+simplyred Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 More and more I'm seeing a darker side of caching. People placing hard to find caches and others tearing the area up to find it. I'm all for clever hides, crafty cache containers and the like, but more and more it's just caches that are placed in a huge rock pile, or beautiful area with no real hint. So cachers tear up the area looking for the find. I understand that we all like to play different ways, but when the area get's trampled, branches broken, rocks flipped over, it's got to be wrong. I'm thinking if your gonna place a cache, you should have a hint that really helps, not like "under a rock" in rock pile or no hint at all. Caches should be hidden from muggles, but more obvious for cachers. It's bad enough to see places littered with garbage, but when the area is trampled down, you know it's fellow cachers that are doing it. At first, I would not say anything as it was a rare occurrence, but lately it seems to be getting worse. What your thoughts. Quote Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 Best case against micros I've seen yet. Personally I'd find out who was ripping up a cache site in my area and have a little 101 session. Quote Link to comment
+t4e Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 the title is misleading, i thought its going to be about people defacing caches not GZ and the surrounding area no matter what the hide is like search can be done without destroying anything at GZ those that make a mess just to find the cache its how they are they'll wreck a place just because they want to sit in that spot its amazing how many out there have no respect for nature Quote Link to comment
+Touchstone Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Geocachers' Creed Hmmm...I thought this topic sounded familiar. Thanks for the reminder all the same Quote Link to comment
hoosier guy Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 I have spotted several caches because of the broken branches, worn paths and other disturbances. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 (edited) I haven't seen a lot of it yet, but I've encountered it a few times. In every instance the damage was temporary and no different that what you'd see if a bear was digging around for grubs or a deer for acorns. Looks like crap but in a year you'd never know that it happened. That said, the potential exists to give our sport a black eye. All we need is for a park ranger to come along just after one of the scorched earth searchers. He may not equate the damage to that of a wild animal rooting around for food. It's why I generally don't hide micros in the woods and my caches usually have dead giveaway hints. I know there is a small, but growing segment of cachers who only care about the +1 to their smiley count. Edited September 23, 2010 by briansnat Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 I know there is a small, but growing segment of cachers who only care about the +1 to their smiley count. Numbers cachers are not likely to be scorched earth cachers. They are more likely to adopt a rule like the Ventura_Kids and limit the amount of time searching for a cache to seven minutes. The problem is not the numbers cachers but the increasing numbers of cachers who see the game as a competition between hiders and finders. The hiders try to make the caches harder to find and the finders are of the type that will not admit defeat. If you want to hide a cache that is a challenge to find, then consider that some people may resort to extreme methods to find the cache. However I think the most often cause of trampled down grass and broken branches may be the herd cachers. A big group of cachers searching a area may spread out over an area and be less careful when they are searching. But I don't think this is true of every group. I've been with big groups and we've worked together to find the cache efficiently and with less impact to environment. It just takes some communication. Quote Link to comment
+Dame Deco Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Very early on in my caching I decided that I didn't blame the national parks for banning them--even when folks are careful and hides are obvious, you get geotrails, it's inevitable, unless it's concrete of course! I won't destroy vegetation to find a tough cache--I'd rather have a DNF than break branches and destroy vegetation. I will admit to trampling down those honking big thorn bushes that do literal damage to my body, but I need to stop doing that, truth be told. Why not leave the really tough, clever hides to the more ordinary places, or places needing some stealth? For geocaches out in the beauties of nature, it's the trip that makes it worthwhile, not an impossible to find micro. Quote Link to comment
+scaramedic Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 OK, so I might have went too far looking for this cache, but dammit I didn't want a DNF. It will regrow someday. Seriously though there is a satellite view of a cache around here with a trail right up to the cache. Wish I could remember which one it was. Quote Link to comment
+the family bu Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 OK, so I might have went too far looking for this cache, but dammit I didn't want a DNF. It will regrow someday. Seriously though there is a satellite view of a cache around here with a trail right up to the cache. Wish I could remember which one it was. LMAO Quote Link to comment
Andronicus Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 (edited) ... rocks flipped over, ... Are you kidding me? Rocks flipped over is not an ecological concern. The bugs that live under the rock will just move to the other side. I always try to put rocks back in their hole, but it really doesn't matter (unless it is a rock garden). I think you are being a little over sensitive. If an area is actually being damaged, yes, the CO should do something. You could even notify the local reviewer. But I have never seen any significant damage other than goetrails. Edit for speling (that is supposed to be a joke, I no how to spell "spelling" (I also know how to spell "know"). Edited September 23, 2010 by Andronicus Quote Link to comment
+Bear and Ragged Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 ... rocks flipped over, ... Are you kidding me? Rocks flipped over is not an ecological concern. The bugs that live under the rock will just move to the other side. I always try to put rocks back in their hole, but it really doesn't matter (unless it is a rock garden). Rocks can have moss/lichen on them. It grows on the 'up' side of the rock. Cache can often be found by looking for the rock without the moss/lichen facing up, after the rock was replaced incorrectly... Quote Link to comment
+ras_oscar Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Just because a rock was flipped doesnt mean the cache is/was under it. It mena someone looked there. Personally I try to replace the rocks/branches where I found them, but that's just me being me. Quote Link to comment
+Buntings24 Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 I saw an awful case of this last week i followed my GPS to the GZ and oh my god whoever it was must have searched and searched the GZ was trampled ,squashed completely ruined i found the cache close by so whoever it was wasnt even in the right area but wasd very close ! Quote Link to comment
+Sol seaker Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 (edited) I've actually seen this in action. It was a large cache in the woods, and the hint was actually REALLY clear about exactly where it was. There were two teenagers destroying all the vegetation in the area with sticks, looking for the cache. I've seen it quite a bit though. It's usually a problem with micros in the woods. There was one cache that had bad coords in a really nice park. The whole area was flattened, especially the area around GZ. I emailed the owner and they archived it immediately to let the place grow back. Another cache owner responded with anger when I approached them with the same problem. and their coords were more than 50 feet off. To say it is OK to damage an area, because it will grow back in a year, does not make sense. The caches stay there. So if the cache is there 7 years and it takes a year to grow back, you've got an area destroyed for 8 years. Edited September 23, 2010 by Sol seaker Quote Link to comment
Andronicus Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 ... rocks flipped over, ... Are you kidding me? Rocks flipped over is not an ecological concern. The bugs that live under the rock will just move to the other side. I always try to put rocks back in their hole, but it really doesn't matter (unless it is a rock garden). Rocks can have moss/lichen on them. It grows on the 'up' side of the rock. Cache can often be found by looking for the rock without the moss/lichen facing up, after the rock was replaced incorrectly... Ok, well I love nature and all that, but I don't think I would classify myself as a "moss/lichen hugge". I suspect that that moss and lichen (fungus+alga) will just move to the other side. Quote Link to comment
Skippermark Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 In New England, we have a LOT of historic rock walls, not old like in Ireland and places like that but old nonetheless. Many are in areas that were once farms and are now forests. Cachers love to hide caches in them (they're not just micros but regulars too) and then makes it really challenging with the hint being "In the rock wall." We did one that was a nano drilled into a rock and placed into the wall. Even when cachers try to be careful, the wall gets disturbed, sometimes falling down. Sometimes the hide isn't even meant to be hard, but finders re-hide it "better than found because it was visible" and things like that. Thankfully, many around here don't like these hides and often complain about them, so after someone hides one, they realize they're not liked and don't hide them again. Quote Link to comment
+Chokecherry Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 I did a cache where it was this small/micro container in the middle of this landscaped bush. I had gone out there the week previous and everything was intact with the landscaping and bush (large area). The hint was not really helpful. So there were a few finds and the next week my friend went out there again and discovered the landscaping timbers had been demolished basically (pulled part). The bush was broken and torn up (as the cache is placed in the middle of the landscaping). At that moment I was so embarrassed to be a geocacher. Quote Link to comment
+simplyred Posted September 23, 2010 Author Share Posted September 23, 2010 Areas can recover from the carelessness of cachers, but it's embarassing and I don't want to be there searching in a trampled area when someone else comes around enquiring. As for being over sensitive, you would of been embarassed if you saw the area. I'm not talking about a broken branch and a rock turned over. The area was very well trampled. Anyways the real point is this kind of thing could really hurt the sport in others eyes. And a proper hint would go a long way in preventing such things. I like caching for the places it brings me to, but if the place is destroyed, it's more discouraging than exciting. Quote Link to comment
+SeekerOfTheWay Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 i agree with the OP. i choose to tread lightly and not destroy the area i'm searching. i think and look a lot, then feel lightly for caches. i've seen areas look like a waste land and a poor palm tree nearly destroyed. i don't want that label as a cacher. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.