New 'Caches in a Day' Record Imminent?

[knowschad]

That I really can't answer. As far as it being a "forum frequenter" thing, I won't be offended by you saying that, if you wont be offended by my saying I think for myself, and the opinion I expressed, is just that, an opinion. If it makes you feel better to categorize it as a strictly "forum" opinion, I guess your entitled.

 

I have been geocaching for 6 years. My direct observation is that the real world is quite different that what you read in the forums. For one, most of us don't argue with each other over petty stuff.

 

Edit to add: I wasn't calling you a forum frequenter, sorry if it came out that way. I was only referring to the vocal minority that spends countless hours here. Some have their head on pretty good, others still need adjusted.

I could (not, for the verbiage purists) care less, but I don't do it myself. I have done what *I* feel in hindsight was cheating on my cache counts (eg: Knowschad has 4443 Finds on 4403 unique Geocaches), but I'm the only one that needs to cringe at that, and certainly the only one that will.

 

Considering the number of caches that you could have found, while instead, you were taking the time to hide caches for others to find, I won't begrudge you the find logs (not that it would bother you if I did).

 

[+NeecesandNephews]

That I really can't answer. As far as it being a "forum frequenter" thing, I won't be offended by you saying that, if you wont be offended by my saying I think for myself, and the opinion I expressed, is just that, an opinion. If it makes you feel better to categorize it as a strictly "forum" opinion, I guess your entitled.

 

I have been geocaching for 6 years. My direct observation is that the real world is quite different that what you read in the forums. For one, most of us don't argue with each other over petty stuff.

 

BTW: I wasn't calling you a formum frequenter, I was only referring to the vocal minority that spends countless hours here.

 

 

Whoa!!! Dude your just digging the hole deeper!!! You didnt come off as having an attitude till that last remark!!! My response wasn't meant to be "snarky" and I put the smiley on the end of it to accent that fact, not to be facetious! But if you want to cop an attitude... cache on man!!! I am not going to debate "your logging pratices". Sorry if I ruffled your feathers!!

 

6 years of you doing something I think is lame does not give me the least pause in my opinion about it. For something you obviously think is "petty stuff" you sure are getting defensive and about it!! Again... I apologize!!

[+tozainamboku]

It is extremely common that people that were present during the hide to log that cache as a find.

 

Hey, I am pretty new here, and was really impressed with your accomplishment, but that is just lame!!!

Interesting.. I would estimate that 99.9% of the cachers I have talked to do this. The ones that I know that do not I can count on one hand. And I know a lot of cachers.

 

Is this practice more regional than I thought? Or is it just a forum frequenter thing?

 

 

That I really can't answer. As far as it being a "forum frequenter" thing, I won't be offended by you saying that, if you wont be offended by my saying I think for myself, and the opinion I expressed, is just that, an opinion. If it makes you feel better to categorize it as a strictly "forum" opinion, I guess your entitled.

My take is that is more of a puritan thing. We've had this discussion before so I know already where you stand.

 

There are many cachers who log a find if they are with somebody else who is hiding the cache. They believe a Found It log is justified because there were at the cache and signed the log, and because there is really isn't any reason for them to go back and find it later. Logging it found online removes it from their list of unfound caches. I suppose that premium members could put the cache on their ignore list, but not everyone is a premium member. And besides now if a cache is on your ignore list it never shows on a map or list of closest caches even if you want to see all caches. So long as the ignore list works this way it is not an option for people who still want to see these caches on a map or in search results.

 

Some cachers have used the rationale that they log the find to credit for the cache. I don't care for this justification. They say the hider gets a +1 for caches hidden, but you don't get anything for helping to hide it. Since the owner is allowing it, they log the find to get +1 credit. I agree that this reason is silly. In my case when I have been with someone and the cache owner is a sock puppet account set up for group hides, I don't log a found it. The group account has the credit and I don't need a personal credit as well. I also don't log it if my name is in the hidden by field. In other cases, I have gone along with what the other people do and, on a few occasions, have logged a find. But this is my standard and I don't impose it others.

 

puritans are free to have a personal standard to not log a find on a cache if they were present when the cache is hidden. Nobody can be forced to log a find if they don't think it is legitimate.

 

The cache owner is the one who determines if an online find is legitimate or not. The person or persons who have access to the NGA account has decided to let the individuals who were in the group that planted the caches to log finds on them. The puritans may think this is lame; that doesn't mean it can't be done or even that doing it is uncommon. I wish the puritans didn't feel the need to accuse people who do this of being lame or worse - being cheaters. It shouldn't matter that someone got 600 finds or zero finds. What matters is that they had a good time placing the caches and that those people who want to find them will have a good time finding them. Others, who feel that driving from cache to cache along a dirt road in desert is about the most boring thing they can think of, will hopefully know enough to not look for these cache.

[knowschad]

It is extremely common that people that were present during the hide to log that cache as a find.

 

Hey, I am pretty new here, and was really impressed with your accomplishment, but that is just lame!!!

Interesting.. I would estimate that 99.9% of the cachers I have talked to do this. The ones that I know that do not I can count on one hand. And I know a lot of cachers.

 

Is this practice more regional than I thought? Or is it just a forum frequenter thing?

 

 

That I really can't answer. As far as it being a "forum frequenter" thing, I won't be offended by you saying that, if you wont be offended by my saying I think for myself, and the opinion I expressed, is just that, an opinion. If it makes you feel better to categorize it as a strictly "forum" opinion, I guess your entitled.

My take is that is more of a puritan thing. We've had this discussion before so I know already where you stand.

 

There are many cachers who log a find if they are with somebody else who is hiding the cache. They believe a Found It log is justified because there were at the cache and signed the log, and because there is really isn't any reason for them to go back and find it later. Logging it found online removes it from their list of unfound caches. I suppose that premium members could put the cache on their ignore list, but not everyone is a premium member. And besides now if a cache is on your ignore list it never shows on a map or list of closest caches even if you want to see all caches. So long as the ignore list works this way it is not an option for people who still want to see these caches on a map or in search results.

 

Some cachers have used the rationale that they log the find to credit for the cache. I don't care for this justification. They say the hider gets a +1 for caches hidden, but you don't get anything for helping to hide it. Since the owner is allowing it, they log the find to get +1 credit. I agree that this reason is silly. In my case when I have been with someone and the cache owner is a sock puppet account set up for group hides, I don't log a found it. The group account has the credit and I don't need a personal credit as well. I also don't log it if my name is in the hidden by field. In other cases, I have gone along with what the other people do and, on a few occasions, have logged a find. But this is my standard and I don't impose it others.

 

puritans are free to have a personal standard to not log a find on a cache if they were present when the cache is hidden. Nobody can be forced to log a find if they don't think it is legitimate.

 

The cache owner is the one who determines if an online find is legitimate or not. The person or persons who have access to the NGA account has decided to let the individuals who were in the group that planted the caches to log finds on them. The puritans may think this is lame; that doesn't mean it can't be done or even that doing it is uncommon. I wish the puritans didn't feel the need to accuse people who do this of being lame or worse - being cheaters. It shouldn't matter that someone got 600 finds or zero finds. What matters is that they had a good time placing the caches and that those people who want to find them will have a good time finding them. Others, who feel that driving from cache to cache along a dirt road in desert is about the most boring thing they can think of, will hopefully know enough to not look for these cache.

To sum it up: to each his own?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

First, I think you may have created one of more interesting power trails I've seen . I suspect that you were trying to create a record that won't be broken but the fact that they're all along a $WD road int the desert is certainly unique.

 

I do have one question though. What's with the first log on most of them from someone that claimed to be one of the hiders? Is it a common practice out that way to log finds on your own caches? Personally, I'd be embarrassed to claim 600 something finds on caches that I hid myself.

I believe that is common practice in most places, but not with all people. Currently the only way to get a cache to show up in stats is to either find it or be the hider. When Groundspeak creates a method of having multiple hiders then I am sure it will change, but that is a different time and a different topic.

 

I don't think the practice of logging a find on your own cache is that common. Whenever the topic comes up in the forum the response which suggest that it shouldn't be done are mostly something like "If that's how want to play the game, there's nothing stopping you from doing so."

 

I understand that the site doesn't provide a mechanism of associating a hide with multiple accounts, and I don't know how many hiders were involved, but one way to deal with it would be to split up the hides among those that were involved, and because the site allows you to put any string you want in the "Who Placed The Cache" box they all could have used "NGA". Assuming that there were three hiders involved, each would then be credited with 200 something hides.

 

As far as getting the caches to show up in stats, statistics are pretty meaningless unless everyone is playing the game according to the same guidelines.

When you click on the person that has their name up their it brings up one profile. According to this website, that is "THE" cache owner. That is the hider. Nobody else has a profile pop up, just one hider. One profile. That is a rule. If that person logs a find, then I will recognize your point.

 

It is extremely common that people that were present during the hide to log that cache as a find.

 

Sorry if I sound a bit rough but you asked one question and applied the answer elsewhere. Very deceiving and I take offense to that. The hider is the person that owns th cache. Co-hiders are present when the hider places the cache. Don't ask about co-hiders then apply the answer as if they owned the cache. Please understand the difference.

 

Also, be careful of the forums. These represent 1% of the community and many are here just to hear themselves talk. What you hear may or may apply to the situation at hand. Please learn the difference.

 

I understand the difference between the hider(s) of a cache and the account that was used to submit the listing (the owner). What I was suggesting was you could have split the 600 caches up such that each of the co-hiders owned an equal number of those caches (if three co-hders were involved, each would have ~200 hides credited to their account). You could still use the same string for "Who placed the cache" to indicate that it was a team effort. I fail to recognize anything deceitful about taking that approach.

 

I'm still not convinced that all those present when hiding a cache logging the cache as a find is a common practice. That's why I asked if it was common in your area because it certainly doesn't seem to happen very often in mine. I understand that it wasn't the owner (account holder that submitted the listing) that logged the cache. I just don't understand how someone can "find" something they've just hidden.

 

I am also well aware of the dynamics of the forums. As you can see by looking at the information under my avatar I have over 1800 posts here. I've also been actively involved in online forums since the early 1980's.

[+sbell111]

GPS experts say that cloud cover has absolutely no bearing on GPS accuracy, BTW.

 

Yeah, I know what the experts say.

I also know what I have experienced.

 

So let's just not even get into that debate.

 

I still think that 5-10 seconds for a GPS to "stabilize" isn't even close to enough time. But, hey, what do I know.

The world may never know.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Toz I understand where you are coming from. Yes we have had this conversation before and I respect your right to have and express your own opinion.

 

I continued the conversation with NGA after receiving a PM. Which is exactly the way it should have been. And I appreciate that!! Thank you Lynn for taking the time!!!!

 

We discussed what each others meanings were in our posts, and have come to a happy resolution of a perceived argument.

 

I understand the point they were trying to make and I defended my opinions as mine alone.

 

I wasn't involved in the situation they found themselves in, with multiple people hiding, so I can't really say what I would do if I found myself there.

 

The "puritan" in me does find it lame. However, I don't think my opinion should be misinterpreted as a demand they cease from doing something I don't "approve " of.

 

I agree, even if they don't log it as a find because they were right there when it was hidden, by the same logic it would seem pointless to leave, then come back and pretend to "find" it. This opens the door to questions like, how far away should they move, or how long should they wait??

 

Someone in that situation is pretty much stuck with it on their lists, unless they ignore it as you pointed out.

The cache owner is the one who determines if an online find is legitimate or not.

 

This "blanket statement" is somewhat misleading and not accurate. If the persons name appears on the cache log (regardless of the circumstances) and their online log is deleted, Groundspeak can restore that log. In this instance, between obvious group members, I doubt this would come into play. Nevertheless...

That said...as I notice in the latter part of your post that you have several "wishes". Since we are posting our "wishes", in the future, I really wish you would differentiate between me saying " that is just lame" and "you are just lame for doing that" There is a big difference!! And please point out where I used the word "cheating"

 

I also "wish" you would stop critiquing the words I post, to someone else, on someone elses thread, and take it to PM if you wish to discuss it with me. But then... I believe actually discussing it with me was not your intent... or was it???

Your first paragraphs were directly related to the discussion. From "puritans are free..." on, it seems like a discourse on people who dont' share your views.

edit to add -comment without a new post

Edited March 12, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[CoyoteRed]

I wonder if there is an upper limit to the ignore list feature?

Don't know. I'm well over 500 and climbing.

 

[RedShoesGirl]

Agreed, it seems like much more fun to just find them instead.

 

not much finding to do as they are mostly magnetics on power towers.

 

one of my caching friends had like 75 FTFs. and then part of the trail he was right behind another guy that got more FTFs. personally i am little more old school. anything smaller than a small tupperware container is too little to hunt. driving a powerline road in this area is not for the faint of heart as they tend to go up and down rocky mountains. my friend did it in an dual-sport bike and said some areas were definitely 4x only.

 

rsg

[RedShoesGirl]

For those that haven't yet checked, the Google Street View pictures are available along the highway if you want a good idea of the terrain. Of course, Street View doesn't mention the heat....

 

Best time is now or in October/November. Too late in the year and your days get very short.

 

Oh, night is no problem. around 80% of my finds have been done at night. Night might be better to avoid rattlesnakes but cougars and such might be a problem.

 

cougars? LOL! can't think of the last time i saw a cougar in my mojave. rattlesnakes, yep, coyotes, for sure, kangaroo mice, oh yeh, but cougars?

 

btw rattlesnakes are not daytime critters in the summer, they stay underground until it is cool enough at night to come out for dinner. they are not aggressive, but wait along mouse trails to grab a meal.

 

a little more to the south we have this big guy. not one you want to find while caching.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2010 by RedShoesGirl

[RedShoesGirl]

I see a bicycling cache trip as the best way to go on this trail. A motor vehicle (aside from a golf cart) would be a pain in the neck.

 

bittsen- I'm back in PDX pretty soon. Anytime after Memorial Day let me know, I'll travel with you to hit all these caches. We can hit up Vegas afterward as a reward.

If your serious think about the temps during the summer

and a soft top jeep with the doors off would be about the perfect vehicle

 

except in a jeep like that, it would be too hot mid day to do anything. the desert is just no place for the unprepared in the summer. we lose some folks every year to dumb-things-done-in-the-desert heat.

 

rsg

[+briansnat]

not much finding to do as they are mostly magnetics on power towers.

 

Sounds like a guideline violation to me, unless the power company gave permission for the hides. I could be wrong, but I suspect they didn't.

[RedShoesGirl]

Oh, night is no problem. around 80% of my finds have been done at night. Night might be better to avoid rattlesnakes but cougars and such might be a problem.

Shouldn't be any cougars there, buy coyotes might. In fact, the rattlers might be just as busy at night since it's too hot in the day. That might be a cool trip during a full moon.

Well, in October or later the rattlers shouldn't be out much at all. Also, the desert can get VERY cold at night. Rattlers would rather hunt when it's warm than when it's cold.

and that highway is on s less rugged path than the powerline

I used to ride my ATCs on a powerline road. It's perfect for ATVs. In fact I would bet good money that they used ATVs to make the trail.

you guys need to study up more on what the weather is like around here in october and when our rattlesnakes come out to play.

 

it is usually still very warm during the day in october. snakes come out early evening to hunt. many times you see them stretched across black pavement in the evening soaking up the last of the day's warmth.

 

spring is another thing. this year it has remained cold for most of the time. yesterday was supposed to be 66 - turned out it was cold and windy and made a long day of caching even more tiring.

[RedShoesGirl]

Well, in October or later the rattlers shouldn't be out much at all. Also, the desert can get VERY cold at night. Rattlers would rather hunt when it's warm than when it's cold.

If I remember right, this area can still be 80-90 degrees at night, even in Mid to Late October. I'll look into it.

Even though the optimum temperature for rattlesnakes is around 77oto 89o F (25o to 32o C), the greatest period of activity is spring, when they come out of hibernation and are seeking food.

 

unless they are hunting right before hibernation trying to get that one last mouse in the gullet to last the winter.

[+bittsen]

Well, in October or later the rattlers shouldn't be out much at all. Also, the desert can get VERY cold at night. Rattlers would rather hunt when it's warm than when it's cold.

If I remember right, this area can still be 80-90 degrees at night, even in Mid to Late October. I'll look into it.

Even though the optimum temperature for rattlesnakes is around 77oto 89o F (25o to 32o C), the greatest period of activity is spring, when they come out of hibernation and are seeking food.

 

unless they are hunting right before hibernation trying to get that one last mouse in the gullet to last the winter.

 

My experience with breeding snakes would indicate that a snake won't feed right before hibernating. In fact, when breeding snakes that hibernate, the last thing you want to do is feed them right before hibernating them. You are supposed to let them have four weeks between their last meal and hibernation, otherwise the food will spoil in their stomach and can easily kill the snake.

 

Keeping in mind my experience isn't with rattlers but with the snakes that eat rattlers.

[vagabond]

I see a bicycling cache trip as the best way to go on this trail. A motor vehicle (aside from a golf cart) would be a pain in the neck.

 

bittsen- I'm back in PDX pretty soon. Anytime after Memorial Day let me know, I'll travel with you to hit all these caches. We can hit up Vegas afterward as a reward.

If your serious think about the temps during the summer

and a soft top jeep with the doors off would be about the perfect vehicle

 

except in a jeep like that, it would be too hot mid day to do anything. the desert is just no place for the unprepared in the summer. we lose some folks every year to dumb-things-done-in-the-desert heat.

 

rsg

 

It may notbe the thing for the UNPREPARED but for someone that lives there there or knows the desert

it's a totally differnt thing, I'ved lived in the Bullhead and Needles area for many years before retiring so I think I can speak with a little knowledge of the desert.

Besides nothing was said about doing it in the summer.

I used to carry 2 5 gal. jerry cans ofr water on my CJ5 I never had to use it for myself buit there was more then once i gave water to others, Your quote (we lose some folks every year to dumb-things-done-in-the-desert heat.) dumb people are going to do domb things

[RedShoesGirl]

...Keeping in mind my experience isn't with rattlers but with the snakes that eat rattlers.

 

and what kind of snakes do you have experience with that eat rattlesnakes?

 

rsg

[+bittsen]

...Keeping in mind my experience isn't with rattlers but with the snakes that eat rattlers.

 

and what kind of snakes do you have experience with that eat rattlesnakes?

 

rsg

King snakes.

 

Pretty harmless to humans but usually win in a fight with a rattle snake, being immune to the venom, and eat them quite frequently.

 

Picture of a California King snake eating a rattler

 

And another one

Edited March 15, 2010 by bittsen

[RedShoesGirl]

...Keeping in mind my experience isn't with rattlers but with the snakes that eat rattlers.

 

and what kind of snakes do you have experience with that eat rattlesnakes?

 

rsg

King snakes.

 

Pretty harmless to humans but usually win in a fight with a rattle snake, being immune to the venom, and eat them quite frequently.

 

...

 

good answer!

 

i check with my friend mike cardwell who is a venomous critter expert and one of the leading experts in mojave green rattlesnake about snakes needing to eat before hibernation. he confirmed my opinion that snakes and other hibernating animals need to eat before hiberation.

 

>> like all animals that hibernate, rattlesnakes have to store enough body fat to supply their energy needs through the winter. Of course, their metabolism slows way down and, with it, their energy requirements are reduced as well. But eating before hibernation is especially important for neonates and post-partum females. Females can drop 50% or more of their body mass when they give birth, usually in September, and often have little body fat left for the winter. Few neonates survive until spring and we don't know for sure what happens to them. They are very susceptible to predation when they're that small and I believe that many may starve during the winter. My best guess is that those babies that are successful in feeding before cold weather hits have a good chance of making it but those that fail to find a meal (it has to be small at their size - probably a small lizard or similar) before hibernation probably can't survive the winter... after all, they weigh only about 10-12 grams and have virtually no body fat at birth.

 

As for snakes that eat rattlesnakes, kingsnakes are well known as rattlesnake predators, although it takes a really big kingsnake to kill and eat an adult of most rattlesnakes. Smaller rattlesnakes, especially newborns, are eaten by racers for sure and likely by some other species too.<<

[4wheelin_fool]

...Keeping in mind my experience isn't with rattlers but with the snakes that eat rattlers.

 

and what kind of snakes do you have experience with that eat rattlesnakes?

 

rsg

King snakes.

 

Pretty harmless to humans but usually win in a fight with a rattle snake, being immune to the venom, and eat them quite frequently.

 

Picture of a California King snake eating a rattler

 

And another one

 

How about copperheads?

 

I caught a rattler a few years ago in GA during the dog days of summer by sticking a log against it's throat. It really wasn't too much of a challenge. A couple of kids i knew in their 20s wanted to milk the venom and put it on a cigarette and smoke it for some odd reason..

[+Chrysalides]

A couple of kids i knew in their 20s wanted to milk the venom and put it on a cigarette and smoke it for some odd reason..

Found this on a quick Google search

 

http://www.kmbc.com/news/2621661/detail.html

[+bittsen]

good answer!

 

i check with my friend mike cardwell who is a venomous critter expert and one of the leading experts in mojave green rattlesnake about snakes needing to eat before hibernation. he confirmed my opinion that snakes and other hibernating animals need to eat before hiberation.

 

>> like all animals that hibernate, rattlesnakes have to store enough body fat to supply their energy needs through the winter. Of course, their metabolism slows way down and, with it, their energy requirements are reduced as well. But eating before hibernation is especially important for neonates and post-partum females. Females can drop 50% or more of their body mass when they give birth, usually in September, and often have little body fat left for the winter. Few neonates survive until spring and we don't know for sure what happens to them. They are very susceptible to predation when they're that small and I believe that many may starve during the winter. My best guess is that those babies that are successful in feeding before cold weather hits have a good chance of making it but those that fail to find a meal (it has to be small at their size - probably a small lizard or similar) before hibernation probably can't survive the winter... after all, they weigh only about 10-12 grams and have virtually no body fat at birth.

 

As for snakes that eat rattlesnakes, kingsnakes are well known as rattlesnake predators, although it takes a really big kingsnake to kill and eat an adult of most rattlesnakes. Smaller rattlesnakes, especially newborns, are eaten by racers for sure and likely by some other species too.<<

 

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said or what he said but here's an excerpt from one of thousands of guides for breeding king snakes (which is really no different than any other hibernating snake)

 

You want to take great care during this cooling down period when breeding your king snakes. It is extremely important that they have stopped eating in sufficient time before the cooling period starts so that there isn't any undigested food remaining in the belly. This is vital because undigested food can kill your snakes over the next 3 months. Though they have not been fed in the cooling period, it is very important that they keep having prepared access to a fresh supply of water.

 

Yes, they must consume lots of food before breeding but right before hibernation (which is the start of the breeding cycle) they need to stop eating and completely empty their gut. My guide said to stop feeding the snake 4 weeks prior to dropping the temps.

I'm sure some would say 3 weeks, maybe even less.

 

Also to be noted is that rattlesnakes don't lay eggs but kingsnakes do. Other than that their breeding cycle is very similar. I suppose one could point out that another difference is that king snakes shouldn't live together because they have been known to be cannibalistic and kingsnakes often die during the mating process. It's quite violent (which is exactly how I lost my breeding pair).

 

But, I fear we have strayed way off topic. Suffice to say that the desert is pretty free of snake danger in December. ~L~

[RedShoesGirl]

...

It may notbe the thing for the UNPREPARED but for someone that lives there there or knows the desert

it's a totally differnt thing, I'ved lived in the Bullhead and Needles area for many years before retiring so I think I can speak with a little knowledge of the desert.

Besides nothing was said about doing it in the summer.

 

i read the statement as doing it in summer with an soft top jeep and no doors - but that could have been a misinterpretation on my part.

 

I used to carry 2 5 gal. jerry cans ofr water on my CJ5 I never had to use it for myself buit there was more then once i gave water to others, Your quote (we lose some folks every year to dumb-things-done-in-the-desert heat.) dumb people are going to do domb things

 

i am in barstow. and it still amazes me that people will head to vegas from LA or even here and not carry enough water just in case the freeway is closed down due to an accident for hours on end out where there are no service stations. can't tell you how many times i have covered that story. in the summer i carry gatorade as well as water for stuck folks, usually from LA who don't understand a little bottle of water is not going to be enough.

 

so back on topic, not only are the power line caches not an interesting idea, (at least to me) it can be potentially dangerous if not really well prepared, no matter what time of year.

 

rsg

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

i am in barstow. and it still amazes me that people will head to vegas from LA or even here and not carry enough water just in case the freeway is closed down due to an accident for hours on end out where there are no service stations. can't tell you how many times i have covered that story. in the summer i carry gatorade as well as water for stuck folks, usually from LA who don't understand a little bottle of water is not going to be enough.

 

so back on topic, not only are the power line caches not an interesting idea, (at least to me) it can be potentially dangerous if not really well prepared, no matter what time of year.

 

rsg

As far as I can tell, they are not attached to the power towers. and Off topic, as trucker, in the winter, I always carry extra food and blankets in the truck(new in a package) in case I come across someone stuck in a snowdrift or whatever.

[RedShoesGirl]

good answer!

 

i check with my friend mike cardwell who is a venomous critter expert and one of the leading experts in mojave green rattlesnake about snakes needing to eat before hibernation. he confirmed my opinion that snakes and other hibernating animals need to eat before hiberation.

 

>> like all animals that hibernate, rattlesnakes have to store enough body fat to supply their energy needs through the winter. Of course, their metabolism slows way down and, with it, their energy requirements are reduced as well. But eating before hibernation is especially important for neonates and post-partum females. Females can drop 50% or more of their body mass when they give birth, usually in September, and often have little body fat left for the winter. Few neonates survive until spring and we don't know for sure what happens to them. They are very susceptible to predation when they're that small and I believe that many may starve during the winter. My best guess is that those babies that are successful in feeding before cold weather hits have a good chance of making it but those that fail to find a meal (it has to be small at their size - probably a small lizard or similar) before hibernation probably can't survive the winter... after all, they weigh only about 10-12 grams and have virtually no body fat at birth.

 

As for snakes that eat rattlesnakes, kingsnakes are well known as rattlesnake predators, although it takes a really big kingsnake to kill and eat an adult of most rattlesnakes. Smaller rattlesnakes, especially newborns, are eaten by racers for sure and likely by some other species too.<<

 

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said or what he said but here's an excerpt from one of thousands of guides for breeding king snakes (which is really no different than any other hibernating snake)

 

You want to take great care during this cooling down period when breeding your king snakes. It is extremely important that they have stopped eating in sufficient time before the cooling period starts so that there isn't any undigested food remaining in the belly. This is vital because undigested food can kill your snakes over the next 3 months. Though they have not been fed in the cooling period, it is very important that they keep having prepared access to a fresh supply of water.

 

Yes, they must consume lots of food before breeding but right before hibernation (which is the start of the breeding cycle) they need to stop eating and completely empty their gut. My guide said to stop feeding the snake 4 weeks prior to dropping the temps.

I'm sure some would say 3 weeks, maybe even less.

 

Also to be noted is that rattlesnakes don't lay eggs but kingsnakes do. Other than that their breeding cycle is very similar. I suppose one could point out that another difference is that king snakes shouldn't live together because they have been known to be cannibalistic and kingsnakes often die during the mating process. It's quite violent (which is exactly how I lost my breeding pair).

 

But, I fear we have strayed way off topic. Suffice to say that the desert is pretty free of snake danger in December. ~L~

 

you didn't understand what mike was saying about rattlesnakes needing to eat before hibernation, he says nothing about having an empty gut, but actually the opposite, especially when it comes to baby snakes and post-partum females.

 

perhaps the physiology of a rattlesnake in the wild is different than a king snake in captivity. i do remember when i shot the mojave green above he mentioned the snakes needed to have food right before hibernation. like a bear. they digest their food during the hibernating cycle, but more slowly because of reduced metabolism.

 

yep, we have strayed from the topic and yep, not much danger from rattlers in december. as soon as it starts to warm up in april, they will start venturing from their dens. makes trekking about the desert and rock climbing particularly interesting - and geocaching - travel bugs do not mean rattlesnakes or tarantulas.

 

really trying to get the thread back on track.

 

rsg

Edited March 15, 2010 by RedShoesGirl

[+bittsen]

King snakes.

 

Pretty harmless to humans but usually win in a fight with a rattle snake, being immune to the venom, and eat them quite frequently.

 

Picture of a California King snake eating a rattler

 

And another one

 

How about copperheads?

 

Copperheads too as far as I know.

Kingsnakes are called KINGsnakes because they are the top of the snake food chain. They don't appear to be too finicky on which animals they eat. They eat birds, rodents, lizards and other snakes, and as I said, they are canibalistic.

 

Maybe they are so mellow as pets because they aren't really that bright.

[RedShoesGirl]

...

As far as I can tell, they are not attached to the power towers. and Off topic, as trucker, in the winter, I always carry extra food and blankets in the truck(new in a package) in case I come across someone stuck in a snowdrift or whatever.

 

pretty sure john told me they were magnetics on the towers. i wrote to ask him again.

 

rsg

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

...

As far as I can tell, they are not attached to the power towers. and Off topic, as trucker, in the winter, I always carry extra food and blankets in the truck(new in a package) in case I come across someone stuck in a snowdrift or whatever.

 

pretty sure john told me they were magnetics on the towers. i wrote to ask him again.

 

rsg

Oh, that sounds unbfortunate, and probably against the guidelines as I'm sure the power company wouldn't have given permission for that.

[4wheelin_fool]

A couple of kids i knew in their 20s wanted to milk the venom and put it on a cigarette and smoke it for some odd reason..

Found this on a quick Google search

 

http://www.kmbc.com/news/2621661/detail.html

Whoa. That was the same year that it happened.('03) I was in NE georgia, although it is possible that the same rumor was circulating in Arkansas and Missouri at the same time..

Edited March 15, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[Mr.Yuck]

...

As far as I can tell, they are not attached to the power towers. and Off topic, as trucker, in the winter, I always carry extra food and blankets in the truck(new in a package) in case I come across someone stuck in a snowdrift or whatever.

 

pretty sure john told me they were magnetics on the towers. i wrote to ask him again.

 

rsg

Oh, that sounds unbfortunate, and probably against the guidelines as I'm sure the power company wouldn't have given permission for that.

 

Seeing as a prominent reviewer and Geocaching topics forum moderator was on the placement team, I'm sure there's not a problem there.

[+Castle Mischief]

This thread has been a very educational moment for me in regards to snake feeding. Thank you, internets.

[RedShoesGirl]

...

As far as I can tell, they are not attached to the power towers. and Off topic, as trucker, in the winter, I always carry extra food and blankets in the truck(new in a package) in case I come across someone stuck in a snowdrift or whatever.

 

pretty sure john told me they were magnetics on the towers. i wrote to ask him again.

 

rsg

Oh, that sounds unbfortunate, and probably against the guidelines as I'm sure the power company wouldn't have given permission for that.

 

they were indeed magnetics attached to the power towers. >>>although some non-caring cachers do not attach them back properly, and yesterday we found a few on the ground.<<<

 

gee, that sounds like a fun time. what was the definition of the word "cache" again?

 

rsg

[RedShoesGirl]

This thread has been a very educational moment for me in regards to snake feeding. Thank you, internets.

 

"internets?"

 

you're welcome. glad to be of some educational benefit to you. might come in handy if you ever venture out this way.

 

rsg

[RedShoesGirl]

oops, duplicate deleted

Edited March 15, 2010 by RedShoesGirl

[+sbell111]

...

As far as I can tell, they are not attached to the power towers. and Off topic, as trucker, in the winter, I always carry extra food and blankets in the truck(new in a package) in case I come across someone stuck in a snowdrift or whatever.

 

pretty sure john told me they were magnetics on the towers. i wrote to ask him again.

 

rsg

Oh, that sounds unbfortunate, and probably against the guidelines as I'm sure the power company wouldn't have given permission for that.

 

they were indeed magnetics attached to the power towers. >>>although some non-caring cachers do not attach them back properly, and yesterday we found a few on the ground.<<<

 

gee, that sounds like a fun time. what was the definition of the word "cache" again?

 

rsg

Per Dictionary.com: An item hidden in a specific location in geocaching.

 

What's you point?

[RedShoesGirl]

...

gee, that sounds like a fun time. what was the definition of the word "cache" again?

 

rsg

 

Per Dictionary.com: An item hidden in a specific location in geocaching.

 

What's you point?

 

i am pretty sure you mean "your" point and not "you."

 

from http://dictionary.reference.com/

 

cache   [kash] Show IPA noun, verb,cached, cach·ing.

–noun

1.

a hiding place, esp. one in the ground, for ammunition, food, treasures, etc.: She hid her jewelry in a little cache in the cellar.

2.

anything so hidden: The enemy never found our cache of food.

3.

Alaska and Northern Canada. a small shed elevated on poles above the reach of animals and used for storing food, equipment, etc.

 

a magnetic tin stuck on a power pole does not seem to fit into the definition of "cache" nor does it fit into the original guidelines of what were geocaches. where is the room for the treasures?!

 

but lest this turn into another argument about micros, yes i know the game has "evolved" or "devolved" - your choice. so let's leave that sleeping horse lay.

 

rsg

Edited March 15, 2010 by RedShoesGirl

[+sbell111]

...

gee, that sounds like a fun time. what was the definition of the word "cache" again?

 

rsg

 

Per Dictionary.com: An item hidden in a specific location in geocaching.

 

What's you point?

 

i am pretty sure you mean "your" point and not "you."

 

from http://dictionary.reference.com/

 

cache   [kash] Show IPA noun, verb,cached, cach·ing.

–noun

1.

a hiding place, esp. one in the ground, for ammunition, food, treasures, etc.: She hid her jewelry in a little cache in the cellar.

2.

anything so hidden: The enemy never found our cache of food.

3.

Alaska and Northern Canada. a small shed elevated on poles above the reach of animals and used for storing food, equipment, etc.

 

a magnetic tin stuck on a power pole does not seem to fit into the definition of "cache" nor does it fit into the original guidelines of what were geocaches. where is the room for the treasures?!

 

but lest this turn into another argument about micros, yes i know the game has "evolved" or "devolved" - your choice. so let's leave that sleeping horse lay.

 

rsg

Nice zinger. You sure did bust me on my typo. Certainly, that means that you win the debate.

 

Otherwise, I would certainly bring up the fact the you are defining 'cache', not 'geocache'. I gave a definition of geocache, assuming that you were merely being lazy by asking for one for 'cache'. After all, we don't hunt 'caches'. In this game, we hunt geocaches. Sometimes, we call them 'caches, but that doesn't make them caches.

 

If you take note of the actual definition for 'geocache', you will find that micro caches stuck on a pole do fit the definition. Further, they fit the guidelines.

 

from http://dictionary.reference.com/

 

Main Entry: geocache

Part of Speech: n

Definition: an item hidden in a specific location in geocaching

Example: We used a handheld GPS receiver unit to guide us to a geocache destination.

Usage: also geocache, (v.)

Edited March 15, 2010 by sbell111

[Mr.Yuck]

...

As far as I can tell, they are not attached to the power towers. and Off topic, as trucker, in the winter, I always carry extra food and blankets in the truck(new in a package) in case I come across someone stuck in a snowdrift or whatever.

 

pretty sure john told me they were magnetics on the towers. i wrote to ask him again.

 

rsg

Oh, that sounds unbfortunate, and probably against the guidelines as I'm sure the power company wouldn't have given permission for that.

 

they were indeed magnetics attached to the power towers. >>>although some non-caring cachers do not attach them back properly, and yesterday we found a few on the ground.<<<

 

 

Critters. Desert Critters. Y'all have squirells out there?

[RedShoesGirl]

...

gee, that sounds like a fun time. what was the definition of the word "cache" again?

 

rsg

 

Per Dictionary.com: An item hidden in a specific location in geocaching.

 

What's you point?

 

i am pretty sure you mean "your" point and not "you."

 

from http://dictionary.reference.com/

 

cache   [kash] Show IPA noun, verb,cached, cach·ing.

–noun

1.

a hiding place, esp. one in the ground, for ammunition, food, treasures, etc.: She hid her jewelry in a little cache in the cellar.

2.

anything so hidden: The enemy never found our cache of food.

3.

Alaska and Northern Canada. a small shed elevated on poles above the reach of animals and used for storing food, equipment, etc.

 

a magnetic tin stuck on a power pole does not seem to fit into the definition of "cache" nor does it fit into the original guidelines of what were geocaches. where is the room for the treasures?!

 

but lest this turn into another argument about micros, yes i know the game has "evolved" or "devolved" - your choice. so let's leave that sleeping horse lay.

 

rsg

Nice zinger. You sure did bust me on my typo. Certainly, that means that you win the debate.

 

Otherwise, I would certainly bring up the fact the you are defining 'cache', not 'geocache'. I gave a definition of geocache, assuming that you were merely being lazy by asking for one for 'cache'. After all, we don't hunt 'caches'. In this game, we hunt geocaches. Sometimes, we call them 'caches, but that doesn't make them caches.

 

If you take note of the actual definition for 'geocache', you will find that micro caches stuck on a pole do fit the definition. Further, they fit the guidelines.

 

from http://dictionary.reference.com/

 

Main Entry: geocache

Part of Speech: n

Definition: an item hidden in a specific location in geocaching

Example: We used a handheld GPS receiver unit to guide us to a geocache destination.

Usage: also geocache, (v.)

 

i am never lazy when it comes to words. if you had read my original question without the knee-jerk reaction, i asked what was the original definition of "cache" not "geocache." it was in reference to the beginning of the hobby.

 

and in the beginning, there were no micros, only smalls, which were about the size of a small tupperware container. and the intent was indeed to place "caches" with "stuff" in them for people to hunt and trade, i.e. swag. there were challenges to the hunt and find.

 

a line of power towers with magnetic tins attached to them seems to be far afield of how "geocaching" came about and simply is not my idea of fun past the first 5 or so.

 

but whatever bloats your goat.

 

rsg

[RedShoesGirl]

this is part of the log for the ca/nev series of caches:

 

>>This was one of 436 finds we made in less than a day. The OC Power Cachers (OCPC) Crew came out to go for the 250 in a day goal needed for a challenge cache. Many of us had gotten close to 200 in a day in the past. Once we hit 250 we realized we could keep going and go on to a much higher total. How could anyone imagine there were so many GODS? By the end of 24 hours we thought we were SEEING GODS out on the trail. It was FUN outing, only 28 degrees at night and in the 70's during the day. We stopped for one cat-nap break, had an evening campfire break and just kept the caffeine and food flowing.<<

 

now, the way my calculator figured this out was - and someone will correct me if the math is wrong:

 

436/24 [1440 minutes] = 18 per hour [60 minutes] (rounded to the nearest whole amount)

which comes out to .3 geocaches per minute = about 1 geocache in less than 3 minutes.

 

considering the rocky terrain, locating the micro, signing the log, etc., i am not sure a group of people could physically DO that many geocaches in the time period they said they did it. we are not talking a nice paved road here.

 

but it is a thought.

 

rsg

[RedShoesGirl]

...

Critters. Desert Critters. Y'all have squirells out there?

 

no, but we have squirrels - which can be defined as a "critter"

 

crit·ter   [krit-er]

–nounDialect.

1.

a domesticated animal.

2.

any creature.

 

Also, crittur.

 

Origin:

var. of creature

 

doncha love dictionary.com?

[+NeecesandNephews]

this is part of the log for the ca/nev series of caches:

 

>>This was one of 436 finds we made in less than a day. The OC Power Cachers (OCPC) Crew came out to go for the 250 in a day goal needed for a challenge cache. Many of us had gotten close to 200 in a day in the past. Once we hit 250 we realized we could keep going and go on to a much higher total. How could anyone imagine there were so many GODS? By the end of 24 hours we thought we were SEEING GODS out on the trail. It was FUN outing, only 28 degrees at night and in the 70's during the day. We stopped for one cat-nap break, had an evening campfire break and just kept the caffeine and food flowing.<<

 

now, the way my calculator figured this out was - and someone will correct me if the math is wrong:

 

436/24 [1440 minutes] = 18 per hour [60 minutes] (rounded to the nearest whole amount)

which comes out to .3 geocaches per minute = about 1 geocache in less than 3 minutes.

 

considering the rocky terrain, locating the micro, signing the log, etc., i am not sure a group of people could physically DO that many geocaches in the time period they said they did it. we are not talking a nice paved road here.

 

but it is a thought.

 

rsg

 

 

 

I wonder how many people constitute a "Crew" and how were they signing/calculating? Take your calculated solution and multiply it by the number of people involved and the "average" is not quite so impressive.

 

Did they sign/take credit as a Team, or did each person sign their own name?? Were they working both sides of the trail together, or seperate "crews"?

 

If they are doing this as a "goal" of meeting the 250 a day number required by a challenge, I would think that stated "goal" would be intended to be met by a single cacher, not a team.

 

I could take a "team" and compete to meet a goal like that, and have no trouble doing it. Take ten different people on the team, send them in ten different directions, and have them all log the "team" name. Goal is easily accomplished, and the entire "team" could claim it as an "individual" goal??? Thats messed up.

 

But then, as I learned earlier in the thread, people have different ideas of what is "OK'!

 

edit to add- before I get jumped again- I am not calling anyone a "cheater" or whining about it. I am just posting my opinion.

Edited March 15, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[RedShoesGirl]

...

I wonder how many people constitute a "Crew" and how were they signing/calculating? Take your calculated solution and multiply it by the number of people involved and the "average" is not quite so impressive.

 

Did they sign/take credit as a Team, or did each person sign their own name?? Were they working both sides of the trail together, or seperate "crews"?

 

If they are doing this as a "goal" of meeting the 250 a day number required by a challenge, I would think that stated "goal" would be intended to be met by a single cacher, not a team.

 

I could take a "team" and compete to meet a goal like that, and have no trouble doing it. Take ten different people on the team, send them in ten different directions, and have them all log the "team" name. Goal is easily accomplished, and the entire "team" could claim it as an "individual" goal??? Thats messed up.

 

But then, as I learned earlier in the thread, people have different ideas of what is "OK'!

 

edit to add- before I get jumped again- I am not calling anyone a "cheater" or whining about it. I am just posting my opinion.

 

i was wondering the same thing. guess i'll just have to write them and see.

 

lara

[vagabond]

 

i read the statement as doing it in summer with an soft top jeep and no doors - but that could have been a misinterpretation on my part.

 

i am in barstow. and it still amazes me that people will head to vegas from LA or even here and not carry enough water just in case the freeway is closed down due to an accident for hours on end out where there are no service stations. can't tell you how many times i have covered that story. in the summer i carry gatorade as well as water for stuck folks, usually from LA who don't understand a little bottle of water is not going to be enough.

 

so back on topic, not only are the power line caches not an interesting idea, (at least to me) it can be potentially dangerous if not really well prepared, no matter what time of year.

 

rsg

Maybe I should have stated when I'd do the run, naturally it would be during daylight savings time and before it got hot, ay least 2 people maybe 3.

we would use labels with a team name and not individually sign names, since that seems to be the way most would do a run like this.

Also one other thing and I'm sure RSG knows this an wil agree the mojave greens are aggressive rattlers

so for anyone planning this just keep that in mind

Edited March 15, 2010 by vagabond

[vagabond]

[

and in the beginning, there were no micros, only smalls, which were about the size of a small tupperware container. and the intent was indeed to place "caches" with "stuff" in them for people to hunt and trade, i.e. swag. there were challenges to the hunt and find.

 

a line of power towers with magnetic tins attached to them seems to be far afield of how "geocaching" came about and simply is not my idea of fun past the first 5 or so.

 

but whatever bloats your goat.

 

rsg

[check the date and size, not the beginning but very close

Edited March 15, 2010 by vagabond

[+sbell111]

...

gee, that sounds like a fun time. what was the definition of the word "cache" again?

 

rsg

 

Per Dictionary.com: An item hidden in a specific location in geocaching.

 

What's you point?

i am pretty sure you mean "your" point and not "you."

 

from http://dictionary.reference.com/

 

cache   [kash] Show IPA noun, verb,cached, cach·ing.

–noun

1.

a hiding place, esp. one in the ground, for ammunition, food, treasures, etc.: She hid her jewelry in a little cache in the cellar.

2.

anything so hidden: The enemy never found our cache of food.

3.

Alaska and Northern Canada. a small shed elevated on poles above the reach of animals and used for storing food, equipment, etc.

 

a magnetic tin stuck on a power pole does not seem to fit into the definition of "cache" nor does it fit into the original guidelines of what were geocaches. where is the room for the treasures?!

 

but lest this turn into another argument about micros, yes i know the game has "evolved" or "devolved" - your choice. so let's leave that sleeping horse lay.

 

rsg

Nice zinger. You sure did bust me on my typo. Certainly, that means that you win the debate.

 

Otherwise, I would certainly bring up the fact the you are defining 'cache', not 'geocache'. I gave a definition of geocache, assuming that you were merely being lazy by asking for one for 'cache'. After all, we don't hunt 'caches'. In this game, we hunt geocaches. Sometimes, we call them 'caches, but that doesn't make them caches.

 

If you take note of the actual definition for 'geocache', you will find that micro caches stuck on a pole do fit the definition. Further, they fit the guidelines.

 

from http://dictionary.reference.com/

 

Main Entry: geocache

Part of Speech: n

Definition: an item hidden in a specific location in geocaching

Example: We used a handheld GPS receiver unit to guide us to a geocache destination.

Usage: also geocache, (v.)

i am never lazy when it comes to words. if you had read my original question without the knee-jerk reaction, i asked what was the original definition of "cache" not "geocache." it was in reference to the beginning of the hobby.

 

and in the beginning, there were no micros, only smalls, which were about the size of a small tupperware container. and the intent was indeed to place "caches" with "stuff" in them for people to hunt and trade, i.e. swag. there were challenges to the hunt and find.

 

a line of power towers with magnetic tins attached to them seems to be far afield of how "geocaching" came about and simply is not my idea of fun past the first 5 or so.

 

but whatever bloats your goat.

 

rsg

The original definition of 'cache' has no more in common with geocaching back then than it does now.

 

It should also be noted that, if I'm not mistaken, I found my first micro caches right around the time that you became a member or shortly before. Let's not pretend that they are a recent development that has in some way changed the game from what it was meant to be.

 

This game is and always was about one thing: going out and finding some object based only on information found on GC.com. It has always been about the find.

[+sbell111]

this is part of the log for the ca/nev series of caches:

 

>>This was one of 436 finds we made in less than a day. The OC Power Cachers (OCPC) Crew came out to go for the 250 in a day goal needed for a challenge cache. Many of us had gotten close to 200 in a day in the past. Once we hit 250 we realized we could keep going and go on to a much higher total. How could anyone imagine there were so many GODS? By the end of 24 hours we thought we were SEEING GODS out on the trail. It was FUN outing, only 28 degrees at night and in the 70's during the day. We stopped for one cat-nap break, had an evening campfire break and just kept the caffeine and food flowing.<<

 

now, the way my calculator figured this out was - and someone will correct me if the math is wrong:

 

436/24 [1440 minutes] = 18 per hour [60 minutes] (rounded to the nearest whole amount)

which comes out to .3 geocaches per minute = about 1 geocache in less than 3 minutes.

 

considering the rocky terrain, locating the micro, signing the log, etc., i am not sure a group of people could physically DO that many geocaches in the time period they said they did it. we are not talking a nice paved road here.

 

but it is a thought.

 

rsg

I wonder how many people constitute a "Crew" and how were they signing/calculating? Take your calculated solution and multiply it by the number of people involved and the "average" is not quite so impressive.

 

Did they sign/take credit as a Team, or did each person sign their own name?? Were they working both sides of the trail together, or seperate "crews"?

 

If they are doing this as a "goal" of meeting the 250 a day number required by a challenge, I would think that stated "goal" would be intended to be met by a single cacher, not a team.

 

I could take a "team" and compete to meet a goal like that, and have no trouble doing it. Take ten different people on the team, send them in ten different directions, and have them all log the "team" name. Goal is easily accomplished, and the entire "team" could claim it as an "individual" goal??? Thats messed up.

 

But then, as I learned earlier in the thread, people have different ideas of what is "OK'!

 

edit to add- before I get jumped again- I am not calling anyone a "cheater" or whining about it. I am just posting my opinion.

If you read any of the threads that discuss these record breaking attempts, you will note that splitting up your group to search for multiple caches at the same time is pretty much never happens. All of the recent 'record breaking' runs kept the group together.

[+bittsen]

I've found caches magnetically attatched (or is that "attracted") to power line towers.

I read the sign on the tower that said "Do NOT climb" "DANGER". And yet there was a clear attempt to clear brush all the way to the edge of the legs of the tower.

 

I don't think power companies would care about a magnetic cache attached to an electrical tower. There may be a few individuals who would try to make it an issue and power companies might make a statement to appease the whiners but I doubt the power company itself really cares, as a whole.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

...and in the beginning, there were no micros, only smalls, which were about the size of a small tupperware container. and the intent was indeed to place "caches" with "stuff" in them for people to hunt and trade, i.e. swag. there were challenges to the hunt and find...

In the beginning, i.e. the first cache; it was buried, without permission, and had cigarettes and beans in it.

 

Today caches require adequate permission, there can be no burying, no cigarettes and no beans in today's caches, but in fact there is no requirement for loot of any kind. Doesn't sound like the 'origins of the game' mean much.

 

The game has indeed evolved... basically now any container which holds a log can be a geocache.

[knowschad]

I've found caches magnetically attatched (or is that "attracted") to power line towers.

I read the sign on the tower that said "Do NOT climb" "DANGER". And yet there was a clear attempt to clear brush all the way to the edge of the legs of the tower.

 

I don't think power companies would care about a magnetic cache attached to an electrical tower. There may be a few individuals who would try to make it an issue and power companies might make a statement to appease the whiners but I doubt the power company itself really cares, as a whole.

I've seen two of them archived by our reviewer once he got wind of where they were hidden. I believe they are considered potential terrorist targets.