

It's ironic that someone who often links back to multiple old posts of a topic as if to say "this has been discussed so why talk about it further?" usually goes on to contribute to the current discussion. Often within the same post!

 

Perhaps an IQ test should be required in order to post?

I actually prefer 'markwells' to be combined with a bit of discussion. There was a time when it was in vogue to simply post a list of previous discussions without remark. I found that to be a bit rude, in practice. Edited September 8, 2008 by sbell111

[Mushtang]

I don't use the search function for a couple of reasons...

I agree with you.

 

It's ironic that someone who often links back to multiple old posts of a topic as if to say "this has been discussed so why talk about it further?" usually goes on to contribute to the current discussion. Often within the same post!

 

Perhaps an IQ test should be required in order to post?

I actually prefer 'markwells' to be combined with a bit of discussion. There was a time when it was in vogue to simply post a list of previous discussions without remark. I found that to be a bit rude, in practice.

Oh I definitely prefer the discussion myself. It's just that I've noticed a lot of "Markwells" used to suggest threads are a waste of time, and then the poster joins in the discussion, and I find that ironic.

 

There's a difference between "Here's some links to previous posts you should have read instead of starting this one, and by the way here's what I think about the topic...", and, "Here's some links I found for you in case you wanted to read them too, and here's what I think about the topic...".

[+sbell111]

I don't use the search function for a couple of reasons...

I agree with you.

 

It's ironic that someone who often links back to multiple old posts of a topic as if to say "this has been discussed so why talk about it further?" usually goes on to contribute to the current discussion. Often within the same post!

 

Perhaps an IQ test should be required in order to post?

I actually prefer 'markwells' to be combined with a bit of discussion. There was a time when it was in vogue to simply post a list of previous discussions without remark. I found that to be a bit rude, in practice.

Oh I definitely prefer the discussion myself. It's just that I've noticed a lot of "Markwells" used to suggest threads are a waste of time, and then the poster joins in the discussion, and I find that ironic.

 

There's a difference between "Here's some links to previous posts you should have read instead of starting this one, and by the way here's what I think about the topic...", and, "Here's some links I found for you in case you wanted to read them too, and here's what I think about the topic...".

agreed

[Skippermark]

I couldn't get a clear answer from the internet on whether a nail in a tree is bad or not.

 

Most sites seemed to agree that one nail probably won't do much damage but a lot would.

 

Edit to say that I just remembered that the DEP (Environmental Protection) often nails ID tags into trees for monitoring. Wonder why they'd do that if it's bad for them?

I think it has more to do with perception. Groundspeak doesn't want the game getting a bad reputation by allowing thousands of people to pound nails into trees. If someone does do it they can honestly say that it was against their site guidelines.

I had gotten into the "off topic" discussion about the health of trees with nails in them. I agree that cachers putting nails into trees isn't good for our reputation.

[+steve p]

After reading this thread, I went into my yard a pounded a nail into a 15yo cottonwood tree and 3 nails into an oak sapling.

I'll get back to you in a few years with any findings.

And at that point someone will complain about you resurrecting a very old thread.

LOL!

Edited September 8, 2008 by steve p

[knowschad]

I'm reminded of the tree in Disney World that ate a lawn mower.

 

Hahah! I wasn't aware of that until I Googled it... funny!

[knowschad]

Here's a link to some things trees have swallowed

 

And I think that this is priceless!:

 

[+BadAndy]

Here you go.

I found one of those at this cache.

 

I was wondering where I left that bike.

[AZcachemeister]

This is not a minor violation but indead a serious one. It may take some time but the tree will surly die from driving a nail into it. Besides why would someone be so totally ill responsible as to deface a natural living thing?

 

Yes, every tree that ever had a nail (of whatever size) driven into it has died or will eventually die.

It may take decades due to the tree's will to live, but eventually it WILL succumb.

 

This reminds me of The Dreaded Tomato Addiction, which I and my classmates studied in Junior High School.

[4wheelin_fool]

Edited September 9, 2008 by 4wheelin_fool

[+SixDogTeam]

We have observed and photographed literally dozens of mature healthy trees that have swallowed up wire fencing and wood fencing and even tombstones and chunks of concrete--Nature is a powerful and resilient thing. Having said that, you better not put any nails in MY trees...

[+steve p]

Yes, every tree that ever had a nail (of whatever size) driven into it has died or will eventually die.

It may take decades due to the tree's will to live, but eventually it WILL succumb.

And every single tree on the planet that has not had a nail driven into it has died or will eventually die also.

[+SimbaJamey]

Although this is a dead (fallen) tree....it shows the awesome power they (trees) have.

The rock the tree lifted off the ground when it fell is about the size of a small car and probably weighs at least 6000 pounds.

 

[+Wild Thing 73]

Why would you air this trivial situation on this forum....Like the op said "log it an move on" I would just add "get a life without such turmoil".

[pengwe]

On one of my multis, I used gardening wire, (the green stuff), to affix tags to trees. As the trees grew, several of them swallowed the wire, and part of the tags. I wonder if this would qualify as defacement, since the tree did it to itself?

 

OK, back to reality: Given the setup you described, I would do nothing, other than logging my find.

This could actually kill a tree, if the wire went all the way around, because the tree could ringbark itself.

[knowschad]

On one of my multis, I used gardening wire, (the green stuff), to affix tags to trees. As the trees grew, several of them swallowed the wire, and part of the tags. I wonder if this would qualify as defacement, since the tree did it to itself?

 

OK, back to reality: Given the setup you described, I would do nothing, other than logging my find.

This could actually kill a tree, if the wire went all the way around, because the tree could ringbark itself.

 

Not true, from what I've seen. The bark simply grows over the wire. To "ringbark", or girdle a tree, the bark has to actually be stripped off.

[+BadAndy]

Has there been any answer to the firetack vs nail issue?

[+sbell111]

Has there been any answer to the firetack vs nail issue?

I can't imagine anyone actually wanting that question officially answered. I know that I don't.

[+bflentje]

This is not a minor violation but indead a serious one. It may take some time but the tree will surly die from driving a nail into it. Besides why would someone be so totally ill responsible as to deface a natural living thing?

 

OMG, it took 15 posts before treehuggers making up lies came out of the woodwork. I am impressed.

 

I've got documented and photographic proof that demonstrates that nailing into a tree isn't going to kill it in most instances.

[+sbell111]

This is not a minor violation but indead a serious one. It may take some time but the tree will surly die from driving a nail into it. Besides why would someone be so totally ill responsible as to deface a natural living thing?

 

OMG, it took 15 posts before treehuggers making up lies came out of the woodwork. I am impressed.

 

I've got documented and photographic proof that demonstrates that nailing into a tree isn't going to kill it in most instances.

Can you prove that the tree will never die?

[+bflentje]

This is not a minor violation but indead a serious one. It may take some time but the tree will surly die from driving a nail into it. Besides why would someone be so totally ill responsible as to deface a natural living thing?

 

OMG, it took 15 posts before treehuggers making up lies came out of the woodwork. I am impressed.

 

I've got documented and photographic proof that demonstrates that nailing into a tree isn't going to kill it in most instances.

Can you prove that the tree will never die?

[Mushtang]

This is not a minor violation but indead a serious one. It may take some time but the tree will surly die from driving a nail into it. Besides why would someone be so totally ill responsible as to deface a natural living thing?

OMG, it took 15 posts before treehuggers making up lies came out of the woodwork. I am impressed.

 

I've got documented and photographic proof that demonstrates that nailing into a tree isn't going to kill it in most instances.

Can you prove that the tree will never die?

We all owe one death. There are no exceptions. Even for trees.

 

I suppose the thicker the nail as compared to the trunk, the shorter the life of the tree. If it's a sapling and you drive a railroad spike through it, it'll die pretty quick.

 

But an average size nail into a big tree... not a problem.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

Has there been any answer to the firetack vs nail issue?

I can't imagine anyone actually wanting that question officially answered. I know that I don't.

 

It probably won't be for several reasons... 1) Firetack is a generic term referring to a multitude of reflector items (many of which don't pierce or deface a tree (many are even camouflaged)). 2) A "firetack" tack doesn't get "nailed" into a tree, it gets pushed (pinned) into a bit of a tree's bark) 3) Most firetacks I've seen are actually biodegradeable and made from the same kind of oxidizing metals as a common fishhook (also biodegradeable) 4) No guideline covers every instance perfectly and "defacing" is a relative term (walking in the woods and leaving a footprint is technically defacing!).

 

Those are just the reasons that pop up quickly, but I'm sure many more could be found in here

[knowschad]

Has there been any answer to the firetack vs nail issue?

I can't imagine anyone actually wanting that question officially answered. I know that I don't.

 

It probably won't be for several reasons... 1) Firetack is a generic term referring to a multitude of reflector items (many of which don't pierce or deface a tree (many are even camouflaged)). 2) A "firetack" tack doesn't get "nailed" into a tree, it gets pushed (pinned) into a bit of a tree's bark) 3) Most firetacks I've seen are actually biodegradeable and made from the same kind of oxidizing metals as a common fishhook nail (also biodegradeable) 4) No guideline covers every instance perfectly and "defacing" is a relative term (walking in the woods and leaving a footprint is technically defacing!).

 

Those are just the reasons that pop up quickly, but I'm sure many more could be found in here

 

Fixed.

Edited September 11, 2008 by knowschad

[+Kit Fox]

Whatever you do, don't let the crying tree people know that you are piercing the hearts of innocent trees.

[+flask]

 

OMG, it took 15 posts before treehuggers making up lies came out of the woodwork. I am impressed.

 

 

this is such an unfair categorization. all "treehuggers" ( a term that is pejorative and conveys bias just in its use) aren't liars and all liars aren't "treehuggers".

 

me, i'm in favor of environmental conservation for many reasons (one being sustainable harvestability), but i'm against making stupid and false statements.

 

for those who wish to be overly cautious: while it is possible that any breaking of the bark may introduce infection into a tree thereby killing it, the actual incidence of this is much less (on several orders of magnitude) than the breaking of human skin will result in a serious infection. trees are largely resilient organisms. they don't hardly notice nails, fences, or bicycles.

[pengwe]

On one of my multis, I used gardening wire, (the green stuff), to affix tags to trees. As the trees grew, several of them swallowed the wire, and part of the tags. I wonder if this would qualify as defacement, since the tree did it to itself?

 

OK, back to reality: Given the setup you described, I would do nothing, other than logging my find.

This could actually kill a tree, if the wire went all the way around, because the tree could ringbark itself.

 

Not true, from what I've seen. The bark simply grows over the wire. To "ringbark", or girdle a tree, the bark has to actually be stripped off.

Depends on the wire, and the tree. Wire is not much of an interruption, so a strong tree could grow over it. That does not mean that all trees always will. (You don't necessarily need to strip the bark, just that the more damage you do, the more likely you are to kill the tree, so if you were doing it on purpose, you would.)

 

Not saying "OMG! TREE-MURDERER!!!, just that encircling a tree with anything is not 'best practice', and there is the possibility that the tree might die.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

What would do if you found a cache, on commercial property, that was nailed to a tree? The cache is a bison tube on a small cable that is nailed to the tree.

I went on our local forum but found no help. It may be because the forum is dominated by the by the cache owner.

The only real suggestion was that it should be left between the reviewer and the cache owner. I don't want to blow the whistle on the owner so how would the reviewer get involved? Is this OK?

Thanks.

P.S. By the way, at no time did I identify the cache or the owner.

 

While this has been another amusing thread about the if's and or's of the Groundspeak guidelines, all of you following the thread might be interested to know that the geocaching account "Work for caches" is a sock puppet account for Konnarock Kid who has been here before complaining about

things happening locally after he was banned from his local group.

 

It might also be interesting to note that he tends to complain about the

actions of those who he feels were behind his banning...."notice no names

were mentioned", but those of us locally know who this cache belongs to and

also know who he has issues with locally.

 

The offending "nail" in question is a small tack that was already in the tree to start with.

 

-now back to your regularly scheduled program...

Talk about singleminded dumbness! Go to the profile of geocache911 crew. Now that's a real sock puppet acount who by the way sends anonnymous emails to new geocachers to 'warn' them not to cache with one of our other cachers. These homophobic people warn people of the evils of having any association with a gay geocacher. They hate this geocacher and have wrongly accused him of numerous 'crimes against geocaching'.

The WFC account is real and it is real cacher who actually geocaches! Ask geocache911crew what they do besides promoting discrimination.

Yes, KK was banned on a local forum because one of this 'secret' crew recieved a PM (which was supposed to be private) from me. In that PM, I requested that a certain member of the forum stop trashing other members and partaking in the thieft and/or distruction of geocaches. I was banned because the recipient of the PM is a close personal friend of the admin of the forum and without consulting the forum moderators, the ban was placed. By the way the so called 'threat" in the PM was a plea for peace by stating that I would not publish a photo of the cacher who was in the act of distroying a cache if the bad behavior would stop. I happened to be on the shoreline when the cacher walked up to the cache and "watered it down". Others have wittnessed the same thing! Threat yes, but for a just cause! By the way, this same cacher is a member of the geocache911crew.

I plead guilty of being a friend of WFC, but he did discover a cache nailed to a tree and yes did bring it to the attention of the local forum. No usuable advise was given on that forum before the same banning admin locked the thread! That's is why he came here.

Please go to the profile of this secret society (geocache911crew) who is determined to interfere in other's geocaching rights and promote a single minded but anonymous discrimination. That account should be closed by Groundspeak.

If necessary, I can produce testamony of recipients of their evil. They are biased, mean spriited and stick their noses in the private behavior of decent geocachers.

Thanks , I didn't want to get into this but I felt that I needed to set KK's record striaght and point out the homophobic behavior of these people. I am straight but we don't have any right to discriminate against those who are gay!

By the way, KK was not banned from the "local group" which he (me) co-founded, he (me) was banned from a privately owned forum which is only one of the three forums which represent local geocachers!

Yes for those who cannot read, this post was written by KK (me). Who else?

Edited September 12, 2008 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[+3doxies]

By the way, KK was not banned from the "local group" which he co-founded, he was banned from a privately owned forum which is only one of the three forums which represent local geocachers!

 

Ok, I'm confused...who is talking here?

[+flask]

By the way, KK was not banned from the "local group" which he co-founded, he was banned from a privately owned forum which is only one of the three forums which represent local geocachers!

 

Ok, I'm confused...who is talking here?

 

marge, i'd guess...

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

By the way, KK was not banned from the "local group" which he co-founded, he was banned from a privately owned forum which is only one of the three forums which represent local geocachers!

 

Ok, I'm confused...who is talking here?

 

marge, i'd guess...

 

No confusion here. It is the Konnarock Kid talking.

Better yet, are we hearing from another member of the geocache911 crew or the forum owner?

[Instant Karma]

[+Too Tall John]

I highly doubt a single, ultra thin, thumbtack would kill a tree, when you look at the damage caused by trail blazers, environmental kooks, tree carving vandals, or tree knocking skunk apes, and the trees have lived.

I agree. I highly doubt those things too, but then I'm no treeologist.

 

I think the only thing we can really be sure about is that "The Tree Knocking Skunk Apes" would make an awesome name for a rock band.

This post reminded me of something, so I did a search:

All I really know for sure it this: "Trash With An Agenda" would make a great name for a rock band.

 

(Maybe the Dixie Chicks need a new name? )

(sorry, first one's from this closed topic, had a hard time getting it to quote to this one...)

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...

I think "The Snooganesque Light Poles" would have been a great name for an 80's New Wave band.

I think "Invasive Spew of Worthlessness" would be an awesome name for a rock band.

And BTW, don't you think "Snoogans and the Mods" would be a great name for a doo-wop band?

So, KBI, when are you starting a band?

[realisticdreamer66]

when i first started geocaching ten yrs ago, i almost gave it up brfore i started because of the control freaks that are involved. i recently decided to join this group and found that it is even worse now than it was then. i've already been told by one local cacher that i can't cahe in this area without his permission. good luck to the schmuck who thinks they will be able to do this. there are at least fifty other people in this area that cache outside of any organized group because of the same reason. we stash our own caches as well as find ones that are listed publicly. didn't you know that you don't have to be a member to see all of geocache listings and whereabouts without being a member? i'm sure the control freaks will try to do away with that also. they don't realize that they don't run anything but their mouths. why not try and promote the sport instead of controlling it! geocaching.com says that geocaching is free and to be enjoyed by all. why not instead of wasting all this energy and hot air on solving real problems such as world hunger instead of how you can control a sport that should be fun and not a headache. to all the control freaks that will chime in after i post this, i've enjoyed this sport for over 10 yrs without you (so have many others) and will continue to do so no matter what hot air you blow, so don't bother. i'm really sick and tired of the condecending, arrogent, hollier than thou, pompus, and elitist attitude that has ruined a sport that should be enjoyed by all. say what you want about my post. as i said earlier, you only thing you run is your mouth.

Edited September 12, 2008 by realisticdreamer66

[+syfun]

I feel the need to go hang a chainsaw from a tree just so I have a cool pic to post 10 years from now.