Jump to content

Roundup used to find cache


Recommended Posts

I have/had a hide that is a version of the "bottle cap" style of hide (GC22XHA). For those not familiar with this, it's basically a PVC or other tubing pushed or hammered into the ground with another smaller tube/container placed inside with a bottle cap attached to the top. All you see if you are looking in the right place is the bottle cap or other object at ground level. Now, I know this skirts the "caches are not to be buried" rule, and yet, these type of hides are common in this area and range from a rock with a container beneath to as mentioned, a bottle cap with a small container below. We aren't here to debate the legitimacy of this type of hide and I will not respond to any posting related to that.

 

My cache was just off a walking/bike path with grass and trees on one side. So, I took a caching friend to my hide that's a version of the bottle cap type. It's listed as a 4 difficulty and I've had many a seasoned geocacher stumped. My hint would have given anyone a good idea of where to look using very close by landmarks. At GZ I notice that the grass was dead and dying in a patch a bit bigger than 3'x5'. Someone has sprayed the area with a herbicide like Roundup so the top of the hide could be found much more easily!

 

I ask you, what happened to respect for the environment and not leaving a foot print?!? How is it "right" in anyone's geocaching mind to kill off the grass in order to find a cache? Just get down and look for it!

What's next? A machete hacking away at the landscaping in a park? Cutting down a tree because the cache is out of reach in it's limbs?

 

I can't put the cache back in it's original location because the grass is dead and dying. So, I'll just have to archive it.

 

I just can't believe what some will do.

Link to comment

A couple of thoughts :

 

1. You sure it was geocaching related and that a geocacher did it? For that matter, are you sure that a pesticide was used?

 

2. I think many geocachers are socially / environmentally responsible, but it would be a stretch to believe that all geocachers are socially / environmentally responsible.

 

If a geocacher really did spray RoundUp to kill the grass to make a geocache easier to find, then this truly hits a new low. However, I find it a little hard to believe that someone who would go to such lengths for a cache would actually bring the pesticide, spray, wait a number of days, then return to search.

Link to comment

That's pretty bad, but the hide was also bad so it's probably for the best. As you said yourself, "I just can't believe what some will do."

 

From the guidelines:

 

"First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache."

Link to comment

In my short time caching I have seen a couple similar incidents. The clearing away of any and all "cover" because I can only assume someone thought "this cache should not have been this hard to find"

 

I especially love those posts of " I put it back where I thought it should have been". Never mind if the Owner didn't want it in the "obvious" hiding spot.

 

Like you said... what can you do???

Link to comment

First-Nothing wrong with with a cache that you pushed into the ground. That has been established before so no worries there.

 

Next-While not saying that it was or was not done by a cacher there are all sorts of people who play this game. Some of them are not too bright, smart, ethical, honest, etc. No different than any other group of people.

Link to comment

I don't know who did that but it's unfortunate.

With my first hide I went back to look for the cache after someone couldn't find it and it looked like someone came to GZ with nothing more than a seek and destroy mentality. Some people can't just enjoy the game and can't handle a DNF.

I was told in the forums that I can't prove it was a geocacher, blah blah blah but I'm sure it was. I sure hope it wasn't a cacher that did it but I'm with you in suspecting it was one.

 

But, now I know what to look for on your other caches.

Now I just need a metal detector so I can find hundreds of bottle caps.

 

P.S. I thought I found a bottle cap cache once. I was disappointed that it was just a stupid bottle cap...

 

Just keep on keeping on. I think a lot of people enjoy most of your caches.

Link to comment

Did anyone else notice this ad up in the corner above the orignal post? The word matching engine that picks which ads to show can have some hilarious results!

 

'Whatever Your Weed Control Needs

Roundup® Brands Have the Solution."

:(:D:(

 

FWIW, I think it's pretty funny also that you place a cache that by your own words "skirts the rules", then get upset when someone uses questionable tactics to find it, THEN you come to the forums to let everyone know about it!

Edited by hukilaulau
Link to comment

That`s horrible! It`s downright unbelievable - are you sure there`s no other explanation for how the grass might have died?

 

If you were there to see it, you too would believe that it was intentionally sprayed. I've used these types of products before I know better (in my own yard mind you). It is too obvious a dead patch just in the area that the hint indicates to look.

And yes, I can believe that someone could and would bring an old bottle of Round Up along with them out of frustration and a misguided sense of what's "okay" and do something like this.

 

But, now I know what to look for on your other caches.

Now I just need a metal detector so I can find hundreds of bottle caps.

 

P.S. I thought I found a bottle cap cache once. I was disappointed that it was just a stupid bottle cap...

 

Just keep on keeping on. I think a lot of people enjoy most of your caches.

 

Most of my caches? :D

There is only one other of my hides that uses this theme and it's been run over by a large piece of equipment in order to remove a near by tree. I've got to go and see if it can be recovered.

Thank you bitten.

Link to comment

 

FWIW, I think it's pretty funny also that you place a cache that by your own words "skirts the rules", then get upset when someone uses questionable tactics to find it, THEN you come to the forums to let everyone know about it!

 

I think it's pretty funny how so often these forums are a place where people hide behind their keyboards and make comments like this. Stick to the issue please.

 

There's nothing "questionable" about using Roundup to find a cache.

Link to comment

 

FWIW, I think it's pretty funny also that you place a cache that by your own words "skirts the rules", then get upset when someone uses questionable tactics to find it, THEN you come to the forums to let everyone know about it!

 

I think it's pretty funny how so often these forums are a place where people hide behind their keyboards and make comments like this. Stick to the issue please.

 

 

Huh? That comment was pretty tame. If the issue is questionable caching behaviour, then why is your behaviour out of bounds for discussion?

Link to comment

We aren't here to debate the legitimacy of this type of hide and I will not respond to any posting related to that.

 

So we've established at least twice that you only follow rules when you feel like it, even if they're your own! :D

But your response begs the question, "Where SHOULD I be commenting, if not from behind a keyboard? Oregon is a long way for me to travel. What if I rented that big electronic billboard in Times Square? Would that still be hiding?

Link to comment

They came, they couldn't find it, they decided it must be under the grass, they left, went to a store, bought some Round-Up, went back and sprayed right where they thought it should be, went home, waited a couple of days for the grass to die, then went back to find a bottle cap cache?

 

That's your story? :D

 

Really? :(

 

Ok I'm pulled in by all this my question is was there a Found It log in the time frame??????

Link to comment

 

I especially love those posts of " I put it back where I thought it should have been". Never mind if the Owner didn't want it in the "obvious" hiding spot.

 

 

Umm, I go to a cache where the description hint states the cache is at eye level in a tree. I find the cache on the ground a few feet away from the tree. So I sign the log and place it at about eye level in the tree.

When I get home I go on-line and post "I put it back where I thought it should have been" so I don't spoil the cache for those who don't like to use the hints.

 

Why is this the wrong thing to do?

Link to comment

 

I especially love those posts of " I put it back where I thought it should have been". Never mind if the Owner didn't want it in the "obvious" hiding spot.

 

 

Umm, I go to a cache where the description hint states the cache is at eye level in a tree. I find the cache on the ground a few feet away from the tree. So I sign the log and place it at about eye level in the tree.

When I get home I go on-line and post "I put it back where I thought it should have been" so I don't spoil the cache for those who don't like to use the hints.

 

Why is this the wrong thing to do?

 

 

It wasn't at all, because the description indicated that is where it should be. My post was generalizing a situation that happens when there is no description, and a cacher thinks "over here" would have been a better spot. If I found a fake rock in a pile of rocks, I wouldn't move the cache to a hollow in a tree next to it, even though I think it might have been a better spot, if the hint clearly said "look for the right rock"! :(

Now if the hint asked "do squirrels collect rocks?" I would make a note to my online log that the CO may want to check the placement. I always put the cache back where I found it, unless it is just laying in the open in plain sight of anyone who walked by. In that instance, I try to cover it somewhat and again, note it to the CO.

Please note I never said it was "wrong". You can twist my words into something contentious if you like, but I am pretty sure you know what I meant. :D

Edited by NeecesandNephews
Link to comment

 

 

Not at all, because the description indicated that is where it should be. My post was generalizing a situation that happens when there is no description, and a cacher thinks "over here" would have been a better spot. If I found a fake rock in a pile of rocks, I wouldn't move the cache to a hollow in a tree next to it, even though I think it might have been a better spot, if the hint clearly said "look for the right rock"! :D

Now if the hint asked "do squirrels collect rocks?" I would make a note to my online log that the CO may want to check the placement. I always put the cache back where I found it, unless it is just laying in the open.in plain sight of anyone who walked by. In that instance, I try to cover it somewhat and again, note it to the CO.

 

Thank you for the clarification. I have found several caches on the ground and out in the open. I assumed it was proper to try and place them in a less open spot and inform the CO when I log it. I don"t know why someone would move a cache that was actually hidden.

 

Sorry for the hijack...

Link to comment

I have/had a hide that is a version of the "bottle cap" style of hide (GC22XHA). For those not familiar with this, it's basically a PVC or other tubing pushed or hammered into the ground with another smaller tube/container placed inside with a bottle cap attached to the top. All you see if you are looking in the right place is the bottle cap or other object at ground level. Now, I know this skirts the "caches are not to be buried" rule, and yet, these type of hides are common in this area and range from a rock with a container beneath to as mentioned, a bottle cap with a small container below. We aren't here to debate the legitimacy of this type of hide and I will not respond to any posting related to that.

 

My cache was just off a walking/bike path with grass and trees on one side. So, I took a caching friend to my hide that's a version of the bottle cap type. It's listed as a 4 difficulty and I've had many a seasoned geocacher stumped. My hint would have given anyone a good idea of where to look using very close by landmarks. At GZ I notice that the grass was dead and dying in a patch a bit bigger than 3'x5'. Someone has sprayed the area with a herbicide like Roundup so the top of the hide could be found much more easily!

 

I ask you, what happened to respect for the environment and not leaving a foot print?!? How is it "right" in anyone's geocaching mind to kill off the grass in order to find a cache? Just get down and look for it!

What's next? A machete hacking away at the landscaping in a park? Cutting down a tree because the cache is out of reach in it's limbs?

 

I can't put the cache back in it's original location because the grass is dead and dying. So, I'll just have to archive it.

 

I just can't believe what some will do.

 

I find it difficult to believe that is what happened.

 

However the cache is only 2 months old. It's odd that the grass in that spot would die that quickly. With 17 finds and 8 DNFs it still doesn't seem like enough foot traffic to kill it, but perhaps it was.

Link to comment

The way you described the cache being hidden, could it look like part of a sprinkler system or some electrical access point? Did you hide it that way to make it appear to be something else? Those are very clever hiding places, IMO.

 

Could the park or highway maintenance crews working the area sprayed the cache area for easier access?

 

Looking at the stats of those cache's finders, most appear to be seasoned and have no doubt found other containers disguised to look like something else. Most seasoned geocachers know the value of traveling light, lugging around pesticide is not really logical, having small pruning scissors would be more practical.

 

I think you may be pointing a finger at the wrong people. The park or highway maintenance crews are the more likely culprit. If thats the case, your cache's disguise successfully fooled them.

Link to comment

Hey, I feel your pain at a good hide gone south, sorry that it happened, but my first reaction to the brown spot thing was dog pee. If the cache was along a bike/jogging path there have to be dogs, and where one dog goes, others will too. It doesn't take long for the grass to die off when that happens. Fungus is another cause of grass dying in patches and so are mite infestations.

 

Unless there are sprinklers in the grass, it would all have been scorched dead by the end of August anyway. The west side of the Cascades is the only place I know where the grass is green in the winter and brown in the summer.

Link to comment

<<<Now, I know this skirts the "caches are not to be buried" rule, and yet, these type of hides are common in this area and range from a rock with a container beneath to as mentioned, a bottle cap with a small container below. We aren't here to debate the legitimacy of this type of hide and I will not respond to any posting related to that.>>>

 

You are PO's that someone may have compromised your hide, when you compromised the integrity of the game by skirting rules?

Firstly, its highly doubtful that someone sprayed down the location, that is a lot of time, money and effort to find a cache, secondly, it may very well have been a landscaping crew, thirdly, did you have permission to hide the cache, fourthly, have you even heard of Leave No Trace?

Rules are rules, stick to them and you won't be burnt, like your cache area is

Link to comment

Playing devil's advocate here: there may have been poison ivy / stinging nettle / whatever in the cache area and a cacher may have been very allergic to it. So they used a defoliant to make the area safe. A maintenance crew would have sprayed it for the same reason.

 

Is this a legitimate reason for a geocacher to spray an area with Roundup? I'll let you decide.

Link to comment

I find the suggestion that anyone includes Round Up or other herbicide as a tool in the cache bag simply bizarre. Yes, it does kill vegetation but not immediately. I think it would require two trips. It would be far more efficient to do a fingertip search or if you were someone who didn't care about the environment, simply pull the vegetation up by the roots or trim it back to the ground, Perhaps you simply have an inflated idea of the importance of your cache, A number of more reasonable explanations have been advanced. I would suggest some further investigation before you make such accusations in a public forum.

Team Taran

Link to comment

I don't know if a cacher did it or not. But what I find REALLY surprising is that when people hide 4+ difficult caches and then don't expect people to do anything in their powers to find the cache. And while I would never condone spraying of chemicals, I don't know enough to know whether it is right or wrong. Quite frankly, there are some plants that do need to be eradicated.

Link to comment

 

FWIW, I think it's pretty funny also that you place a cache that by your own words "skirts the rules", then get upset when someone uses questionable tactics to find it, THEN you come to the forums to let everyone know about it!

 

I think it's pretty funny how so often these forums are a place where people hide behind their keyboards and make comments like this. Stick to the issue please.

 

There's nothing "questionable" about using Roundup to find a cache.

With over 100 posts and around since December of '04...I really don't think it is someone hidding behind a keyboard...

 

To the topic...unless you have "proof" that geocachers are responsible, it just seems to be an assumption on your part...grass does die...maybe your PVC pipe poisoned the area ground and the grass just can't grow there anymore...

:):blink::D

 

As for the "buried" issue...remember, you started out the thread with "skirt the issue"...so, at some level, you have your own doubts about your own cache...otherwise, why mention it as a cache that may "skirt the issue"

Link to comment

First-Nothing wrong with with a cache that you pushed into the ground. That has been established before so no worries there.

 

Next-While not saying that it was or was not done by a cacher there are all sorts of people who play this game. Some of them are not too bright, smart, ethical, honest, etc. No different than any other group of people.

 

I'm following the bouncing/smiling ball on this one. The guidelines state using a pointy object. If you needed a pointy object to insert your container into the ground you are not simply skirting the guidelines, but violating them.

 

Other than the fact that the grass around your hide was dead, is there any other proof that this was done by a geocacher who struggled to find your cache?

Link to comment

First off - I don't really care for folks that knowingly and deliberately "skirt the rules". I know if I was the grounds keeper for such a place that I might certainly object to such a cache. Sounds like something that a mower or other equipment could hit. You say it looks like a random bottlecap on the ground? Sounds like a CITO project to me.

 

Having said that - I (much like the 'rambler) am having a hard time believing that some cacher needed a smilie so bad that they would abandon the search to go home and get a bottle of roundup - come back and spray it (magically) just around the exact ground zero. Wait a few days and come back for the find. If it was a cacher looking for the cache - I think it would have been a much bigger area or numerous small patches in the same general area. Just doesn't add up.

Link to comment

Playing devil's advocate here: there may have been poison ivy / stinging nettle / whatever in the cache area and a cacher may have been very allergic to it. So they used a defoliant to make the area safe.

 

Do people actually do this?

I certainly hope not... for a number of reasons.

 

One of the founding members of the AGA was rather well-known for hiding caches in blackberry patches and similar thorny places; cachers could walk away or attempt to figure out how he got it there without getting scratched up, but to my knowledge destroying the vegetation never happened.

 

There was a discussion about using a machete to clear an area in our local forum back in 2003 but the idea was soundly trounced and hasn't come up again.

 

My Rambler's Evil Micro cache is in a patch of thorny bramble. Cachers who take the time to stand still and look at the area will easily see at least two ways to get to it without getting scratched, those who charge ahead generally leave logs to the effect of how thorny their experience was. Still, no one has ever used a machete or defoliant to clear the area and I don't think cachers would ever even consider it.

 

Again, as I mentioned in my earlier post, Round-Up and other defoliants, despite what the TV commercials show, does not work immediately nor does it remove the vegetation. That not only means at least three trips (to find it covered, to come back and spray it, then to come back in a few days and find it) but it means that a micro covered with grass, once sprayed, will still be covered with grass, it will just be dead grass.

 

There's bound to be a different explanation here.

Link to comment
Having said that - I (much like the 'rambler) am having a hard time believing that some cacher needed a smilie so bad that they would abandon the search to go home and get a bottle of roundup - come back and spray it (magically) just around the exact ground zero. Wait a few days and come back for the find. If it was a cacher looking for the cache - I think it would have been a much bigger area or numerous small patches in the same general area. Just doesn't add up.

 

It does seem like a bit much, but I wouldn't put it past some people. There is a segment of geocachers who feel they are entitled to find every cache they hunt.

Link to comment

Playing devil's advocate here: there may have been poison ivy / stinging nettle / whatever in the cache area and a cacher may have been very allergic to it. So they used a defoliant to make the area safe.

 

Do people actually do this?

 

People do use Roundup and similar products to destroy some nasty plants. I've never heard of a cacher using it to find a cache, but I've heard of one cache owner using it to eradicate poison ivy covering some of his hides.

 

The OP said this was along a bike path. It is very possible that the maintenance crew for this area is using defoliants to get rid of some plant that was growing there, like poison ivy, ragweed or any invasive species. I don't carry that kind of products with me, but there are some plants that I will pull out if I see them (even in nature preserves, pulling out invasive species is usually allowed or even encouraged).

 

Were there other patches of dead grass along the path?As others have said, it may not be about the cache at all.

Link to comment
Playing devil's advocate here: there may have been poison ivy / stinging nettle / whatever in the cache area and a cacher may have been very allergic to it. So they used a defoliant to make the area safe.

 

I don't buy into that one any more than I buy into the concept that it was a cacher.

 

Couldn't find the cache, so went and bought some RoundUp (that stuff ain't cheap, either!), returned to spray it down, waited a few days (and it does take a few days), then finally returned to the scene of the crime to find the bottlecap that they must have suspected all along. Same degree of implausibility in both cases.

 

At the very least, I think its clear that there are multiple possibilities. If it was a cacher, I hope they get caught doing that sort of thing. What'll they do next... light a forest fire because they couldn't find the ammo can?

Link to comment

At the very least, I think its clear that there are multiple possibilities. If it was a cacher, I hope they get caught doing that sort of thing. What'll they do next... light a forest fire because they couldn't find the ammo can?

 

It reminds me of the time that there was a micro attached to a building and people objected when the wrecking crew I brought in tore everything down so that I could find the cache. Or when I had to use a chainsaw in order to get to a cache that was hidden in the top of the tree and the local tree committee got a little touchy until I pointed out that it was a privet. Some people just don't appreciate the value of a smiley.

 

But roundup would be going too far. In my town, we have ordinances to prevent that kind of thing. Better to have rototillered the area until the cache popped up.

Edited by Erickson
Link to comment

For starters, I would just move the cache a few feet to the side and back into the greenery if that was an option. Seems unlikely that the ToxicCacher would have time to make a return trip to a cache, especially if every hard cache being logged takes a spray visit and then a return trip.

 

I really enjoyed the first cache of that type that I found. Took me a couple of lengthy visits to the spot, even with what turned out to be some very good hints in the cache write-up.

 

I understand the diverging views on whether the hide is OK or not, but it is OK to me. I think the spirit of the "don't bury" cache rule is to let cache hunters know they are never supposed to have to dig to find a cache, since it is the searching that can be more destructive to the area than the hiding. Like this example, for instance. (that does not mean it is OK for the hider to dig to place the cache, but that did not happen here either)

Link to comment

Playing devil's advocate here: there may have been poison ivy / stinging nettle / whatever in the cache area and a cacher may have been very allergic to it. So they used a defoliant to make the area safe.

 

Do people actually do this?

I certainly hope not... for a number of reasons.

 

One of the founding members of the AGA was rather well-known for hiding caches in blackberry patches and similar thorny places; cachers could walk away or attempt to figure out how he got it there without getting scratched up, but to my knowledge destroying the vegetation never happened.

 

There was a discussion about using a machete to clear an area in our local forum back in 2003 but the idea was soundly trounced and hasn't come up again.

 

My Rambler's Evil Micro cache is in a patch of thorny bramble. Cachers who take the time to stand still and look at the area will easily see at least two ways to get to it without getting scratched, those who charge ahead generally leave logs to the effect of how thorny their experience was. Still, no one has ever used a machete or defoliant to clear the area and I don't think cachers would ever even consider it.

 

Again, as I mentioned in my earlier post, Round-Up and other defoliants, despite what the TV commercials show, does not work immediately nor does it remove the vegetation. That not only means at least three trips (to find it covered, to come back and spray it, then to come back in a few days and find it) but it means that a micro covered with grass, once sprayed, will still be covered with grass, it will just be dead grass.

 

There's bound to be a different explanation here.

 

On one of my caches the cache seekers did use a machete. Their log read "Took the machete for those nettles after reading the other post for today. Nettles still got us, but we got them back!! "

 

The picture they posted with their cache shows one of them wearing shorts. Think it would have been better to wear long pants than to cut a clear path right to the cache. :)

Link to comment

At the very least, I think its clear that there are multiple possibilities. If it was a cacher, I hope they get caught doing that sort of thing. What'll they do next... light a forest fire because they couldn't find the ammo can?

 

Perhaps not a forest fire... however... this was apparently along a bike path as pointed out by RHW...

 

I sometimes take pics for the local fire chief, especially for his 'wildfire' notes. I went out once last summer to take a few at a point where a power pole transformer popped and a few sparks triggered a small grass fire. At first I could not determine where the fire had actually been... nothing was blackened. Dead yes.

Anyways.. I called him on the radio and he confirmed the spot... and mentioned it had been mostly a slow smouldering of the thatch debris below the live grass. Grass there was about 10 inches high or more around the dead area... It seemed that the heat produced was sufficient to brown the live green grass, but not sufficient to cause ignition at that point in time... of course it was extinguished promptly.

However, I've used roundup for landscape and garden use, but was intrigued that the appearance was almost identical in both cases... it causes a funny browny pink tinge, perhaps thats dehydration caused.

Point being... given the age of the cache and the season, it's possible a cast off cigarette might have caused a smoulder there (in the absence of other damage) that browned it out and self extinguished or got precipitation... even burnt back on itself or ran out of thatch. We won't likely know, but it's possible.

 

As for roundup, that kind of kill doesn't happen with just one dosage unless you are lucky or drown the grass in it. so more like two doses three or four days apart, in temperatures over 70 F. if at all. It doesn't go so good when it's cold or dull, nice sunny warm days and about 1-2 hours before sunset... as I was told.

 

Doug

Link to comment
WOW! Thanks for the tip!

I have a few DNFs that I think I can clear up using this technique!

I never would have thought of this myself, but this thread has given me new hope!

 

The grass/weeds/vegetation WILL grow back...no need to get your knickers in a twist.

:anibad: Come on... everybody knows that they don't have grass in Arizona!! (BTW, I will be there tomorrow for a week)
Link to comment

I kind of doubt that a cacher did this, or even that the technique would really be that useful. As has been pointed out already, it would take days for the grass to die after being sprayed. But besides that, even though the grass would be dead, it would still be there where it was, and would still obscure the hide just as effectively even though it's now brown. It would take a very long time (In geocaching terms) for the dead grass to physically deteriorate to the point where something under it on the ground would be clearly visible. My vote is on dogs. After you placed the cache, either a stray dog just happened by and sniffed it out, or else someone went caching with their dog, and it marked the area. Then other dogs smelled that and remarked the area themselves. Sometimes stray cats will try to overmark a dog's mark. Before you know it several pints of urine have been sprayed all over your cache (Which is really gross.) and the grass started to die in a very local area. It makes more sens that someone spraying roundup to try to find the cache.

Link to comment

I kind of doubt that a cacher did this, or even that the technique would really be that useful. As has been pointed out already, it would take days for the grass to die after being sprayed. But besides that, even though the grass would be dead, it would still be there where it was, and would still obscure the hide just as effectively even though it's now brown. It would take a very long time (In geocaching terms) for the dead grass to physically deteriorate to the point where something under it on the ground would be clearly visible. My vote is on dogs. After you placed the cache, either a stray dog just happened by and sniffed it out, or else someone went caching with their dog, and it marked the area. Then other dogs smelled that and remarked the area themselves. Sometimes stray cats will try to overmark a dog's mark. Before you know it several pints of urine have been sprayed all over your cache (Which is really gross.) and the grass started to die in a very local area. It makes more sens that someone spraying roundup to try to find the cache.

>> OMG, I prefer a weed eater followed by a bit of napalm myself. JUST KIDDING. Your observations show a rather blatant disregard for basic respect --- and for what --- a blasted smiley instead of a purple frownie.

Link to comment
I kind of doubt that a cacher did this, or even that the technique would really be that useful. As has been pointed out already, it would take days for the grass to die after being sprayed. But besides that, even though the grass would be dead, it would still be there where it was, and would still obscure the hide just as effectively even though it's now brown. It would take a very long time (In geocaching terms) for the dead grass to physically deteriorate to the point where something under it on the ground would be clearly visible. My vote is on dogs. After you placed the cache, either a stray dog just happened by and sniffed it out, or else someone went caching with their dog, and it marked the area. Then other dogs smelled that and remarked the area themselves. Sometimes stray cats will try to overmark a dog's mark. Before you know it several pints of urine have been sprayed all over your cache (Which is really gross.) and the grass started to die in a very local area. It makes more sens that someone spraying roundup to try to find the cache.
>> OMG, I prefer a weed eater followed by a bit of napalm myself. JUST KIDDING. Your observations show a rather blatant disregard for basic respect --- and for what --- a blasted smiley instead of a purple frownie.
I'm confused. Which part of your post were you kidding about? The whole thing? :D

 

If not, which part of Wally's post showed a "rather blatant disregard for basic respect"? He is suggesting that the dead grass was caused by dog urine. I might be able to train my dog where not to go to the bathroom, like inside the house, but I doubt that anyone intentionally had a dog mark the cache, especially since I can't imagine how they got the dog to go on the exact "right" spot.

Link to comment
I kind of doubt that a cacher did this, or even that the technique would really be that useful. As has been pointed out already, it would take days for the grass to die after being sprayed. But besides that, even though the grass would be dead, it would still be there where it was, and would still obscure the hide just as effectively even though it's now brown. It would take a very long time (In geocaching terms) for the dead grass to physically deteriorate to the point where something under it on the ground would be clearly visible. My vote is on dogs. After you placed the cache, either a stray dog just happened by and sniffed it out, or else someone went caching with their dog, and it marked the area. Then other dogs smelled that and remarked the area themselves. Sometimes stray cats will try to overmark a dog's mark. Before you know it several pints of urine have been sprayed all over your cache (Which is really gross.) and the grass started to die in a very local area. It makes more sens that someone spraying roundup to try to find the cache.
>> OMG, I prefer a weed eater followed by a bit of napalm myself. JUST KIDDING. Your observations show a rather blatant disregard for basic respect --- and for what --- a blasted smiley instead of a purple frownie.
I'm confused. Which part of your post were you kidding about? The whole thing? :D

 

If not, which part of Wally's post showed a "rather blatant disregard for basic respect"? He is suggesting that the dead grass was caused by dog urine. I might be able to train my dog where not to go to the bathroom, like inside the house, but I doubt that anyone intentionally had a dog mark the cache, especially since I can't imagine how they got the dog to go on the exact "right" spot.

The OP has indicated a 3' X 5' which is feet. That would be one very big dog. If, however, the OP intended 3" X 5" which is inches. That is a much smaller dog.

 

Of course I was kidding about using a weed eater followed by napalm. While I don't particularly care for the smell of napalm, I do like the smell of propane in the morning. ( Hot Air Balloonists will understand that reference )

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...