Painting a hint on a rock in state forest...?

[+Rockin Roddy]

Any innocent bystander or park personnel certainly wouldn't be able to see any difference.

 

If the wrong person sees this, they may very well jump to the conclusion the CO did this when placing the cache, this could lead to trouble. Perception is everything, and trying to undo the perceptions of wrong-doings would be very difficult if not impossibel!

 

In other words, even if the CO didn't damage a single rock, it could still lead to trouble, best action would be to CLEAR THE IDEA before implementing it! This goes for painting or carving or whatever!!

[+TrailGators]

Any innocent bystander or park personnel certainly wouldn't be able to see any difference.

 

If the wrong person sees this, they may very well jump to the conclusion the CO did this when placing the cache, this could lead to trouble. Perception is everything, and trying to undo the perceptions of wrong-doings would be very difficult if not impossibel!

 

In other words, even if the CO didn't damage a single rock, it could still lead to trouble, best action would be to CLEAR THE IDEA before implementing it! This goes for painting or carving or whatever!!

Very good point! This is what happened in ABDSP with at least one of the alleged incidents. The cache will always draw the blame. So placing a cache near an existing problem is a very poor idea.

[+rabid-chihuahua]

I beleive the cache being referred to is GCX1E8 Find BrianSnat's Ammo Can #5

 

If I remember correctly the "X" looked like it was just some old graffiti along side the highway.

[+Renegade Knight]

I beleive the cache being referred to is GCX1E8 Find BrianSnat's Ammo Can #5

 

If I remember correctly the "X" looked like it was just some old graffiti along side the highway.

 

Big X? Could be the marking for a benchmark to which an arial photography run would be ortho rectified. One cool thing about being a surveyor. Legal Grafitti.

[knowschad]

Agreed. But my point is more about the relationship between the lands management and geocaching in general.

 

If I were a park ranger walking a trail and I see a painted rock and I become aware that it is related to a geocache, am I really going to take the time to find out whther the rock is indigenous or a transplant? And does it really matter? It stills LOOKS like a painted rock in a natural area.

 

My point is, that the Park Service wouldn't differentiate their opinion of geocaching, regardless of whether the painted rock was carried in, or was "born" there. They are still going to assume that someone painted a rock in the park, not "well, perhaps it was carried in..."

 

How is that aspect any different?

 

Or, they may be upset that someone brought in a non-native type of rock, thus confusing the geologists that visit the park.

[+tozainamboku]

Agreed. But my point is more about the relationship between the lands management and geocaching in general.

 

If I were a park ranger walking a trail and I see a painted rock and I become aware that it is related to a geocache, am I really going to take the time to find out whther the rock is indigenous or a transplant? And does it really matter? It stills LOOKS like a painted rock in a natural area.

 

My point is, that the Park Service wouldn't differentiate their opinion of geocaching, regardless of whether the painted rock was carried in, or was "born" there. They are still going to assume that someone painted a rock in the park, not "well, perhaps it was carried in..."

 

How is that aspect any different?

 

Or, they may be upset that someone brought in a non-native type of rock, thus confusing the geologists that visit the park.

Just think about how confused the archaeologists get when they find those Tupperware containers filled with dirty golf balls and the heads of Barbie dolls.

[+Harry Dolphin]

 

Brian,

I can think of four that I've found like this. (Not a very high average.) Two are archived. The magic marker on the bridge faded for one. The one with the paint on the birch tree has also been archived. I think I know the rock that you are referring to. The fourth is still active. First stage is magic marker on a rock in the parking lot. Second stage is magic marker on an observation deck. Hsn't been found in a while. You're saying that I should report it? That's not going to erase the magic marker...

 

You were stopped for speeding, what good is writing the ticket, you already were slowed. Aside from the money, it's to get a point across. The point that defacing something for a cache is wrong regardless of how minor the defacing is. The point that defacing property for a cache could lead to trouble for all of caching.

 

Not sure what to make of your analogy. The cache in question has 13 finds, 5 DNFs, 5 notes and 1 'Needs Maintenance". (The Needs Maintenance note is sour grapes due to someone defecating somewhere nearby and a yellow jacket nest. Neither of which have anything to do with the cache. The coords are about 80' off, which means they were hunting in the wrong place.) It was last found in late 2007. Cache owner hasn't found a cache since about then. The magic marker has probably faded since then. (Hopefully.) I'm guessing that the final is probably geolitter that will never be seen again. And, for that reason should probably be archived. (It is noted that this cache does stick out in my mind after more than two years.)

[+dacjohns]

If all geocachers tried to follow the principles of Leave No Trace then many of these problems, such as geocaching being banned from state parks, could be alleviated.

 

http://lnt.org/programs/principles.php

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Sounds like a private message to a reviewer is in order. On a side note, you have no finds in your profile, is this a sock puppet account?

 

Dood asked a legitimate, non-accusatory question, so what does it matter who he or what his background is? If he saw a need to post it anonymously, he must have his reasons.

What I can't fathom is what in God's name ever possessed you to go snooping on him. And then try to bus him!!

Poor guy must'a really rocked your world.

~*

Clicking on someones profile to go and see what Cache they are talking about?? Not exactly snooping. Many people who ask questions here get good answers from people who have looked into it, through the OPs profile and activity.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

On a side note, you have no finds in your profile, is this a sock puppet account?

I don't see why everyone is throwing a fit over this QUESTION. Let's write this another way...

 

I looked at your profile to see if I could read up on the Cache you found, and I see none listed. Are you really a new player, or are you asking under a sock puppet account to remain anonymous?

 

I think all the offensive posters are assuming that all sock puppets are bad, Kit Fox said nothing of the sort, so it's a legitimate thing to wonder, not a "Calling Out"

[+rgodwin3]

you have to much time on your hands

 

What I can't fathom is what in God's name ever possessed you to go snooping on him. And then try to bus him!!

Poor guy must'a really rocked your world.

~*

Clicking on someone's profile is hardly snooping. If someone makes a comment about a recent find, I'm sure many people check out their profiles to see their recent caches and find the page for the cache in question.

Agreed. Talk about over reaction.

 

OT: I wonder if the OP has bothered to ask the cache owner? If not and (s)he doesn't want to then a note to the reviewer might be the only good alternative.

[+Too Tall John]

you have to much time on your hands

What I can't fathom is what in God's name ever possessed you to go snooping on him. And then try to bus him!!

Poor guy must'a really rocked your world.

~*

Clicking on someone's profile is hardly snooping. If someone makes a comment about a recent find, I'm sure many people check out their profiles to see their recent caches and find the page for the cache in question.

Agreed. Talk about over reaction.

 

OT: I wonder if the OP has bothered to ask the cache owner? If not and (s)he doesn't want to then a note to the reviewer might be the only good alternative.

...and if you are going to spend time making a post like that, so do you.

 

I guess that means I do, too....

[+briansnat]

I decided to take a hike up to the cache in question today while I was in the area for some other reasons. Anyway I sincerely doubt the cache hider put the X there.

 

Reason 1, the graffiti appears to be quite old and likely predates the cache by several years

 

Reason 2, the cache hider is a respected geocacher who has hidden caches before and since and never marked his other caches.

 

Reason 3, it serves no purpose. It's an easy find without the X. Great sat reception and not many other places to hide it.

 

Sure it looks bad, which is why I think he probably should have chosen a different spot, but I don't think it was geocaching related.

 

Anyway, here is a pic, judge for yourself. The cache is under the rock.

 

Edited March 28, 2009 by briansnat