Just My Rant For The Year!

[runner_one]

Normally I’m a quiet person, I believe you learn much more by keeping you mouth closed and your ears open. But now I am going to jump up on my soap box and spout for a while.

No reply is necessary, I’m just venting, but reply if you wish.

Why, Why, Why is there such an explosion of people hiding micros in places that would be better served by a full sized cache. I will not point out any cache in peculiar but you all know the kind I am talking about, I myself have visited many over the last few months. You download or print the cache page or pocket query and notice a micro that appears to be in an isolated area. You think to yourself perhaps the hider had a reason for a micro. Now don’t get me wrong, micro caches have their places, often in cities a micro is the only kind of cache that can survive in many places, and I like finding urban micros. But this is not what I’m talking about. I have visited at least 6 locations in the past two days that would be great locations, with many hiding opportunities for full sized caches but NOOOOO… someone decided to hide a micro out in the middle of the woods with a clue that says look at the tree WELL DUH!!! Let’s see my GPS has a error radius of 32 feet and the hiders had a error of 32 feet, ok lets add those two together and you have a circle 64 feet in diameter to search. The area of a circle is Pi*R2 that gives us over 3215 square feet to search, now let me see… which of dozens of trees here did the hider find interesting, What am I supposed to do? Read the hiders mind? Often when I come upon a micro hid in the woods I just turn and walk away.

 

Ok… Rant over Lets get back to the fun.

Edited August 16, 2009 by runner_one

[+busterbabes]

Amen!!!!

[+The Leprechauns]

Why didn't you get there first to hide a regular sized cache? The game's been around for nine years now.

[+mfamilee]

… someone decided to hide a micro out in the middle of the woods with a clue that says look at the tree WELL DUH!!!

Ha Ha! We are one of those 'kind of' hiders and we also enjoy hunting those ourselves. Its the thrill of finding the 'needle in the haystack'.

Often when I come upon a micro hid in the woods I just turn and walk away.

Why not give a good try at finding it since you are already there? You never know...

[+TotemLake]

… someone decided to hide a micro out in the middle of the woods with a clue that says look at the tree WELL DUH!!!

Ha Ha! We are one of those 'kind of' hiders and we also enjoy hunting those ourselves. Its the thrill of finding the 'needle in the haystack'.

Often when I come upon a micro hid in the woods I just turn and walk away.

Why not give a good try at finding it since you are already there? You never know...

Normally that's a No Thanks. This one in particular was worth the effort. Most micros I will give effort to are trailhead micros.

[the3gmen]

What am I supposed to do? Read the hiders mind? Often when I come upon a micro hid in the woods I just turn and walk away.

 

No you don't have to read the hiders mind, but reading the cache page would let you know that the container is a micro. If you don't want to search for a micro, just ignore that cache.

[+sbell111]

People hide the cache that they do because that is the cache that they wish to hide.

[+fegan]

Nothing I hate more than a micro in the woods...especially under heavy tree cover...and even more if it's a nano!!!

 

 

We have a few local cachers who especially like heavily camo'd nanos in the woods. We're talking about things like a magnetic nano (some call them a blinkie) hidden in what appears to be a real mushroom...or in a hollow stick the size of a pack of gum. And these are mostly listed as Other for container...so you never know what you're looking for.

 

I mean seriously...you gotta pick up every item on the ground for 20' in every direction and you still might not find it! There's plenty of room for an ammo can...we're in the middle of the forest for goodness sake!

 

I think they like reading all the DNF logs.

 

OK...I'm done venting. I feel better now. (NOT!)

[+BlueDeuce]

Often when I come upon a micro hid in the woods I just turn and walk away.

 

At what point did you figure out it was a micro?

[+TetrAmigos]

Ive actually seen people who shared the same frustration actually replace the micro with a full blown ammo can. Now THAT'S dedication (but also risks offending the cache owner).

[+Jeep_Dog]

Why didn't you get there first to hide a regular sized cache? The game's been around for nine years now.

 

[+Col. Flagg]

Just keep on beatin' that dead horse, it might still be alive.

[+wimseyguy]

Lucky for you we have that handy ignore feature.

[+DragonsWest]

Just keep on beatin' that dead horse, it might still be alive.

 

Ah, it's been in reruns for years

 

 

I sympathise. The woods are a great place to be more creative. Sticking a Blinky in a knothole, where someone could have stuffed an Ammo Can in a log is rather irritating.

 

A friend echos this sentiment when he takes his kids caching. They want swag to trade, not this 'thrill of the hunt' stuff.

Edited August 17, 2009 by DragonsWest

[+fizzymagic]

Ha Ha! We are one of those 'kind of' hiders and we also enjoy hunting those ourselves. Its the thrill of finding the 'needle in the haystack'.

Because as we all know, needle-in-a-haystack hides require so much cleverness.

 

Yuck. No thanks from me. I get much more of a thrill from finding a cleverly-hidden cache than a needle in a haystack; the former requires thinking outside the box, while the latter only requires an ability to tolerate tedium.

 

If imposing tedium on cache seekers is your idea of a good hide, then by all means go ahead. Just please put some kind of warning on the page!

[+Inmountains]

I want to know who, or what, killed the horse, poor animal!

[Dj Storm]

I hate the idea of having readily available micros to place on short notice; sorry if you're one who does this. Probably the majority of micros in the woods were placed by cachers who were there for the first time and thought "Wow, there's no cache at and near this location, luckily we have this film can and logsheet with us, let's place it".

I would like to see all hiders, when they find a nice location, to search for a good hiding place, then go home and assemble a container for that hiding spot, then place it during the next visit. If a cacher can't be bothered to go twice to a location to place a cache, how much maintenance do you think he'll do?

 

I hate badly placed caches. Micros in the woods are only one of those. Caches hidden in stone walls/ruins are another (Why did you hid the cache in the walls "behind a stone" when there are several good hiding places by those trees?). Also, I hate caches in plain view (Why did you hid the cache on this side of the wall, in plain view of the visitors, when there are similar spots on the other side of the wall?), and caches where the searcher has to do unusual things to hunt/retrieve/replace the cache (Why did you hid your container 8 feet up in the hollow of a tree in a crowded urban park? How stealthy can you be when climbing that tree?)

[Clan Riffster]

I myself have visited many over the last few months.

Effect meet cause.

If nobody hunted for them, they would die a slow, painful death.

Once I reached a point in my caching "career" where I realized that most micros were not my cup of tea, I removed them from my PQs.

I watch the incoming e-mails for new caches, and if a micro pops up that catches my interest, I'll add it to my To-Do list.

I find, with these adaptations, I am a most happy cacher.

[+Isonzo Karst]

On the subject of PQs and micros.....

 

Webscouter, post #2

[+pigpen4x4]

Often when I come upon a micro hid in the woods I just turn and walk away.

 

At what point did you figure out it was a micro?

Probably knew it, but found out it was in the woods when he arrrived.

Been there, done that.

PP

[+gratefulhiker]

Normally I’m a quiet person, I believe you learn much more by keeping you mouth closed and your ears open. But now I am going to jump up on my soap box and spout for a while.

No reply is necessary, I’m just venting, but reply if you wish.

Why, Why, Why is there such an explosion of people hiding micros in places that would be better served by a full sized cache. I will not point out any cache in peculiar but you all know the kind I am talking about, I myself have visited many over the last few months. You download or print the cache page or pocket query and notice a micro that appears to be in an isolated area. You think to yourself perhaps the hider had a reason for a micro. Now don’t get me wrong, micro caches have their places, often in cities a micro is the only kind of cache that can survive in many places, and I like finding urban micros. But this is not what I’m talking about. I have visited at least 6 locations in the past two days that would be great locations, with many hiding opportunities for full sized caches but NOOOOO… someone decided to hide a micro out in the middle of the woods with a clue that says look at the tree WELL DUH!!! Let’s see my GPS has a error radius of 32 feet and the hiders had a error of 32 feet, ok lets add those two together and you have a circle 64 feet in diameter to search. The area of a circle is Pi*R2 that gives us over 3215 square feet to search, now let me see… which of dozens of trees here did the hider find interesting, What am I supposed to do? Read the hiders mind? Often when I come upon a micro hid in the woods I just turn and walk away.

 

Ok… Rant over Lets get back to the fun.

totally agree with the rant .. I am new to this but if I want to find a tiny little cache with some paper to sign my name as small as I possibly can on I can do letterboxing .. at least i can leave my own stamp on the paper in letterboxing .. half the fun of geocaching to me at least is finding trinkets and leaving one in its place .. micro caches have no place in the woods ..

[+briansnat]

What I don't like is the potential for damage created by these needle in the haystack hides. I found one last week. It had half a dozen DNFs, all from veteran geocachers who are not noted for scorched earth tactics.

 

The clue said "under two rocks". Every rock in a 100 foot radius had been disturbed. Most were carefully replaced, but you can tell they had been moved. It was the kind of scene that I don't think would look good

for geocachers had a park ranger or naturalist visited the spot. And this was only after a week or so.

 

If one of the scorched earthers were to roll through the area it will probably be a total disaster.

 

Those of us who don't like these can ignore them, but that doesn't keep others from beating up the area looking for a needle in a haystack.

[+gratefulhiker]

What I don't like is the potential for damage created by these needle in the haystack hides. I found one last week. It had half a dozen DNFs, all from veteran geocachers who are not noted for scorched earth tactics.

 

The clue said "under two rocks". Every rock in a 100 foot radius had been disturbed. Most were carefully replaced, but you can tell they had been moved. It was the kind of scene that I don't think would look good

for geocachers had a park ranger or naturalist visited the spot. And this was only after a week or so.

 

If one of the scorched earthers were to roll through the area it will probably be a total disaster.

 

Those of us who don't like these can ignore them, but that doesn't keep others from beating up the area looking for a needle in a haystack.

yes thats another problem .. went to look for some caches in new jersey in the delaware water gap national park millbrook village and the paths that had been created right through a swampy wet area were rediculous .. who the hell walks right through a swamp .. do you think its right in the middle. NO its on the other side why not walk around the swamp .. duh thats the way the pointer showed ... come on try to have a little respect for the wildlife ....

[+Unkle Fester]

I hate the idea of having readily available micros to place on short notice; sorry if you're one who does this. Probably the majority of micros in the woods were placed by cachers who were there for the first time and thought "Wow, there's no cache at and near this location, luckily we have this film can and logsheet with us, let's place it".

I would like to see all hiders, when they find a nice location, to search for a good hiding place, then go home and assemble a container for that hiding spot, then place it during the next visit. If a cacher can't be bothered to go twice to a location to place a cache, how much maintenance do you think he'll do?

 

I hate badly placed caches. Micros in the woods are only one of those. Caches hidden in stone walls/ruins are another (Why did you hid the cache in the walls "behind a stone" when there are several good hiding places by those trees?). Also, I hate caches in plain view (Why did you hid the cache on this side of the wall, in plain view of the visitors, when there are similar spots on the other side of the wall?), and caches where the searcher has to do unusual things to hunt/retrieve/replace the cache (Why did you hid your container 8 feet up in the hollow of a tree in a crowded urban park? How stealthy can you be when climbing that tree?)

(emphasis added to quote) I carry micro's with me, but in my truck I carry a box full of larger caches, even if some are smalls. Saves me the hastle of coming back, because I know I can get distracted and forget. But I do get back out to maintain my caches... which reminds me...

 

I love the post, I don't know how many of my caches have been set and then moved (before publishing)because of a better spot.

 

If people wern't in such a dang hurry.

 

What I don't like is the potential for damage created by these needle in the haystack hides. I found one last week. It had half a dozen DNFs, all from veteran geocachers who are not noted for scorched earth tactics.

 

The clue said "under two rocks". Every rock in a 100 foot radius had been disturbed. Most were carefully replaced, but you can tell they had been moved. It was the kind of scene that I don't think would look good

for geocachers had a park ranger or naturalist visited the spot. And this was only after a week or so.

 

If one of the scorched earthers were to roll through the area it will probably be a total disaster.

 

Those of us who don't like these can ignore them, but that doesn't keep others from beating up the area looking for a needle in a haystack.

yes thats another problem .. went to look for some caches in new jersey in the delaware water gap national park millbrook village and the paths that had been created right through a swampy wet area were rediculous .. who the hell walks right through a swamp .. do you think its right in the middle. NO its on the other side why not walk around the swamp .. duh thats the way the pointer showed ... come on try to have a little respect for the wildlife ....

(Emphasis added here too) Hence my thread about destruction at GZ. My number one pet peeve. The funny thing, I'll bet every other rock was by itself, and there is only one spot with two rocks. I have one similar that says "behind a rock" not under. It's not in a sensitive area so not a big deal, but I do love the notes about ruined manicures etc.

 

Some of that comes down to not looking at a gps, or a hider who is always 30-40' off.

[+BlueDeuce]

Often when I come upon a micro hid in the woods I just turn and walk away.

 

At what point did you figure out it was a micro?

Probably knew it, but found out it was in the woods when he arrived.

Been there, done that.

PP

 

Fair enough.

[knowschad]

Ive actually seen people who shared the same frustration actually replace the micro with a full blown ammo can. Now THAT'S dedication (but also risks offending the cache owner).

 

Surely you jest, no?

 

Maybe that's what happened here?

 

Nobody should ever replace someone else's cache for any reason other than possibily putting out a temp when you are 100% certain the original cache has been compromised.

[knowschad]

Thanks for the (dog)food for thought:

 

 

IMO, micros in the woods are only no fun when I can't find 'em. And that is generally when the micro is hidden in an area with hundreds of possibilities, like a downed tree full of woodpecker holes. Ugh!! But I've seen some clever ones, too. I don't like to put caches into tight little categories like that, unless said categories are "Fun" and "Not So Fun"

[+Castle Mischief]

I want to know who, or what, killed the horse, poor animal!

 

Why, the internet killed that horse. The internet.

[+bflentje]

Normally I’m a quiet person, I believe you learn much more by keeping you mouth closed and your ears open. But now I am going to jump up on my soap box and spout for a while.

No reply is necessary, I’m just venting, but reply if you wish.

Why, Why, Why is there such an explosion of people hiding micros in places that would be better served by a full sized cache. I will not point out any cache in peculiar but you all know the kind I am talking about, I myself have visited many over the last few months. You download or print the cache page or pocket query and notice a micro that appears to be in an isolated area. You think to yourself perhaps the hider had a reason for a micro. Now don’t get me wrong, micro caches have their places, often in cities a micro is the only kind of cache that can survive in many places, and I like finding urban micros. But this is not what I’m talking about. I have visited at least 6 locations in the past two days that would be great locations, with many hiding opportunities for full sized caches but NOOOOO… someone decided to hide a micro out in the middle of the woods with a clue that says look at the tree WELL DUH!!! Let’s see my GPS has a error radius of 32 feet and the hiders had a error of 32 feet, ok lets add those two together and you have a circle 64 feet in diameter to search. The area of a circle is Pi*R2 that gives us over 3215 square feet to search, now let me see… which of dozens of trees here did the hider find interesting, What am I supposed to do? Read the hiders mind? Often when I come upon a micro hid in the woods I just turn and walk away.

 

Ok… Rant over Lets get back to the fun.

 

We liked it better when you kept to yourself. j/k Really.. rant all you want. It isn't going to change a thing.

[+tozainamboku]

What I don't like is the potential for damage created by these needle in the haystack hides. I found one last week. It had half a dozen DNFs, all from veteran geocachers who are not noted for scorched earth tactics.

 

The clue said "under two rocks". Every rock in a 100 foot radius had been disturbed. Most were carefully replaced, but you can tell they had been moved. It was the kind of scene that I don't think would look good

for geocachers had a park ranger or naturalist visited the spot. And this was only after a week or so.

 

If one of the scorched earthers were to roll through the area it will probably be a total disaster.

 

Those of us who don't like these can ignore them, but that doesn't keep others from beating up the area looking for a needle in a haystack.

yes thats another problem .. went to look for some caches in new jersey in the delaware water gap national park millbrook village and the paths that had been created right through a swampy wet area were rediculous .. who the hell walks right through a swamp .. do you think its right in the middle. NO its on the other side why not walk around the swamp .. duh thats the way the pointer showed ... come on try to have a little respect for the wildlife ....

I don't see the connection to a micro here. Wouldn't the people cutting through the swamp do it whether they were looking for an ammo can or a micro?

 

briansnat always brings up the destruction caused by micros in the woods, and perhaps it is due to swamps and forests that we don't have here in southern California. I point out that vast majority of micros hidden here are right along the trailside - under a pile of rocks, in a knot hole in a tree, or hanging in a bush or on a man made sign posts or gate. They cause far less environmental damage than a regular cache that you have to travel off trail to get to and then push aside branches to look under every bush causing more damage. But perhaps there are different hiding techniques in the northeast that result in micros causing more damage than regulars

[+StarBrand]

Its just too easy to throw out another filmcan into another bush. Cheap too.

 

Best we can do is to lead by example. Place what we expect to find.

 

Too many areas get all torn up with a micro container and no clues or decent description. Sometimes it is from the scorched earth type but often it is the accumupation of small bits of damage cause by a lot of seekers. Sure the area usually heals but it would have never happened with a larger container or a clue or a better description of the container or something.

[+gratefulhiker]

What I don't like is the potential for damage created by these needle in the haystack hides. I found one last week. It had half a dozen DNFs, all from veteran geocachers who are not noted for scorched earth tactics.

 

The clue said "under two rocks". Every rock in a 100 foot radius had been disturbed. Most were carefully replaced, but you can tell they had been moved. It was the kind of scene that I don't think would look good

for geocachers had a park ranger or naturalist visited the spot. And this was only after a week or so.

 

If one of the scorched earthers were to roll through the area it will probably be a total disaster.

 

Those of us who don't like these can ignore them, but that doesn't keep others from beating up the area looking for a needle in a haystack.

yes thats another problem .. went to look for some caches in new jersey in the delaware water gap national park millbrook village and the paths that had been created right through a swampy wet area were rediculous .. who the hell walks right through a swamp .. do you think its right in the middle. NO its on the other side why not walk around the swamp .. duh thats the way the pointer showed ... come on try to have a little respect for the wildlife ....

I don't see the connection to a micro here. Wouldn't the people cutting through the swamp do it whether they were looking for an ammo can or a micro?

 

briansnat always brings up the destruction caused by micros in the woods, and perhaps it is due to swamps and forests that we don't have here in southern California. I point out that vast majority of micros hidden here are right along the trailside - under a pile of rocks, in a knot hole in a tree, or hanging in a bush or on a man made sign posts or gate. They cause far less environmental damage than a regular cache that you have to travel off trail to get to and then push aside branches to look under every bush causing more damage. But perhaps there are different hiding techniques in the northeast that result in micros causing more damage than regulars

yes your right it doesnt matter the size of cache if the clues are lousy and its hidden too good or in a spot that will make people walk right through a swamp to get to it . people will search forever and beat down a path .. Briansnat was talking about people flipping up all the rocks wrecking a site looking for a cache. i answered him by saying that people were wrecking a swamp in a national park looking for a cache ... oh and by the way my wife is a national park ranger and was dissapointed in the way the area looked .. there were three sites we checked in DWGNRA and two had beaten down paths right around and through nice wetlands plus some garbage left at one .. the other was a micro and the area was fine but it wasnt near wetlands it was hanging under a pine tree .. I dont care what kind of a cache it is big or friggin micro east coast or west coast .. have some respect for the natural surroundings .. give better clues and put them close to a path so people dont tear up the land and wreck natural habitat ..

[+tozainamboku]

yes your right it doesnt matter the size of cache if the clues are lousy and its hidden too good or in a spot that will make people walk right through a swamp to get to it . people will search forever and beat down a path .. Briansnat was talking about people flipping up all the rocks wrecking a site looking for a cache. i answered him by saying that people were wrecking a swamp in a national park looking for a cache ... oh and by the way my wife is a national park ranger and was dissapointed in the way the area looked .. there were three sites we checked in DWGNRA and two had beaten down paths right around and through nice wetlands plus some garbage left at one .. the other was a micro and the area was fine but it wasnt near wetlands it was hanging under a pine tree .. I dont care what kind of a cache it is big or friggin micro east coast or west coast .. have some respect for the natural surroundings .. give better clues and put them close to a path so people dont tear up the land and wreck natural habitat ..

That another issue altogether (link to forum thread). Of course there you will see debated the issue of hiding a micro in the woods or the proverbial needle-in-the-haystack hide as contributing to caches who don't show the proper respect for the environments or for private and public property when searching for a cache. The guidelines for hiding geocaches are clear (and perhaps we need guidelines for searching as well) - destruction of property (natural or man-made) whether public or private is not something that should be done whether hiding or searching for a cache. There are no real sanctions against cache seekers. The only sanctions we have are to archive caches that are causing problems. This puts a burden on hiders to select locations (and is some cases hiding styles) that can stand up to the idiots who will use a scorched earth strategy to search or will follow the arrow on their GPS regardless of where it leads.

Edited August 17, 2009 by tozainamboku

[+L0ne.R]

 

Normally I’m a quiet person, I believe you learn much more by keeping you mouth closed and your ears open. But now I am going to jump up on my soap box and spout for a while.

No reply is necessary, I’m just venting, but reply if you wish.

Why, Why, Why is there such an explosion of people hiding micros in places that would be better served by a full sized cache. I will not point out any cache in peculiar but you all know the kind I am talking about, I myself have visited many over the last few months. You download or print the cache page or pocket query and notice a micro that appears to be in an isolated area. You think to yourself perhaps the hider had a reason for a micro. Now don’t get me wrong, micro caches have their places, often in cities a micro is the only kind of cache that can survive in many places, and I like finding urban micros. But this is not what I’m talking about. I have visited at least 6 locations in the past two days that would be great locations, with many hiding opportunities for full sized caches but NOOOOO… someone decided to hide a micro out in the middle of the woods with a clue that says look at the tree WELL DUH!!! Let’s see my GPS has a error radius of 32 feet and the hiders had a error of 32 feet, ok lets add those two together and you have a circle 64 feet in diameter to search. The area of a circle is Pi*R2 that gives us over 3215 square feet to search, now let me see… which of dozens of trees here did the hider find interesting, What am I supposed to do? Read the hiders mind? Often when I come upon a micro hid in the woods I just turn and walk away.

 

Ok… Rant over Lets get back to the fun.

 

I hear ya and agree with the frustration. Once someone places that lame cache in the woods no one can plant one within a .1 mile radius. What irks me more is when someone plants 2 or more lame micros in a small woodlot and claims the whole woodlot. What a waste of space.

 

95% of micros are non-creative and cheap, requiring little investment both financially and wrt maintenance. I've read posts from micro hiders that say that they found it too expensive to place regular size caches so they're going with the cheap alternative (usually involving an investment of zero cents - free film canister, scrap paper, no trinkets, don't even need to purchase a pencil). With regards to maintenance, they just archive it when it goes missing or needs a new logsheet.

 

Leading by example doesn't seem to work. I have seen new boxers find a few good caches (regular size with trinkets) and go out and place a film canister as their first hide.

 

The only solution seems to be to ignore micros.

 

But it still irks me that people plant them where larger caches will fit - first come first served. I wish that if someone later wanted to place a regular size cache that the new cache would supersede the micro. Of course, that could result in some angry micro owners -- but if new micro hiders were told beforehand that their cache could be revoked then there's nothing to gripe about.

 

One other thing I'm trying to do more of is leave a log that expresses my disappointment, especially when I find a micro that was marked as a small cache, thus evading my micro filter. Maybe if more people expressed disappointment in the online logs, it will discourage the placement of cheap micros.

[+briansnat]

I point out that vast majority of micros hidden here are right along the trailside - under a pile of rocks, in a knot hole in a tree, or hanging in a bush or on a man made sign posts or gate. They cause far less environmental damage than a regular cache that you have to travel off trail to get to and then push aside branches to look under every bush causing more damage. But perhaps there are different hiding techniques in the northeast that result in micros causing more damage than regulars

 

A micro hidden in an obvious spot (or accompanied by a dead give away clue) does not fit the definition of a needle in the haystack hide.

[+sbell111]

What I don't like is the potential for damage created by these needle in the haystack hides. I found one last week. It had half a dozen DNFs, all from veteran geocachers who are not noted for scorched earth tactics.

 

The clue said "under two rocks". Every rock in a 100 foot radius had been disturbed. Most were carefully replaced, but you can tell they had been moved. It was the kind of scene that I don't think would look good

for geocachers had a park ranger or naturalist visited the spot. And this was only after a week or so.

 

If one of the scorched earthers were to roll through the area it will probably be a total disaster.

 

Those of us who don't like these can ignore them, but that doesn't keep others from beating up the area looking for a needle in a haystack.

Moving a rock to look under it and then carefully putting the rock back where it was is a 'scorched earth tactic'???

 

Wow.

Edited August 18, 2009 by sbell111

[+Raenne]

...all from veteran geocachers who are not noted for scorched earth tactics.

 

If one of the scorched earthers were to roll through the area it will probably be a total disaster.

 

Moving a rock to look under it and then carefully putting the rock back where it was is a 'scorched earth tactic'???

 

Wow.

 

He was specifically saying that the movement and replacement of rocks was -not- a scorched earth tactic, and that even though it was a group of careful geocachers who replaced things as they found, you can still tell things were moved.

 

Seems you missed a bit of the statement in your haste to bold a single sentence.

[Mr.Yuck]

I hear ya and agree with the frustration. Once someone places that lame cache in the woods no one can plant one within a .1 mile radius. What irks me more is when someone plants 2 or more lame micros in a small woodlot and claims the whole woodlot. What a waste of space.

 

95% of micros are non-creative and cheap, requiring little investment both financially and wrt maintenance. I've read posts from micro hiders that say that they found it too expensive to place regular size caches so they're going with the cheap alternative (usually involving an investment of zero cents - free film canister, scrap paper, no trinkets, don't even need to purchase a pencil). With regards to maintenance, they just archive it when it goes missing or needs a new logsheet.

 

This is absolutely correct. Free film can, or 99 cent keyholder or matchstick container. Scrap of paper. You don't even have to invest in a pencil, although most will appreciate when you do. Thank Goodness Nano's cost 3-4 dollars and have to be mail ordered, or they'd be the most dominant cache container in North America.

 

Leading by example doesn't seem to work. I have seen new boxers find a few good caches (regular size with trinkets) and go out and place a film canister as their first hide.

 

Correct again. Lead by example is oft-quoted here. But I've never seen it "work" anywhere, ever.

 

But it still irks me that people plant them where larger caches will fit - first come first served. I wish that if someone later wanted to place a regular size cache that the new cache would supersede the micro. Of course, that could result in some angry micro owners -- but if new micro hiders were told beforehand that their cache could be revoked then there's nothing to gripe about.

 

This is a great idea! I'm on board. But naw, never going to happen in a million years.

 

One other thing I'm trying to do more of is leave a log that expresses my disappointment, especially when I find a micro that was marked as a small cache, thus evading my micro filter. Maybe if more people expressed disappointment in the online logs, it will discourage the placement of cheap micros.

 

That's a tough one. I've definitely seen people complain about cheap and/or lame micros in logs. But why are they finding them? I'm a big user of the ignore list. I even was self-ignoring a few caches before we got the ignore list in early 2005.

[Clan Riffster]

who the hell walks right through a swamp

I do! I love swamps. The swampier the better.

This is me after building a night cache whose 3 mile bushwhack includes a stretch through a nipple deep swamp.

[+sbell111]

...all from veteran geocachers who are not noted for scorched earth tactics.

 

If one of the scorched earthers were to roll through the area it will probably be a total disaster.

Moving a rock to look under it and then carefully putting the rock back where it was is a 'scorched earth tactic'???

 

Wow.

He was specifically saying that the movement and replacement of rocks was -not- a scorched earth tactic, and that even though it was a group of careful geocachers who replaced things as they found, you can still tell things were moved.

 

Seems you missed a bit of the statement in your haste to bold a single sentence.

Seems like you didn't read it very carefully:

The clue said "under two rocks". Every rock in a 100 foot radius had been disturbed. Most were carefully replaced, but you can tell they had been moved. It was the kind of scene that I don't think would look good for geocachers had a park ranger or naturalist visited the spot. And this was only after a week or so.

He certainly made the argument that disturbing the rocks and carefully replacing them isn't good enough.

[knowschad]

who the hell walks right through a swamp

I do! I love swamps. The swampier the better.

This is me after building a night cache whose 3 mile bushwhack includes a stretch through a nipple deep swamp.

 

Dude... you're wet clear up to the nipples!!!

[+briansnat]

What I don't like is the potential for damage created by these needle in the haystack hides. I found one last week. It had half a dozen DNFs, all from veteran geocachers who are not noted for scorched earth tactics.

 

The clue said "under two rocks". Every rock in a 100 foot radius had been disturbed. Most were carefully replaced, but you can tell they had been moved. It was the kind of scene that I don't think would look good

for geocachers had a park ranger or naturalist visited the spot. And this was only after a week or so.

 

If one of the scorched earthers were to roll through the area it will probably be a total disaster.

 

Those of us who don't like these can ignore them, but that doesn't keep others from beating up the area looking for a needle in a haystack.

Moving a rock to look under it and then carefully putting the rock back where it was is a 'scorched earth tactic'???

 

Wow.

 

Wow. Your reading comprehension is a bit wanting.

[+Raenne]

He certainly made the argument that disturbing the rocks and carefully replacing them isn't good enough.

 

That's far from saying it's scorched earth tactics. Anyone who knows an area can tell things have been moved, even if care has been taken to try and replace things as they were. You can see slight shifts in the dirt where the rock has been disturbed. That doesn't mean cachers are scorching the earth.

[knowschad]

...all from veteran geocachers who are not noted for scorched earth tactics.

 

If one of the scorched earthers were to roll through the area it will probably be a total disaster.

Moving a rock to look under it and then carefully putting the rock back where it was is a 'scorched earth tactic'???

 

Wow.

He was specifically saying that the movement and replacement of rocks was -not- a scorched earth tactic, and that even though it was a group of careful geocachers who replaced things as they found, you can still tell things were moved.

 

Seems you missed a bit of the statement in your haste to bold a single sentence.

Seems like you didn't read it very carefully:

The clue said "under two rocks". Every rock in a 100 foot radius had been disturbed. Most were carefully replaced, but you can tell they had been moved. It was the kind of scene that I don't think would look good for geocachers had a park ranger or naturalist visited the spot. And this was only after a week or so.

He certainly made the argument that disturbing the rocks and carefully replacing them isn't good enough.

 

The key point is "had a park ranger or naturalist visited the spot" He didn't say that it wasn't good enough for him.

[+sbell111]

He certainly made the argument that disturbing the rocks and carefully replacing them isn't good enough.

 

That's far from saying it's scorched earth tactics. Anyone who knows an area can tell things have been moved, even if care has been taken to try and replace things as they were. You can see slight shifts in the dirt where the rock has been disturbed. That doesn't mean cachers are scorching the earth.

I see. The cache in his example had no relation whatsoever to scortched earth tactics. Who knows why he connected the two.

[+Mr&MrsCrowley]

What I don't like is the potential for damage created by these needle in the haystack hides.

 

Amen to that . There's nothing I hate more than going to an area and seeing geodamage everywhere from cachers who are more intent in finding the cache than they are in preserving nature . I went after one cache a few months back that stated right in the description that it WASN'T HIDDEN IN THE FERNS. Yet every fern with a 50' radius of GZ was completely trampled . I emailled the CO expressing my concerns and didn't receive a reply back . The cache is still active and the damage still being done .

 

The irony in the whole thing is the CO placed the cache to bring others to an area that was special to her / him in their younger years. Now by leaving the cache active , the CO is helping to insure the area gets destroyed by over anxious cachers

[Clan Riffster]

Dude... you're wet clear up to the nipples!!!

Yup! You know those cache styles folks like to include on cache pages?

Florida style = under palmetto fronds, Georgia style = under pine needles, etc?

My love of swamy places has become so widely known that I now have a style named after me.

Riffster style = nipple deep in a swamp.

[+briansnat]

He certainly made the argument that disturbing the rocks and carefully replacing them isn't good enough.

 

That's far from saying it's scorched earth tactics. Anyone who knows an area can tell things have been moved, even if care has been taken to try and replace things as they were. You can see slight shifts in the dirt where the rock has been disturbed. That doesn't mean cachers are scorching the earth.

I see. The cache in his example had no relation whatsoever to scortched earth tactics. Who knows why he connected the two.

 

The point was that with needle in the haystack hides, even conscientious cachers who are being careful can damage an area. Does that help?

[+popokiiti]

They can be frustrating, I agree, but the sense of achievement is great when you nab them. We put out a cache that is a multi, a drive from one trail to another in neighbouring communities through the country, and passes cows, sheep and horses. Fun for the kids from the city, and although stage one is a micro, stage 2 is stuffed with goodies for our young caching friends. Neither of us has kids BTW.

In defence of micros - there were two really good ones we did recently - one in a ~thing~ that I (and other cachers) touched and ignored but my caching partner retrieved. It was a pill bottle camo-ed as a ~something~. The second was placed by the same teen, and in spite of her instructions to leave uncovered, was covered when I found it, then said I hadn't. I didn't think it was the cache after all. My readers were hanging around my neck, or I would have seen what P.Nui saw - it was the cache. It is called "Im'a Bratt" GC1WNZY and my log made the geocaching grandpa back east have a good chuckle. The thought that she put into those micros made the hunt well worthwhile.

I would say just be selective on any micros you might want to attempt, or go for other caches instead. Whatever your decision - just have fun.

Happy Caching...

[+sbell111]

He certainly made the argument that disturbing the rocks and carefully replacing them isn't good enough.

That's far from saying it's scorched earth tactics. Anyone who knows an area can tell things have been moved, even if care has been taken to try and replace things as they were. You can see slight shifts in the dirt where the rock has been disturbed. That doesn't mean cachers are scorching the earth.

I see. The cache in his example had no relation whatsoever to scortched earth tactics. Who knows why he connected the two.

The point was that with needle in the haystack hides, even conscientious cachers who are being careful can damage an area. Does that help?

Since your example cache hadn't actually suffered any damage, no.