PLEASE watch where you step!

[+TeamPatchwork]

OK, I realize I'm preaching to the choir here, but I need to vent for a minute.

 

If you're caching around landscaping, PLEASE watch where you step. I was contacted by a VERY pi**ed off business owner. I placed a cache in a little park area that is surrounded by businesses. You could grab the cache without stepping off of the sidewalk.

 

The business owner saw someone trampling the flowers (I hadn't realized that he was doing the landscaping, even though it's a public green space, I guess he "adopted" it) and went out and asked them what they were doing.

 

The cacher in question told them "Geocaching" and explained it to him, and he was NOT amused. He created an account, contacted me, and was less than understanding.

 

I'll spare you the gory details, but I hope all of us will be careful where we step.

[Mushtang]

Did he ask you to remove the cache, or did you offer to do it anyway?

[+Mule Ears]

Hides in the vicinity of gardens and nice landscaping invariably inflict collateral damage due to ham-fisted searches. It only takes one to cause a problem, as in this case. Since you can't control the behavior of your visitors, it's best to place caches well away from anybody's prize petunias.

[+buttaskotch]

I have seen way too many cachers trample flowers, pull out plants, and all sorts of ridiculousness to retrieve a cache.

Its pathetic. Haven't any of these guys heard of Leave No Trace?

I feel that there should be a day, like CITO day that would teach geo-cachers not to hurt plant life in their quest.

[+deercreekth]

If the cache is This sure Spruced Fortville up!, it should be obvious from the title and the hint that there's no need to trample on flowers. Unfortunately, adding something like "There's no need to trample on the flowers to find the cache" to the description probably wouldn't help, since they probably wouldn't read that either.

[+Nalarangka]

I was FTF on a cache just the other day and it was hidden at the entrance to a driveway on a rural road. The cache page said the owners had helped to hide the cache so there was no stealth needed. There was lots of rocks and landscaping near GZ and it turned out the cache was not in the landscaping but on the gate at the front but the cache page did not mention to stay out of the landscaping and GZ was actually in the landscaping for me so I tromped around a bit until I finally found it. My point is if you want people to stay out of the landscaping then you should make it clear on the cache page that the cache is not hidden in that area and to stay out of there because if the cache can be anywhere around 20 feet from where my gpsr says it is then I will look anywhere in that area unless told not to.

[+Renegade Knight]

Hides in the vicinity of gardens and nice landscaping invariably inflict collateral damage due to ham-fisted searches. It only takes one to cause a problem, as in this case. Since you can't control the behavior of your visitors, it's best to place caches well away from anybody's prize petunias.

 

Very nice. This has been my experinece, and I agree with the advice. Stay away from flower beds.

[+TeamPatchwork]

Thanks for your replies, all. In my defense, when I placed the cache, there was no landscaping, just a couple of trees and some shrubs. But that's OK, I'll be more careful about placing them from here on out. Lesson learned.

 

And, the owner confiscated the container. I asked him who the cacher was, and he gave me a name but it wasn't anyone I recognized. Oh well. Like I said, lesson learned.

[+Renegade Knight]

... I tromped around a bit until I finally found it. My point is if you want people to stay out of the landscaping then you should make it clear on the cache page...

 

Your part is to avoid the tromping around in a damaging way to begin with. It's not the job of the cache owner to make sure you know how to tip toe in tulips. While the cache owner should consider folks who tromp, they only need to do so because folks insist in ripping things up like a bear digging for grubs. If all finders (it only takes one hamfist not doing the right thing...) did what they should do, there would be no problem for a cache onwer to worry about.

[+Knight2000]

You are venting. Geocachers will always destroy the area. It is only a few that do it, but a little leaven ferments the whole lump.

[+ArcherDragoon]

You are venting. Geocachers will always destroy the area. It is only a few that do it, but a little leaven ferments the whole lump.

 

Your second and third sentence seem to go against each other...

[Dinoprophet]

You are venting. Geocachers will always destroy the area. It is only a few that do it, but a little leaven ferments the whole lump.

 

Your second and third sentence seem to go against each other...

Read the second as "The area will always be destroyed by geocachers", not "All geocachers will destroy the area".

[+StarBrand]

I've seen this a few times - a cache placed a gorgeous city flower garden in the middle of a nice park - it was a micro hidden under a brick that lined a narrow pathway. Every plant area within 20 feet showed signs of searching. No hint on the listing at all and no mention (until I protested) that the cache was not in the flower beds (several lampposts and metal art structures are in flowers nearby). While nobody should have been off in the flowers - I still found it to be an irresposible placement/poor description.

[+rob3k]

I do think it's a good idea to note in the cache page there is no need to bother landscaping if any is present. In this case it's just an unfortunate situation where the cache came before the 'scaping.

[+bflentje]

OK, I realize I'm preaching to the choir here, but I need to vent for a minute.

 

If you're caching around landscaping, PLEASE watch where you step. I was contacted by a VERY pi**ed off business owner. I placed a cache in a little park area that is surrounded by businesses. You could grab the cache without stepping off of the sidewalk.

 

The business owner saw someone trampling the flowers (I hadn't realized that he was doing the landscaping, even though it's a public green space, I guess he "adopted" it) and went out and asked them what they were doing.

 

The cacher in question told them "Geocaching" and explained it to him, and he was NOT amused. He created an account, contacted me, and was less than understanding.

 

I'll spare you the gory details, but I hope all of us will be careful where we step.

 

I've had instances where landscaping has been damaged and I promptly removed the cache. Adding text to the cache listing isn't going to do the trick.

 

I can only imagine that the people doing this are those that have in excess of 5000 posts in these forums. No one else in their right mind would do such a thing.

[+Casting Crowns]

This is something that I've become aware of and seem to ALWAYS be getting onto a friend of mine about.....You don't have to "scorched Earth" and area to look for a cache! Even if it was in a flower garden....c'mon.....show SOME respect for property and not trample the vegetation or landscape.

 

Unfortunately, there are always going to be people that ruin the fun for everyone. We just have to be in the majority.

[+Chrysalides]

I can only imagine that the people doing this are those that have in excess of 5000 posts in these forums. No one else in their right mind would do such a thing.

That's not true. With so many postings, these folks have no time to go geocaching, much less destroy flower beds

 

Good points that were brought up. By the way, did the property owner return the cache container to you?

[+TeamPatchwork]

Good points that were brought up. By the way, did the property owner return the cache container to you?

 

He said he has it and asked me to pick it up. I stopped by today and the clerk knew what happened but didn't know what happened to the container.

[+Mule Ears]

This is something that I've become aware of and seem to ALWAYS be getting onto a friend of mine about.....You don't have to "scorched Earth" and area to look for a cache! Even if it was in a flower garden....c'mon.....show SOME respect for property and not trample the vegetation or landscape.

 

Unfortunately, there are always going to be people that ruin the fun for everyone. We just have to be in the majority.

 

No, that won't do it. It's not as though 99 careful, respectful searches will repair the damage done by one careless, trample-the-posies search. Adding wording to the cache description to the effect of 'please don't tear up the landscaping' won't solve the problem either. Many cachers just load coords and go without reading cache pages. The only way to prevent collateral damage is to place the cache a goodly distance away from landscaping features that might be harmed by a thorough, hands-on search.

[+Chrysalides]

He said he has it and asked me to pick it up. I stopped by today and the clerk knew what happened but didn't know what happened to the container.

It occurred to me that if he had just left the cache there, plainly visible, there would be less potential damage to the flower bed. By removing the container he is very likely encouraging people to search more vigorously for something that isn't there.

 

Sorry this happened to your cache. Hope you get it back.

[+TeamPatchwork]

It occurred to me that if he had just left the cache there, plainly visible, there would be less potential damage to the flower bed. By removing the container he is very likely encouraging people to search more vigorously for something that isn't there.

 

I promptly archived the cache, immediately after I heard from him. I just realized I had left that out of the story!

[+briansnat]

You are venting. Geocachers will always destroy the area. It is only a few that do it, but a little leaven ferments the whole lump.

 

What a load of nonsense. In all my finds I've never seen an area "destroyed" by geocachers. In a small number of instances I've seen a few bent blades of grass or some disturbed rocks, but I'd hardly call this destruction.

[+Col. Flagg]

Sorry to hear about the bad news. I found one up your way after meeting you and mandolin girl on Sunday that was right in the middle of a flower bed, but the hider made sure to note that you didn't need to trample the flowers because you could reach it from the grass.

[+jackrock]

I have seen many shrubs damaged to an unsightly extent by cachers and typically will mention it in my log. How hard is it to find a cache in a bush that now has a large "hole" in it leading to the cache? When that many people reach into a bush, it will end up damaged no matter how careful they are. That's not willful damage, just a fact that so many hands reaching in will affect the bush in a negative manner.

[+WRASTRO]

You are venting. Geocachers will always destroy the area. It is only a few that do it, but a little leaven ferments the whole lump.

 

What a load of nonsense. In all my finds I've never seen an area "destroyed" by geocachers. In a small number of instances I've seen a few bent blades of grass or some disturbed rocks, but I'd hardly call this destruction.

I have seen a few areas where it was obvious that cachers had been a bit over zealous. The cool thing about nature is that within a few days to a few weeks or a few months it would be pretty much impossible for anyone to tell we had ever been in any particular place. I actually saw a few logs in my area (Seattle, Puget Sound) this past Winter/Spring where folks were yapping about cachers tromping ferns. The reality was that we had a pretty cold and snowy Winter and the snow smashed down all of the fern fronds. By the end of this Summer no one would be able to tell a human had ever been in these areas.

 

Flower beds can be a different story. Just stay out of them and don't hide caches there. This seems simple enough.

[+Knight2000]

You are venting. Geocachers will always destroy the area. It is only a few that do it, but a little leaven ferments the whole lump.

 

What a load of nonsense. In all my finds I've never seen an area "destroyed" by geocachers. In a small number of instances I've seen a few bent blades of grass or some disturbed rocks, but I'd hardly call this destruction.

Then why did the OP have an issue? Eventually a geocacher will destroy a sensitive area. Even if 1% do it, it still happens.

[+Nature Kids]

The easiest way to find an older cache is follow the path..........

[+paleolith]

Garden of Love is another recent example of the phenomenon under discussion. Only this time it appears that a cacher really did enough damage to justify using the word 'destroyed" (take note, briansnat), despite which the caretaker is actually very understanding and acted to have the cache removed only with great reluctance.

 

Edward

[+WRASTRO]

You are venting. Geocachers will always destroy the area. It is only a few that do it, but a little leaven ferments the whole lump.

 

What a load of nonsense. In all my finds I've never seen an area "destroyed" by geocachers. In a small number of instances I've seen a few bent blades of grass or some disturbed rocks, but I'd hardly call this destruction.

Then why did the OP have an issue? Eventually a geocacher will destroy a sensitive area. Even if 1% do it, it still happens.

It would seem the OP experienced an issue because the area changed after the cache was placed. Regardless, how do you define a sensitive area? I have a cache that is in a wetland area. 50 people a day could hunt it and no one would likely ever be able to tell by looking at the area. The vegetation is so aggressive that it would take heavy equipment to make any truly discernable mark on the landscape.

 

I have another cache that is along a very short patch of urban asphalt. I need to cut back the blackberries two or three times each year in order to keep the path even semi-open. Humans can't keep up with nature in many cases without aggressive actions. A highly landscaped area isn't being "destroyed" by searchers. It is simply asthetics. The area has been modified in a manner that makes it overly susceptible to what should likely be considered normal use.

 

Clearly cachers shouldn't be tromping around in the landscaping and ripping up the shrubberies, but it is just a bit over the top to try to label a landscaped area in an office park a "sensitive area".

 

Give my property a month or two and you might have a hard time telling I have lived there for many years. I do seem to spend a lot of time out trimming shrubs and pulling weeds. Maybe I should just place a cache so the area will be rendered void of all vegetation. Oh, wait. I have had a cache on my property for over four years and I see no evidence that any of the 359 finders to date have even been there.

[+Chrysalides]

You are venting. Geocachers will always destroy the area. It is only a few that do it, but a little leaven ferments the whole lump.

 

What a load of nonsense. In all my finds I've never seen an area "destroyed" by geocachers. In a small number of instances I've seen a few bent blades of grass or some disturbed rocks, but I'd hardly call this destruction.

Then why did the OP have an issue? Eventually a geocacher will destroy a sensitive area. Even if 1% do it, it still happens.

I don't know if this is what briansnat means, but I find your statement "Geocachers will always destroy the area" to be inaccurate. Because if that is the case, then geocaching should be illegal.

 

I thought at first that briansnat meant just because he never saw an area destroyed, no place was ever destroyed by geocacher. But after thinking about it, I realize that just by finding one location that hasn't been destroyed by geocacher, your original statement is not true.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Chrysalides

[+The Turner Gang]

Note to self: Post on Landscaping Forums saying "Check your location thoroughly for geochaches before commencing landscaping. If you locate one at your landscaping GZ, be sure to provide paved paths leading to the cache and preferably signage. In addition, a provide a shaded bench where cachers can log and swap in comfort. Not all landscapers destroy caches, but a little leaven ferments the whole batch. Discuss."

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

 

Regardless, how do you define a sensitive area? I have a cache that is in a wetland area. 50 people a day could hunt it and no one would likely ever be able to tell by looking at the area. The vegetation is so aggressive that it would take heavy equipment to make any truly discernable mark on the landscape.

 

 

I think this is the key. Some areas really are extremely fragile. Alpine environments come to mind. You can do a lot of damage in a few minutes that will not disappear for many years in an alpine or sub-alpine area.

 

On the other hand, my tracks through the wetlands we hike through here in the Midsouth disappear nearly as soon as we make them (making it all to easy to get lost, even with a GPSr). Any bushwacking we do through poison ivy, brambles, and thorns will be quickly negated by these fast growing menaces.

 

Most areas I suspect are somewhere between easy-to-destroy and nearly-impossible-without-a-flamethrower. So we should be careful but not paranoid and always aware of where we are.

 

Carolyn

[+Zolgar]

 

Most areas I suspect are somewhere between easy-to-destroy and nearly-impossible-without-a-flamethrower.

 

... I have a flamethrower, if you want to borrow it. >.>

[+Stargazer22]

This is exactly why I won't place caches in landscaped areas in view of businesses. Too high profile.

Unfortunately there seems to be a portion of cachers who will not accept a DNF under any circumstances and will go to great lengths to be sure they find the cache.

Personally, I can search an area intensively and leave no trace that I have been there. But sadly, that is not the case with some folks who just HAVE to find that cache.

[+Stargazer22]

You are venting. Geocachers will always destroy the area. It is only a few that do it, but a little leaven ferments the whole lump.

 

What a load of nonsense. In all my finds I've never seen an area "destroyed" by geocachers. In a small number of instances I've seen a few bent blades of grass or some disturbed rocks, but I'd hardly call this destruction.

 

Boy, I sure have seen an area that I would call "destroyed" by cachers. Last year there was a cache that was put out in the Ocala National Forest. It was a difficulty 4 hide and in an area I frequent, so we made a trip up there to look for it a few days after it was put out. We DNFed it the first time and went back about 6 weeks later and found it. When we returned, everything in a 50 foot radius of the coords was flattened and it looked like a herd of elephants had been through the area. Dead trees rolled over and left that way, branches freshly broken off trees that were there the first time we had visited, etc... The impact on the area was extremely obvious and since the location was remote, I can't believe anyone but cachers would stop at that particular spot in the forest. We went back again about 3 or 4 months after that just passing through the area and it looked even worse than it did before. So yes, I can honestly say that I have seen an area that was devastated by the work of cachers looking for a difficult hide. The irony is that it is in plain sight and just well cammoed, so there is really no need to disturb anything to find it.

[+Frank Broughton]

I have seen many shrubs damaged to an unsightly extent by cachers and typically will mention it in my log. How hard is it to find a cache in a bush that now has a large "hole" in it leading to the cache? When that many people reach into a bush, it will end up damaged no matter how careful they are. That's not willful damage, just a fact that so many hands reaching in will affect the bush in a negative manner.

 

I have seen this exact same thing in Dunkirk, NY. The shrub is ugly now.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Frank Broughton

[+bflentje]

You are venting. Geocachers will always destroy the area. It is only a few that do it, but a little leaven ferments the whole lump.

 

What a load of nonsense. In all my finds I've never seen an area "destroyed" by geocachers. In a small number of instances I've seen a few bent blades of grass or some disturbed rocks, but I'd hardly call this destruction.

 

Sorry, but I have many times in my area. Maybe it finally proves Minnesota Nice is non-existent.

[+briansnat]

You are venting. Geocachers will always destroy the area. It is only a few that do it, but a little leaven ferments the whole lump.

 

What a load of nonsense. In all my finds I've never seen an area "destroyed" by geocachers. In a small number of instances I've seen a few bent blades of grass or some disturbed rocks, but I'd hardly call this destruction.

Then why did the OP have an issue? Eventually a geocacher will destroy a sensitive area. Even if 1% do it, it still happens.

 

You said geocachers will always destroy the area. The OP may have had an issue. I don't doubt that in a small percentage of intances geocachers can damage the area, but to say that geocachers will always destroy an area is nothing more than a load of hyperbole.

 

I have caches that have been out there 7 years and the surrounding area looks no different today than it did when I hid them. I have caches with 100 more finds and there is no noticeable impact around the cache. I've found hundreds of caches and in most cases there was little evidence anybody had been there, let alone dozens of people.

[knowschad]

 

Most areas I suspect are somewhere between easy-to-destroy and nearly-impossible-without-a-flamethrower.

 

... I have a flamethrower, if you want to borrow it. >.>

 

I thought that belonged to Zolgar.

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

 

Most areas I suspect are somewhere between easy-to-destroy and nearly-impossible-without-a-flamethrower.

 

... I have a flamethrower, if you want to borrow it. >.>

 

I thought that belonged to Zolgar.

 

Thank you for the offer but my sense is that a flamethrower might produce a slightly different experience than I have in mind when I go walking through wetlands.

 

Can private citizens actually own flamethrowers? I assume that these are not allowed to be used as swag (if one could find a cache large enough).

 

Carolyn

Edited June 26, 2009 by Steve&GeoCarolyn

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

I've found hundreds of caches and in most cases there was little evidence anybody had been there, let alone dozens of people.

 

We have found 115 caches and have seen no evidence of human beings or geotrails. I've assumed this is because the caches here get visitors slowly compared to more populous areas and because the vegetation grows so fast here and the water washes away so much evidence. Even in a situation where we were within an hour of another cacher, the only evidence we saw was a few bent weeds that probably recovered by mid-morning. Even well-maintained, purpose-created trails disappear in a few seasons if they are not maintained here.

 

However, I can certainly imagine geotrails or destructive searching happening in Colorado since the vegetation is simply not as voracious and the dry land retains impressions for a while. When I was a girl I used to walk in a nearby field in Denver and I could follow my route from the previous week's walk. So it doesn't beggar my imagination to envision cachers leaving trails or making an area look different after a search in a way that lasts for a while.

 

Isn't the question of whether cachers will change an area something that can only be answered by looking at the region?

 

Carolyn

 

(Of course the hyperbole that cachers will always destroy an area is kind of silly.)

[JM Chicago]

Because GeoCachers are human beings there are good and bad. Because nature evolved with varying degrees of resiliance there are natural areas thatcannot withstand the invasion while others SEEM to be able to take the abuse. But any area will be affected if only to a minor degree.

As an urban cacher I see the good and the bad there as well.

We all can only controll our own actions and assist others by our counsel and example. The CITO efforts we expend and the care we use are all that stand between the good and the bad.

If any of us see the bad being done it is in our best interest to note, announce and mitigate these occurances to our best ability.

For as has been noted it takes little more than one bad apple to rot the barrel...

Jeff

The Chicagoan

AKA JM Chicago

[+Knight2000]

You are venting. Geocachers will always destroy the area. It is only a few that do it, but a little leaven ferments the whole lump.

 

What a load of nonsense. In all my finds I've never seen an area "destroyed" by geocachers. In a small number of instances I've seen a few bent blades of grass or some disturbed rocks, but I'd hardly call this destruction.

Then why did the OP have an issue? Eventually a geocacher will destroy a sensitive area. Even if 1% do it, it still happens.

 

You said geocachers will always destroy the area. The OP may have had an issue. I don't doubt that in a small percentage of intances geocachers can damage the area, but to say that geocachers will always destroy an area is nothing more than a load of hyperbole.

If the area is capable of being destroyed and the hide is not obvious or it is in a somewhat sensitive area- give it enough time and it will be destroyed. Maybe I should amend my statement. I suppose that LPC areas will not be destroyed.

[+Chrysalides]

If the area is capable of being destroyed and the hide is not obvious or it is in a somewhat sensitive area- give it enough time and it will be destroyed. Maybe I should amend my statement. I suppose that LPC areas will not be destroyed.

Given enough time, everything will be destroyed, geocaching or no geocaching.

 

In 1,275 more days, actually.

 

Back on topic, I too think that your statement is hyperbole.

 

And I have seen LPC skirt destroyed... though not necessarily by geocachers.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Chrysalides

[+bflentje]

Because GeoCachers are human beings there are good and bad. Because nature evolved with varying degrees of resiliance there are natural areas thatcannot withstand the invasion while others SEEM to be able to take the abuse. But any area will be affected if only to a minor degree.

As an urban cacher I see the good and the bad there as well.

We all can only controll our own actions and assist others by our counsel and example. The CITO efforts we expend and the care we use are all that stand between the good and the bad.

If any of us see the bad being done it is in our best interest to note, announce and mitigate these occurances to our best ability.

For as has been noted it takes little more than one bad apple to rot the barrel...

Jeff

The Chicagoan

AKA JM Chicago

 

I'll tell you want.. when you start arresting and hauling out the deer and all the other earth destroying critters, then I'll start to feel bad about the vegetation... landscaping, now that's different.

[knowschad]

The problem here, as I see it is a communications problem. We have not agreed on a definition for "destroyed", and hence, we are using many definitions.

 

Very little actually gets destroyed when it comes to "Mother Nature". Take a look a Hawaii, for one of many examples. Volcanos have spewed screaming hot lava over that island for... for... well, quite a while. Yet it is a luscious flowering jungle. Destroyed? Not.

 

I've been to ghost towns in the mountains that were flourishing mining villages dynamiting a living out of the landscape 100 or so years ago, yet now you have to look very close to see that there was ever anything there besides marmots and pikas and a few "scenic" rock piles. Destroyed? Not by most standards.

 

On the other hand, if somebody walks through a flowerbed, and crushes the flowers that I planted there, we'd also rightfully call those destroyed, even though, at a cost to the owner (a cost that the owner does not deserve, of course), they could be quickly and easily replaced. Destroyed, of course.

[+HayfeverTX]

ive seen flowers trampled and ive seen light posts all scraped to death due to lifting skirts. i actually found myself sitting in my car chuckling at the 3 light poles surrounding me with 4-5 inches of rusty scrape marks on their otherwise unblemished paint ... and the cache wasnt even under them.

 

definitely not destroyed but certainly damaged. i cant say, as a manager of a hotel, that id be necessarily upset about my light posts though i would be terribly upset if someone walked all over our incredibly pricey landscaping because someone hid a tupperware jar in my bushes.

[+Nalarangka]

... I tromped around a bit until I finally found it. My point is if you want people to stay out of the landscaping then you should make it clear on the cache page...

 

Your part is to avoid the tromping around in a damaging way to begin with. It's not the job of the cache owner to make sure you know how to tip toe in tulips. While the cache owner should consider folks who tromp, they only need to do so because folks insist in ripping things up like a bear digging for grubs. If all finders (it only takes one hamfist not doing the right thing...) did what they should do, there would be no problem for a cache onwer to worry about.

 

I was not trying to damage any of their plants but if it is located in the shrubs I have to walk around and in between them to give the area a good once over. Any cache that is hidden in a shrub will eventually cause that shrub and probably any surrounding shrubs damage over time by all the cachers moving branches and what not. My point was that this could easily have been avoided on this cache by a simple note that the cache was not in the landscaping. I try to follow the directions on the cache page...that is what the page is for.

[+Arrow42]

ive seen flowers trampled and ive seen light posts all scraped to death due to lifting skirts. i actually found myself sitting in my car chuckling at the 3 light poles surrounding me with 4-5 inches of rusty scrape marks on their otherwise unblemished paint ... and the cache wasnt even under them.

 

Haha... I've never thought to look for that before.

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

On the other hand, if somebody walks through a flowerbed, and crushes the flowers that I planted there, we'd also rightfully call those destroyed, even though, at a cost to the owner (a cost that the owner does not deserve, of course), they could be quickly and easily replaced. Destroyed, of course.

 

Oh fine. Bring this back to the original topic. See if we care (or pay attention).

 

I have a hard time picturing legions of grown-ups (or children supervised by grown-ups) stomping through other people's flower gardens. Didn't we all get swatted by our mothers when we were seven or eight for doing this? (Or made to stand in the corner for those who had non-hitting parents.)

 

This doesn't even seem like something that really needs to be said or that the vast majority of geocachers would need a no-no list for. What are we, toddlers?

 

Carolyn