Are You Guilty? I am.

[+Mr. Gadget #2]

Are you guilty? “I am”

 

The Wenatchee Cache Machine II is over and several cache seekers found many caches while visiting here. However there is also a dark side of this fun event. One of which I am guilty of participating in.

It is relates to how some cache containers are attached to trees. I urge all to go back frequently and revisit the cache placement guide lines. I have not for several years, and there are a lot of changes and additions to them since I first started hiding caches over 6 years ago.

I have a series of caches referred to as “Signature Caches”, most of which are bird houses, and are attached to trees. The first was placed back in 2005. I created these caches to provide a lot of entertainment and at times frustrations while figuring out how to access them to get to the log sheet.

I crossed over the line when I recently had to replace my “Signature Cache GCNQMK”. I made the bad choice by boring a hole into this tree to place the cache container. I was asked about it from fellow cachers as the event dinner and I told this individual I was sure it was a dead tree.

This is a NO NO, and as result a volunteer cache reviewer, had to archive this cache listing. This reviewer also sent me a personal email and the link explaining my mistake. I accept my wrong doings and it will be back to the drawing board for me to arrive with a better method for this line of cache containers.

So to all of you other cache hiders, I urge you to revisit our cache hiding guidelines from time to time. There have been some changes over the years. I am sure there are others out there who may be as guilty as me. My Signature Cache series may be a thing of the past, as they are setting a poor example of cache placement.

Mr. Gadget #2

[+robinego]

Are you guilty? “I am”

 

The Wenatchee Cache Machine II is over and several cache seekers found many caches while visiting here. However there is also a dark side of this fun event. One of which I am guilty of participating in.

It is relates to how some cache containers are attached to trees. I urge all to go back frequently and revisit the cache placement guide lines. I have not for several years, and there are a lot of changes and additions to them since I first started hiding caches over 6 years ago.

I have a series of caches referred to as “Signature Caches”, most of which are bird houses, and are attached to trees. The first was placed back in 2005. I created these caches to provide a lot of entertainment and at times frustrations while figuring out how to access them to get to the log sheet.

I crossed over the line when I recently had to replace my “Signature Cache GCNQMK”. I made the bad choice by boring a hole into this tree to place the cache container. I was asked about it from fellow cachers as the event dinner and I told this individual I was sure it was a dead tree.

This is a NO NO, and as result a volunteer cache reviewer, had to archive this cache listing. This reviewer also sent me a personal email and the link explaining my mistake. I accept my wrong doings and it will be back to the drawing board for me to arrive with a better method for this line of cache containers.

So to all of you other cache hiders, I urge you to revisit our cache hiding guidelines from time to time. There have been some changes over the years. I am sure there are others out there who may be as guilty as me. My Signature Cache series may be a thing of the past, as they are setting a poor example of cache placement.

Mr. Gadget #2

 

Gene,

 

I've been waiting for someone else to address this, but I'll start the ball rolling. You are not fully to blame here. We "older" players who should have known better really ought to take some ownership here and should have said something earlier. I'm sure most of us "let it slide" because you offered something we hadn't seen before and we were in awe of your woodworking expertise and eye for creativity. I know that I didn't say anything for fear of hurting your feelings and receiving the wrath from other players for being responsible for the archival of some truly unique hides. That said, even the "newbies" should have said something as well as many of them have placed caches as well and should have read the guidelines. So, in essence, everyone who has found your caches is also to blame.

 

Please accept my apology for letting you down and not upholding the integrity of the caching community.

 

-R-

[+Uncle Pug]

I crossed over the line when I recently had to replace my “Signature Cache GCNQMK”. I made the bad choice by boring a hole into this tree to place the cache container. I was asked about it from fellow cachers as the event dinner and I told this individual I was sure it was a dead tree.

This is a NO NO, and as result a volunteer cache reviewer, had to archive this cache listing. This reviewer also sent me a personal email and the link explaining my mistake. I accept my wrong doings and it will be back to the drawing board for me to arrive with a better method for this line of cache containers.

So to all of you other cache hiders, I urge you to revisit our cache hiding guidelines from time to time.

Could you provide a more specific description of how your placement violated the guidelines and what a proper placement would be. I've just read the guidlines (linked here)and they seem rather general but is this related to 1.1.4? It would be helpful to get some more specifics. Thanks.

[+hydnsek]

I crossed over the line when I recently had to replace my “Signature Cache GCNQMK”. I made the bad choice by boring a hole into this tree to place the cache container. I was asked about it from fellow cachers as the event dinner and I told this individual I was sure it was a dead tree.

This is a NO NO, and as result a volunteer cache reviewer, had to archive this cache listing. This reviewer also sent me a personal email and the link explaining my mistake. I accept my wrong doings and it will be back to the drawing board for me to arrive with a better method for this line of cache containers.

So to all of you other cache hiders, I urge you to revisit our cache hiding guidelines from time to time.

Could you provide a more specific description of how your placement violated the guidelines and what a proper placement would be. I've just read the guidlines (linked here)and they seem rather general but is this related to 1.1.4? It would be helpful to get some more specifics. Thanks.

I'm not Gene, but since Gene doesn't visit here often, I can explain. It's pretty straightforward - see bolded text above. You're not supposed to deface or damage natural or manmade objects, which includes boring holes, hammering nails, or screwing things into trees. Here's the relevant quote from the guidelines (which are actually here):

 

"Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property. Geocaches are placed so that the surrounding environment is safe from both intentional or unintentional harm. Keep both natural and human-made objects safe. No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find."

An acceptable placement would be a loose zip tie attaching the cache to a tree limb (loose so the tree has room to grow). For some of Gene's placements, which are on the trunk, he'd have to find a noninvasive attachment method.

 

Imho, it shows a lot of character to start a thread admitting your mistakes as a learning experience for others. Gene, you and your caches rock!

 

As Robinego and Ambrosia noted, it's not entirely his fault; we all hesitate to spoil the fun for others. Just today, I got an email from a cacher in 48 North, concerned about the large number of caches on Pilchuck Tree Farm that violate this same guideline, noting that they've all looked the other way, but now the problem is spreading as other cachers get the idea that molesting trees is okay. They don't want the land managers to discover the situation and close the area to caching.

Edited April 6, 2011 by hydnsek

[+Ambrosia]

Are you guilty? “I am”

 

The Wenatchee Cache Machine II is over and several cache seekers found many caches while visiting here. However there is also a dark side of this fun event. One of which I am guilty of participating in.

It is relates to how some cache containers are attached to trees. I urge all to go back frequently and revisit the cache placement guide lines. I have not for several years, and there are a lot of changes and additions to them since I first started hiding caches over 6 years ago.

I have a series of caches referred to as “Signature Caches”, most of which are bird houses, and are attached to trees. The first was placed back in 2005. I created these caches to provide a lot of entertainment and at times frustrations while figuring out how to access them to get to the log sheet.

I crossed over the line when I recently had to replace my “Signature Cache GCNQMK”. I made the bad choice by boring a hole into this tree to place the cache container. I was asked about it from fellow cachers as the event dinner and I told this individual I was sure it was a dead tree.

This is a NO NO, and as result a volunteer cache reviewer, had to archive this cache listing. This reviewer also sent me a personal email and the link explaining my mistake. I accept my wrong doings and it will be back to the drawing board for me to arrive with a better method for this line of cache containers.

So to all of you other cache hiders, I urge you to revisit our cache hiding guidelines from time to time. There have been some changes over the years. I am sure there are others out there who may be as guilty as me. My Signature Cache series may be a thing of the past, as they are setting a poor example of cache placement.

Mr. Gadget #2

 

Gene,

 

I've been waiting for someone else to address this, but I'll start the ball rolling. You are not fully to blame here. We "older" players who should have known better really ought to take some ownership here and should have said something earlier. I'm sure most of us "let it slide" because you offered something we hadn't seen before and we were in awe of your woodworking expertise and eye for creativity. I know that I didn't say anything for fear of hurting your feelings and receiving the wrath from other players for being responsible for the archival of some truly unique hides. That said, even the "newbies" should have said something as well as many of them have placed caches as well and should have read the guidelines. So, in essence, everyone who has found your caches is also to blame.

 

Please accept my apology for letting you down and not upholding the integrity of the caching community.

 

-R-

I will also take ownership for not discussing this with you, Gene. It's hard for me to be "confrontational", even when it's just a discussion. For me, anything that has a possibility of disagreement is a confrontation. It's so much harder when it's someone I know. I realize that my position required for me to be responsible in this matter, and it took another to bring the problem up. Please accept my apology. I appreciate that you are handling this with such good grace.

[+Uncle Pug]

I'm not Gene, but since Gene doesn't visit here often, I can explain.

Thank you very much for the explanation. I appreciate it and the OPs good grace to start this thread as well. I can see how this rule is important. I can also understand others, especially friends, not wanting to play cache cop. What does one do when they find a cache that violates this rule but not in an egregious manner?

[jholly]

I'm not Gene, but since Gene doesn't visit here often, I can explain.

Thank you very much for the explanation. I appreciate it and the OPs good grace to start this thread as well. I can see how this rule is important. I can also understand others, especially friends, not wanting to play cache cop. What does one do when they find a cache that violates this rule but not in an egregious manner?

I have come to the point where I log it and forget about it. I use to drop the reviewer an email, but after getting blown off a couple times I have come to the conclusion that no one cares. I fail to see why this incident caused such a big stir when rule violations are common and nothing is generally done about them.

[+B+L]

I have come to the point where I log it and forget about it. I use to drop the reviewer an email, but after getting blown off a couple times I have come to the conclusion that no one cares. I fail to see why this incident caused such a big stir when rule violations are common and nothing is generally done about them.

We've had the same experience, but only with one particular reviewer. Groundspeak can be very capricious and arbitrary and sometimes gives great deference to the owner's side. It can be maddening when they play the "we have additional information we are not at liberty to disclose" card, but they are generally pretty good about handling problem caches.

 

You always have the choice to move on. As of our recent logs on a buried cache with 11 favorites stated, "damned if we do and damned if we don't". We do not like being made complicit, but that is the choice we make every single time we ignore a cache that violates the placement guidelines. As long as we all keep moving on, we are all part of the problem.

 

Kudos to Mr Gadget#2 for bringing this up.

 

Edited to fix a couple typos. That big orange outside the window is blinding me.

Edited April 6, 2011 by B+L

[+Logscaler and Red]

"Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property. Geocaches are placed so that the surrounding environment is safe from both intentional or unintentional harm. Keep both natural and human-made objects safe. No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find."

 

Seems to me this would throw out about 90 percent, or more, of geocaches I have seen placed.

 

Who defines "unintentional" and "altered"?

 

Cachers have one idea and eco freaks would cringe at walking across a wet meadows where you might leave footprints.

 

You walk across the grass in a park? You "altered" the soils by compacting it and now the worms can't burrow there, the footprint will retain water and possibly accelerate erosion in that area, you mashed some newly sprouting grass/forb/lichen/moss/ or crushed the egg sack of some poor bug or spider.

 

Heck, you might have even mashed and destroyed the next evolutionary stage of some species or the next.

 

Now they will go extinct.

 

Do you feel guilty yet?

 

Shifting even one rock or limb to place a cache could be construed as "altering" from a different viewpoint then a cachers.

 

How many times in locating a cache or replacing a cache have you moved, brushed past or stepped on vegetation?

 

You just "altered" property.

 

How many geotrails have you seen? If you walked down one, your guilty of "altering".

 

I find that there is a difference between destruction or being destructive then "altering" the environment to place a cache.

 

As for nailing/attaching items to tree.

 

Get real.

 

The USFS, BLM, ALL State Wildlife agencies, ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, timber companies, City Park's people, County Parks people, private land owners, etc. attach Bat houses, Bird houses, signs, fences, gates, Section markers, Bearing tree markers, Trail signs, snow route markers, etc to trees. How do you think they attache them?

 

Glue?

 

Wishful thinking?

 

Boring into a dead tree? What do you think the bugs are doing to the same tree? At most, you will just add easy access to the critters to get in.

 

The most damage I have seen while geocaching is when some jackass places a "micro" trash and the place get's torn up while people look for it.

 

I guess from now on I will take photos of the geotrails, torn up landscaping, shifted rocks, shifted limbs, broken branches, etc to send to the reviewers and request the cache be archived and quote this line:

 

"Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property. Geocaches are placed so that the surrounding environment is safe from both intentional or unintentional harm. Keep both natural and human-made objects safe. No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find."

 

I know, you think its over the top what I said.

 

Where do you want to draw the line at?

Edited April 28, 2011 by logscaler & Red

[+maggi101]

Well that only took four weeks.

[+_Shaddow_]

I’ve seen people verbally reprimanded in logs by the head of a geocaching organization for attaching a small hook-screw to a dead tree on Cougar Mt while a new cache in Redmond has several of the same in a live tree in a city park. Which also happens to be in a fenced area that is only access able by jumping the fence. This cache has been visited and logged by a lackey without any note about the attachment at all, or the location for that matter.

 

When I was first caching I tried to ‘do as in Rome’ but quickly learned about the inconsistency. Not to mention receiving a less then positive response from both the CO (not surprising) and also the reviewer (surprisingly was treated with a ‘no-one likes tattlers’ attitude).

 

Now I just let it go guilt-free

 

BTW I mostly agree with the gist of logscaler & Red's comments especially about all the agencies and groups attaching to trees, I see it all the time in the woods. But for city caching, I also think that when we alter the environment, there is a perception of damage, valid or not, and that negative perception can harm our ability to play this game

 

RE the original question:

I think I'm mostly guilt free, there almost always seems to be a way to attach that works just as well ie zip ties to branches, magnets to metal. For a hole in a tree hide, I find a tree that already has a hole; makes the hide better too because of the effort put into finding a location that works. The only one that I had that was iffy was one that was pressed into the ground; not dug, but pressed. It's archived now though for different reasons.

[+TotemLake]

Zip ties don't work so well. The plastic is designed to breakdown in the outdoors as noted by this cache that AndrewRJ did a recovery on. I had to bag out on this mission because coming down the trail from Lichtenwasser Lake at oh dark thirty was too risky with the steep incline and muddied trails.

 

I have seen well worked ideas for attaching life lines to caches but I tend to agree working with the natural availability of holes in the trees (being careful not to take over a nesting location) is a better alternative for the same reason Shaddow mentions.