Endangered caches

[Fledermaus]

Recently, a local company has bought up several tracts of land, in order to extend their housing project. Like that's going to happen anytime soon in this present economy!

 

The sad thing is that this company is strongly against geocaching and I am now forced to remove 6 or more of my caches, due to the posting of "No Hunting & No Trespassing" signs.

 

However, the same company, for the last several years, has been allowing (Mexican) brush pickers (who pay fees) to go onto company land and "rape" it for profit. Sounds to me like the old adage of: "Money Talks & BS(GC) Walks" applies here.

 

Now that I got that out of my system, all I want to know is how far away may I move my caches before I have to archive and re-create them elsewhere? Also, may I restrict (ALR?) the "Found It" claims on the replacement cache to only those who have not found the original cache?

 

IMHO, Flat ground with brush is pretty much the same as any other flat ground with brush. All I have to do to create the new version is adjust the puzzles for the new coordinates, a not so easy task. For the most part, the "caching experience" would virtually be the same.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Fledermaus

[jholly]

You, of course, are fully aware that ALR caches are no longer allowed. So why do you wonder about the ALR requirement?

 

You can move the cache 500 or so before you need to archive and relist.

 

Jim

[+jcar]

When I moved one of my puzzle caches I checked with the approver who had approved it, they gave the ok for the new location. If it had been a traditional or multi I would probably have just archived and relisted.

[+YeOleImposter]

They are strongly against geocaching because they post no trespassing signs? Maybe they just don't like trespassers? Maybe they don't want to get sued when someone hurts themselves? Or have caches created a situation where they had to post the signs to keep out problems?

 

Not sure what a brush picker is -- or why somone would pay to pick brush -- but we have same thing here -- farmers not wanting us to plant caches in their wheat fields cause they want to rape the land so I can buy bread. Not sure if it (Mexicans) who are doing the harvesting or not for those greedy corporate types.

 

Now that I have that out of my system, lol....

[+GrnXnham]

 

Not sure what a brush picker is -- or why somone would pay to pick brush -- but we have same thing here -- farmers not wanting us to plant caches in their wheat fields cause they want to rape the land so I can buy bread. Not sure if it (Mexicans) who are doing the harvesting or not for those greedy corporate types.

 

 

Edited July 26, 2009 by GrnXnham

[+Jomer & Traci]

Why not just move them and let everyone find them? What is the big deal about people finding it again? It would be a new location and a new experience. Big deal. Doesn't affect much. And if you say those people would be out for the numbers, that is crap. Personally, I would be out for a new experience.

[+Jomer & Traci]

"Not sure what a brush picker is -- or why somone would pay to pick brush"

 

Actually, this is valid. People go in and illegally cut greens for flower markets. I have seen it several times around both Sequim and Sunnyslope. They cut salal and rhodies (sp), rubberband them neatly together, and leave them in piles just off the road and hard to see for others to pick them up in the night.

[+Lightning Jeff]

"Not sure what a brush picker is -- or why somone would pay to pick brush"

 

Actually, this is valid. People go in and illegally cut greens for flower markets.

By OP's own description, that isn't what's happening here. The property owner has chosen to allow that use, for a fee. And I find it hard to understand what relevance/validity their (perceived) nationality has to the discussion.