Roundup used to find cache

[+Chrysalides]

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?

 

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 )

I don't get how Wally showed a "rather blatant disregard for basic respect" as well. He gave a plausible alternative scenario than someone using Round Up on a cache site to find a cache. He did point out that it might be caused by more than one dog, perhaps you should re-read.

 

As for the smell of propane in the morning, I have just the tool for you

[+Too Tall John]

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?

 

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 )

Have you ever seen a spot that is frequented by multiple dogs? A 3'x5' patch is very possible. Regardless if size, why would a cacher use a product that would require them to return days later and still have to sift through dead grass? Another explanation is much more likely. I'd even go for "All those scorched earth searchers have trampled the poor grass to death in the pursuit of this cache."

 

You never answered my question, though: Which part of Wally's post showed a "rather blatant disregard for basic respect"?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

>> OMG, I prefer a weed eater followed by a bit of napalm myself...

I love the smell of napalm in the morning... The smell, you know that now-I'm-gonna-find-that-geocache smell... Smells like, victory

[Mushtang]

These forums have made me change my mind on at least two geocaching practices. One, unrelated to this thread, was about signing and logging additional caches at events. I did it when I first started but after the second time I'd decided I didn't want to do that anymore and haven't since.

 

The other that I'm thinking of, is the use of a machete to make my way through thick underbrush and/or really high grassy plants. After the first attempt at a cache that failed because the growth around GZ was too thick, I went and bought a brand new machete to attach to my caching backpack. I cut myself a nice path to the cache and thought I was pretty clever for doing so.

 

Shortly afterwards I was reading about such things in these forums and realized how badly I'd goofed up, and since then the machete has been stored in my basement.

 

Perhaps IF someone did use Roundup, they'll realize they made a mistake and not do it again.

[+humboldt flier]

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?

 

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 )

Have you ever seen a spot that is frequented by multiple dogs? A 3'x5' patch is very possible. Regardless if size, why would a cacher use a product that would require them to return days later and still have to sift through dead grass? Another explanation is much more likely. I'd even go for "All those scorched earth searchers have trampled the poor grass to death in the pursuit of this cache."

 

You never answered my question, though: Which part of Wally's post showed a "rather blatant disregard for basic respect"?

The blatant disrespect comment was relative to the persons / or their dogs who have done the deed nothing intended other than to comment on the doer of the deed.

[4wheelin_fool]

I highly doubt that anyone used Roundup to find the cache. A more likely scenario is that after someone found it, they purposely made it easier for other cachers. But even the chances of that occuring are slim to none, unless you can find someone with a angsty motive against difficult hides.

[+humboldt flier]

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?

 

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 )

Have you ever seen a spot that is frequented by multiple dogs? A 3'x5' patch is very possible. Regardless if size, why would a cacher use a product that would require them to return days later and still have to sift through dead grass? Another explanation is much more likely. I'd even go for "All those scorched earth searchers have trampled the poor grass to death in the pursuit of this cache."

 

You never answered my question, though: Which part of Wally's post showed a "rather blatant disregard for basic respect"?

The blatant disrespect comment was relative to the persons / or their dogs who have done the deed nothing intended other than to comment on the doer of the deed. Comment was never aimed at Wally