Jump to content

GCD: Geocache (Oldest Active Cache in WA) Stolen


Hypnopaedia
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Tis a sad day. GCD: Geocache and 6 other caches, according to good sources, have been stolen. GCD was placed on 6/21/2000 and the original container and log have been up there until,as it seems now, a few days ago. Two of the caches were Premium Member Caches.

 

I loathe the person who committed this geotrocity . I actually hiked up to GCD pretty early in my caching career and it is, to this day, one of my most memorable finds.

Edited by Hypnopaedia
Link to comment

This one needs to replaced.

 

If no one else will replace this one, we will volunteer for the job.

 

Someone is getting their kicks out of this. The best solution is the same way you handle vandals who keep putting graffiti on a fence. Paint it out. If they re-graffiti it, paint it out again. Eventually, the vandals give up and move on.

 

Let's just keep replacing these missing caches. Eventually, the perpetrator will lose interest in this game.

 

There are more of us than there are of the thieves. We will win.

Edited by GrnXnham
Link to comment

This one needs to replaced.

 

If no one else will replace this one, we will volunteer for the job.

 

Someone is getting their kicks out of this. The best solution is the same way you handle vandals who keep putting graffiti on a fence. Paint it out. If they re-graffiti it, paint it out again. Eventually, the vandals give up and move on.

 

Let's just keep replacing these missing caches. Eventually, the perpetrator will lose interest in this game.

 

There are more of us than there are of the thieves. We will win.

+1.

 

And to FunnyNose: :lol:

Link to comment

:sad: Maybe this creature is going for the record of FTSC 'First To Steal Cache'.

 

I know someone has stolen Pole Hole many times but I keep replacing it as I refused to give up. We all do or should carry a backup Cache in our packs.

 

Each should do their best to replace the missing Cache and notify the owner of the replacement. But do not mention the replacement in your log of that Cache. This may or may not confuse the Cache Thieve.

 

I wish there was a way to know who the Watchers are on my Caches as I've wondered if I could narrow down the Thieve. There are many cachers who and they are Super but somewhere this Thieve knows when a replacement occurs. :unsure:

 

So, everyone just replace, notify the owner and do not mention in your log you replaced it.

 

Good Luck Everyone,

 

Mutt

Link to comment

I am crushed to see that GCD has been archived (stolen). I have only been caching less then a year, but I "get" why caches like these are so special. This cache was so cool to me, that it is where I dropped my first TB...which as far as I can tell is now in the hands of the thief...So lame!

Though, looking back now, it was so neat to see that container and scan that log! I guess I'm glad I got to see it before it was gone...

 

Karma is real and it will catch up to this twisted person.

Link to comment

This one needs to replaced.

 

If no one else will replace this one, we will volunteer for the job.

 

Someone is getting their kicks out of this. The best solution is the same way you handle vandals who keep putting graffiti on a fence. Paint it out. If they re-graffiti it, paint it out again. Eventually, the vandals give up and move on.

 

Let's just keep replacing these missing caches. Eventually, the perpetrator will lose interest in this game.

 

There are more of us than there are of the thieves. We will win.

Exactly! Just as I just posted on the general forums: "Listen. In my view there is only one thing you can do to deal with this. Screaming the guy's name on the forums will probably just make him a happy renegade. Turn in a police report and you'll just get laughed at. Talking to him will be no better than talking across the aisle in congress. Setting a trap will just get you in trouble. Annoying as it is there is only one way to win in the end here: Replace the caches as soon as possible, as many times as it takes. A group response of volunteers would be most effective."

Link to comment

This is a travesty, me and a buddy were getting ready to do Rattlesnake Mountain next week, and doing my pre-research am finding that sometime in July about 14 of the 20 or so along the length of the trail have gone missing as well. This is definitely some kind of an insider type job. Both premium and non premium are missing...what is in this person(s) head to make them want to do this is beyond me...

Link to comment

Consider this:

All containers along this trail to GCD were mostly

small to large.

I seriously doubt that any one person would collect

and pack them out (stolen).

Most probably they were tossed somewhere nearby and

probably downhill.

 

When I get back up that way I plan on searching a couple of

hundred feet of each GZ. I might just get lucky and find a

couple of them.

Link to comment

This is beginning to sound like the work of a group rather than an individual. You have Cascadia Forest Defenders in this area that would fit the bill. A member was quite active last year in Deception Pass if I recall correctly. It looks like a sweep is in progress.

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment

This is beginning to sound like the work of a group rather than an individual. You have Cascadia Forest Defenders in this area that would fit the bill. A member was quite active last year in Deception Pass if I recall correctly. It looks like a sweep is in progress.

 

What I thought all along but didnt wanna give them any spotlights that they love getting. :ph34r:

Link to comment

This is beginning to sound like the work of a group rather than an individual. You have Cascadia Forest Defenders in this area that would fit the bill. A member was quite active last year in Deception Pass if I recall correctly. It looks like a sweep is in progress.

So do you think the FD's are out again?

How about still. They are a part of a national organization for everything about the forest in its prime condition with no logging or recreation that goes beyond staying on already established trails to the point of civil disobedience. Geocaching has always been one of their targets from the east to west coast.

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment

How about still. They are a part of a national organization for everything about the forest in its prime condition with no logging or recreation that goes beyond staying on already established trails to the point of civil disobedience. Geocaching has always been one of their targets from the east to west coast.

There is nothing to indicate there was ever more than one of them and there is nothing to indicate that any of the recent problems are related.

 

 

Link to comment

How about still. They are a part of a national organization for everything about the forest in its prime condition with no logging or recreation that goes beyond staying on already established trails to the point of civil disobedience. Geocaching has always been one of their targets from the east to west coast.

There is nothing to indicate there was ever more than one of them and there is nothing to indicate that any of the recent problems are related.

True. And there's nothing to indicate my suspicion is incorrect. You can however google this, and there are a lot of results regarding the FD organization and their activity against geocaching.

Link to comment

True. And there's nothing to indicate my suspicion is incorrect. You can however google this, and there are a lot of results regarding the FD organization and their activity against geocaching.

 

MY PERSONAL WAR AGAINST LETTERBOX AND GEOCACHE LITTERING IN ECO-SENSITIVE AREAS.

I'm just not seing the "their" in there.

 

Link to comment

True. And there's nothing to indicate my suspicion is incorrect. You can however google this, and there are a lot of results regarding the FD organization and their activity against geocaching.

 

MY PERSONAL WAR AGAINST LETTERBOX AND GEOCACHE LITTERING IN ECO-SENSITIVE AREAS.

I'm just not seing the "their" in there.

And I'm not seeing this kind of effort as the effort of a single person regardless of a single blog. Two opinions. Only time will tell.

Link to comment

And I'm not seeing this kind of effort as the effort of a single person regardless of a single blog. Two opinions. Only time will tell.

Sure it is possible that this is the result of a group effort, but where is the evidence that supports that premise?

 

The "organization" you are referring to has one known member. There was some online activity on the East Coast by what appears to be a copy cat (or maybe they can't remember how to spell their own handle). The actual organization sharing the same name consists of tree sitters whose stated purpose is stopping clear cutting. They have made no mention of geocaching or letter boxes, but they very well could be the inspiration for their misguided namesake. At present it is unknown whether this person is even still active.

 

There is some circumstantial evidence that a different person was responsible for the stealing the lid of the APE cache, but that might have just been opportunistic taunting by someone that actually had nothing to do with it.

 

Those are the facts as I understand them. It is neither physically impossible for one person to have done this, nor is there any reason to think the same person is responsible for all four incidents.

Link to comment

And I'm not seeing this kind of effort as the effort of a single person regardless of a single blog. Two opinions. Only time will tell.

Sure it is possible that this is the result of a group effort, but where is the evidence that supports that premise?

 

The "organization" you are referring to has one known member. There was some online activity on the East Coast by what appears to be a copy cat (or maybe they can't remember how to spell their own handle). The actual organization sharing the same name consists of tree sitters whose stated purpose is stopping clear cutting. They have made no mention of geocaching or letter boxes, but they very well could be the inspiration for their misguided namesake. At present it is unknown whether this person is even still active.

 

There is some circumstantial evidence that a different person was responsible for the stealing the lid of the APE cache, but that might have just been opportunistic taunting by someone that actually had nothing to do with it.

 

Those are the facts as I understand them. It is neither physically impossible for one person to have done this, nor is there any reason to think the same person is responsible for all four incidents.

 

Well I did a Google search of of both Cascadia Forest Defenders and geocaching and only found in the first two pages (didn't look further) one reference and that was a posting in these forums back in '05. Though there was a link to an outside blog but that is no longer valid. I also visited their website and they there is nothing mentioned about geocaches. So I think you nailed it; it would seem that this theory is a bust.

 

Also, several of my caches have been repeatedly stolen and one is not at all of trail, in fact it can be reached while standing in the middle of the trail. So it's not someone concerned about venturing off trail.

Link to comment

BTW: one of my caches near the summit was listed premium members only. There was a particular account that stuck out, they had visited my cache 27 times yet they have no finds, hides or any other activity over the full year it's been active as a premium account, and they had logged in most recently near the time my cache went missing the last time.

 

I contacted Groundspeak last week and asked them to look into it but they got back to me today and say that there is no evidence that this account is related to the thefts. I'm not sure how far they looked into it and I'm guessing not far at all.

 

None of my other caches were premium member (though they are now) so I don't have another list to cross reference with, but if anyone does have a premium members audit list and want to compare, feel free to email me. Or if you just want to discuss more in depth about details that can't be or shouldn't be posted here...

Link to comment

There's been lots of talk about this but little action, so we decided to replaced this cache today.

 

Someone left a 35mm film canister there a couple of weeks ago as a "temporary" replacement but I thought GCD deserved better. Our container is plastic but has a gasket to help keep the water out. We did not replace any of the other stolen caches in that area.

 

To the people/person who stole this cache: We felt it to be our duty as charter members of the Historical Cache Preservation Society to keep this one going. :P

Link to comment
seems to be a nice container, however, I really wish the CO would give a buy in to your/mine temporary container if she/he is not going to replace it any time soon, or would let us know their thoughts on that.

Let's hope that the cache owner is not the type type to get offended by someone being presumptuous and replacing the cache without first obtaining his consent. It would be a shame to have him archive the cache as a result.

It's really too bad that this thread was cross-posted, because the information below might have gotten missed:

 

The CO fully plans to replace the cache himself "before snow flies". He will request help when and if needed.
Link to comment
seems to be a nice container, however, I really wish the CO would give a buy in to your/mine temporary container if she/he is not going to replace it any time soon, or would let us know their thoughts on that.

Let's hope that the cache owner is not the type type to get offended by someone being presumptuous and replacing the cache without first obtaining his consent. It would be a shame to have him archive the cache as a result.

It's really too bad that this thread was cross-posted, because the information below might have gotten missed:

 

The CO fully plans to replace the cache himself "before snow flies". He will request help when and if needed.

 

that last quote you are quoting is still indirect information from someone not the CO. Yes, it was Hypno, but it would have been nice for the CO to post on the cache page those plans and what their opinions are on the current replacement.

 

I do not want GCD archived either, but I do not think its a lot to ask to give a little direct information to the community especially when you have adopted the oldest cache in the state. Well, time will tell, not much can do now but wait.

Edited by lamoracke
Link to comment

that last quote you are quoting is still indirect information from someone not the CO. Yes, it was Hypno, but it would have been nice for the CO to post on the cache page those plans and what their opinions are on the current replacement.

 

I do not want GCD archived either, but I do not think its a lot to ask to give a little direct information to the community especially when you have adopted the oldest cache in the state. Well, time will tell, not much can do now but wait.

The waiting would have been the appropriate response from the beginning. Simply because this is the oldest active cache in Washington, does that mean the CO has lost the right to replace it at a time of his own choosing? Frankly, I'm pretty shocked that some people seem to think otherwise.

 

I see no reason why we should not trust that Hypnopaedia is quoting the CO accurately. AJ already disabled the cache, which is an indication that he is aware of the situation, but he is under no obligation to communicate if he chooses not to.

 

I sure hope no one hikes all the way up there to log the throwdown, only to have their log deleted later.

Link to comment

:huh:

that last quote you are quoting is still indirect information from someone not the CO. Yes, it was Hypno, but it would have been nice for the CO to post on the cache page those plans and what their opinions are on the current replacement.

 

I do not want GCD archived either, but I do not think its a lot to ask to give a little direct information to the community especially when you have adopted the oldest cache in the state. Well, time will tell, not much can do now but wait.

The waiting would have been the appropriate response from the beginning. Simply because this is the oldest active cache in Washington, does that mean the CO has lost the right to replace it at a time of his own choosing? Frankly, I'm pretty shocked that some people seem to think otherwise.

 

I see no reason why we should not trust that Hypnopaedia is quoting the CO accurately. AJ already disabled the cache, which is an indication that he is aware of the situation, but he is under no obligation to communicate if he chooses not to.

 

I sure hope no one hikes all the way up there to log the throwdown, only to have their log deleted later.

:huh: If you head out and find a cache missing do you just walk away and document your DNF due to cache missing or do you pull out a reserve cache from your Backpack and log your find then notify the Cache owner telling them you replaced the missing Cache? Most folks who have been around the Cache Block would agree. Most Cache Owners would be very much pleased that you replaced it.

Northwest Cache Owners & Cachers are a tight group and everyone is out to help each other. We want folks to find them. Spare a tank of gas for any owner and drop a cache & drop a note to the owner you replaced it. It's all about TEAM work and helping each other.

Link to comment

:huh: If you head out and find a cache missing do you just walk away and document your DNF due to cache missing or do you pull out a reserve cache from your Backpack and log your find then notify the Cache owner telling them you replaced the missing Cache? Most folks who have been around the Cache Block would agree. Most Cache Owners would be very much pleased that you replaced it.

Northwest Cache Owners & Cachers are a tight group and everyone is out to help each other. We want folks to find them. Spare a tank of gas for any owner and drop a cache & drop a note to the owner you replaced it. It's all about TEAM work and helping each other.

 

It's not so cut and dried.

 

I hear what you're saying but it doesn't consider the cases where the cache is hard to find, the searcher can't find it (though it's there) so then places a cache in order to log a find. Not to mention some COs are touchy about it.

 

Granted probably in this case it was ok for the former and personally I have no idea about the latter since I don't know the CO.

Edited by _Shaddow_
Link to comment

:huh: If you head out and find a cache missing do you just walk away and document your DNF due to cache missing or do you pull out a reserve cache from your Backpack and log your find then notify the Cache owner telling them you replaced the missing Cache? Most folks who have been around the Cache Block would agree. Most Cache Owners would be very much pleased that you replaced it.

Northwest Cache Owners & Cachers are a tight group and everyone is out to help each other. We want folks to find them. Spare a tank of gas for any owner and drop a cache & drop a note to the owner you replaced it. It's all about TEAM work and helping each other.

Reserve cache, or throwdown that we can also claim as a find while patting ourselves on the back for being good team players?

 

Yeah, that's what lamoracke did (minus claiming a find) and to his credit, he tried to get the owner's approval, but that's not the same thing as deciding the owner is being tardy and taking it upon yourself to do something about it.

 

I'm not sure how to reconcile the claim that someone's personal property has been stolen when a geocache goes missing, but at the same time treat the cache as communal property whenever it is convenient. What if the cache owner does not want any assistance? There is a long history, going back to the earliest days of geocaching, in which cache owners have gotten very upset with other people for messing with their caches. In fact, what happened to some of the earliest caches in Washington?

 

To answer your question, in most circumstances, no we do not replace caches. We do not mind helping out with logs, etc, but we also try to respect other people's property rights. Besides, just because we think a cache is missing does not mean that it actually is.

Link to comment

I'm stuggling to find where I fall here with my opinion, so let me sort it out in public. I have been around since early '01, I don't recall a big fuss about people replacing caches. Maybe there was and I don't remember. Calling cache maintainence (replacement) by someone else a "throwdown" seem a bit overly derogatory; intentions were good. All that being said, I think one shouldn't replace a cache for someone if it is simply not found, or ESPECIALLY just to log a find. If there is clear evidence that the cache destroyed (finding pieces), or is absolutely missing where there is no doubt, I think it is OK. In the first case (Pieces) logging is OK, in the second case I'm not sure about the logging part. I have had people replace my caches before, and for the most part I felt it helpful. There have been times when people replaced it when they shouldn't have (there was no absolute evidence that it was gone) and times when I have ended up with mutiible boxes; in that case I simple went and removed the extra at my convienece. No huge deal. So I guess where I fall is I apprecieate the help, but ONLY if there is UNDISPUTED evidence that it is kaput.

 

In fact, I'm going to change my mind right now and say: If you find pieces of a destroyed cache, replace it and log it; if nothing is found, don't replace, just log a DNF and leave it to the owner.

 

Yup, that's my position and I'm sticking to it. :o)

Link to comment

I'm stuggling to find where I fall here with my opinion, so let me sort it out in public. I have been around since early '01, I don't recall a big fuss about people replacing caches. Maybe there was and I don't remember. Calling cache maintainence (replacement) by someone else a "throwdown" seem a bit overly derogatory; intentions were good. All that being said, I think one shouldn't replace a cache for someone if it is simply not found, or ESPECIALLY just to log a find. If there is clear evidence that the cache destroyed (finding pieces), or is absolutely missing where there is no doubt, I think it is OK. In the first case (Pieces) logging is OK, in the second case I'm not sure about the logging part. I have had people replace my caches before, and for the most part I felt it helpful. There have been times when people replaced it when they shouldn't have (there was no absolute evidence that it was gone) and times when I have ended up with mutiible boxes; in that case I simple went and removed the extra at my convienece. No huge deal. So I guess where I fall is I apprecieate the help, but ONLY if there is UNDISPUTED evidence that it is kaput.

 

In fact, I'm going to change my mind right now and say: If you find pieces of a destroyed cache, replace it and log it; if nothing is found, don't replace, just log a DNF and leave it to the owner.

 

Yup, that's my position and I'm sticking to it. :o)

+1. Well said, Jim, as always.

 

In the case of GCD, though, I agree with B+L that we should have given the cache owner a chance to handle it - it's his cache, there's evidence he was on the case, and other cachers were in contact with him - so to replace it without his permission was a bit presumptuous.

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment

Like some other have posted previously, I was not sure where I fell on whether this cache (or the previous APE cache) should be replaced or archived. Today that all changed though and I think it has set a precedent in my mind.

 

I just saw that it has been replaced and while that is all good, once I saw the picture of the new cache it triggered a memory of what I found so remarkable and special about GCD when I found it merely 2 weeks before it was stolen. While this placement was in fact old, and this is not the first time the body of the cache has been replaced, the original log and thereby all of its history remained intact. It still had its soul. I spent a long time reading over the original log entries basking in that history. That history is what made it the "Oldest Active Cache in Washington".

 

Without its soul, it is just another piece of Tupperware in the woods.

Link to comment

Like some other have posted previously, I was not sure where I fell on whether this cache (or the previous APE cache) should be replaced or archived. Today that all changed though and I think it has set a precedent in my mind.

 

I just saw that it has been replaced and while that is all good, once I saw the picture of the new cache it triggered a memory of what I found so remarkable and special about GCD when I found it merely 2 weeks before it was stolen. While this placement was in fact old, and this is not the first time the body of the cache has been replaced, the original log and thereby all of its history remained intact. It still had its soul. I spent a long time reading over the original log entries basking in that history. That history is what made it the "Oldest Active Cache in Washington".

 

Without its soul, it is just another piece of Tupperware in the woods.

 

course, by that analogy, no caches should ever get replaced. GCD is just one great historical cache. EraSeek mentioned above has some great caches and some of them are still great caches because they have been replaced. True, the original log book is gone and I did not get a chance to see it because someone stole it the day or so before. However, that container was not magic, it was not unique, it was tupperware and the log book was just standard paper. The stump is still there. The hike is still there. The view is still there. It still has an owner, it still has an active geocache page (well, it could). The experience of that journey up still there. The past logs are still there. What if a rain storm wiped out the log book into mush, should it be archived then? A coyote ate the original container? If the CO decides to replace it (or allow the replacement container that was done after me), it will still be GCD to me.

Link to comment

Looks as if I lost another one of my hike to caches. GCP565 This really irritates me when self appointed wilderness police don't have a clue. It's these kind of people that are removing caches. First time I've actually had one post about it. Guess he/she couldn't stand to go unnoticed. The cache is located on rock and no time do you bushwack to reach it. The garbage etc. is not being left by geocachers. I hardly doubt 3 cache finds in the past 2 years and a total of 11 in 6 is causing any impact what so ever. That Island has always been a primo camping spot and has seen a drastic decline in people and garbage the past 20 years. There's no nesting ospreys any where close to the cache site. Ospreys are every where now and having camped and fished close by to many they aren't bothered by people. Should I bother contacting Groundspeak? I've always wanted my caches open to every one, but it looks like I'll have to make them Premium if they keep getting stolen. I've quietly replaced a dozen or more the past couple years and have had another dozen replaced by cachers. I appreciate the help as many of mine aren't so easy to reach. If my sick dog is better tomorrow maybe I'll run up and replace this cache and the Trout Lk one that was stolen. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Link to comment

Looks as if I lost another one of my hike to caches. GCP565 This really irritates me when self appointed wilderness police don't have a clue. It's these kind of people that are removing caches. First time I've actually had one post about it. Guess he/she couldn't stand to go unnoticed. The cache is located on rock and no time do you bushwack to reach it. The garbage etc. is not being left by geocachers. I hardly doubt 3 cache finds in the past 2 years and a total of 11 in 6 is causing any impact what so ever. That Island has always been a primo camping spot and has seen a drastic decline in people and garbage the past 20 years. There's no nesting ospreys any where close to the cache site. Ospreys are every where now and having camped and fished close by to many they aren't bothered by people. Should I bother contacting Groundspeak? I've always wanted my caches open to every one, but it looks like I'll have to make them Premium if they keep getting stolen. I've quietly replaced a dozen or more the past couple years and have had another dozen replaced by cachers. I appreciate the help as many of mine aren't so easy to reach. If my sick dog is better tomorrow maybe I'll run up and replace this cache and the Trout Lk one that was stolen. :mad: :mad: :mad:

 

First just want to throw out the idea that it is quite possible that the person is not an 'self-appointed wilderness police' but an actual 'appointed-by-you wilderness police' aka a forest ranger. The post really speaks like my encounters with rangers: they want to inform you on how your actions are having a negative impact; they also tend to leave the door open for you to adjust your actions so you can still enjoy them while being more in line with what is appropriate for the area; the tone post is generally quite caring of the environment and the well being of people (traits I prefer in people even if sometimes misguided). Also, this person clearly has spent a lot of time in the area and will continue to do so in the future.

 

Granted if it is the ranger, they should have stated such. I also agree, of course, that they are way off on their assessment of the impact of the cache which is more likely positive then negative as cachers will often clean up an area when trash is found; I know I do.

 

And for the facts, the placement of a cache in the wilderness IS illegal. The grandfathered status for caches in the wilderness is NOT a forest service grant but only a Groundspeak devised scheme to both be legal with future placements but also not cause you a lot of anger by removing your postings. In other words, we should possibly consider that rather then feeling entitled to these older caches we should instead consider ourselves lucky that they are even there at all.

 

Personally, I'm bummed that this cache went away, it’s been on my to-do list for years and have recent plans to grab it. I hope that you replace and that somehow it works out that it is left alone.

 

Regarding the opinion that ‘it’s these kind of people that are removing caches,’ I have to strongly disagree. I think this case is completely separate from the others along the I90 corridor and is just coincidental in timing. Given the statements here, the others would have remained as many were easily accessed from the trail thus no ecological issue.

Link to comment

Looks as if I lost another one of my hike to caches. GCP565 This really irritates me when self appointed wilderness police don't have a clue. It's these kind of people that are removing caches. First time I've actually had one post about it. Guess he/she couldn't stand to go unnoticed. The cache is located on rock and no time do you bushwack to reach it. The garbage etc. is not being left by geocachers. I hardly doubt 3 cache finds in the past 2 years and a total of 11 in 6 is causing any impact what so ever. That Island has always been a primo camping spot and has seen a drastic decline in people and garbage the past 20 years. There's no nesting ospreys any where close to the cache site. Ospreys are every where now and having camped and fished close by to many they aren't bothered by people. Should I bother contacting Groundspeak? I've always wanted my caches open to every one, but it looks like I'll have to make them Premium if they keep getting stolen. I've quietly replaced a dozen or more the past couple years and have had another dozen replaced by cachers. I appreciate the help as many of mine aren't so easy to reach. If my sick dog is better tomorrow maybe I'll run up and replace this cache and the Trout Lk one that was stolen. :mad: :mad: :mad:

 

First just want to throw out the idea that it is quite possible that the person is not an 'self-appointed wilderness police' but an actual 'appointed-by-you wilderness police' aka a forest ranger. The post really speaks like my encounters with rangers: they want to inform you on how your actions are having a negative impact; they also tend to leave the door open for you to adjust your actions so you can still enjoy them while being more in line with what is appropriate for the area; the tone post is generally quite caring of the environment and the well being of people (traits I prefer in people even if sometimes misguided). Also, this person clearly has spent a lot of time in the area and will continue to do so in the future.

 

Granted if it is the ranger, they should have stated such. I also agree, of course, that they are way off on their assessment of the impact of the cache which is more likely positive then negative as cachers will often clean up an area when trash is found; I know I do.

 

And for the facts, the placement of a cache in the wilderness IS illegal. The grandfathered status for caches in the wilderness is NOT a forest service grant but only a Groundspeak devised scheme to both be legal with future placements but also not cause you a lot of anger by removing your postings. In other words, we should possibly consider that rather then feeling entitled to these older caches we should instead consider ourselves lucky that they are even there at all.

 

Personally, I'm bummed that this cache went away, it’s been on my to-do list for years and have recent plans to grab it. I hope that you replace and that somehow it works out that it is left alone.

 

Regarding the opinion that ‘it’s these kind of people that are removing caches,’ I have to strongly disagree. I think this case is completely separate from the others along the I90 corridor and is just coincidental in timing. Given the statements here, the others would have remained as many were easily accessed from the trail thus no ecological issue.

 

Gotta agree with Shaddow, (although probably should have started a new thread) this person seems not to have an agenda against geocaching but to be more concerned for the safety of those trying to get to it and their impacts on the island on which it was placed. I don't agree however with his assesment that they are being attracted there by the geocache. I think it much more likely that those going out to the island are finding it incidentaly and signing the log book.

 

Have you considered writing to them and trying to come to an agreement about the placement? Maybe if you modify the page some and change the hide slightly as he suggests would help him to relax? I'd also ask him what his role is with regards to the Lake and/or Wilderness area. He's righ tabout Lake Dorothy. I've been going there since th e80's and they have done a lot of work restoring much of the shorleine. Perhaps he belongs tot eh group that has helped with that...

Link to comment

Looks as if I lost another one of my hike to caches. GCP565 This really irritates me when self appointed wilderness police don't have a clue. It's these kind of people that are removing caches. First time I've actually had one post about it. Guess he/she couldn't stand to go unnoticed.

Have you tried contacting this person? Maybe you can reach a compromise rather than going where this is obviously headed otherwise.

 

It is not at all surprising that some people think geocaching is equivalent to littering. Did you know that Dave Ulmer started having second thought about hidings caches fairly soon after hiding the first one? Some of the questions from the early days never got answered, but the genie was already out of the bottle and caches have been spreading ever since.

I think stashes are Trash, the more I thought about it the more I see the

mistake. Stashes are trash and having a physical stash is un-necessary and

it severely limits the potential of the game.

 

I will be doing what others in this group have recommend. I will be taking

the No-Stash game somewhere else.

Link to comment

well, this thread is primarily about GCD and GCD just got re-enabled. The CO has given the okay to the new container that GrnXnnam put out which had my temporary signed log in it, so my find log is now good to go.

 

I still want to go up there to check it out and remove my temporary film canister unless someone takes it as swag first (which is ok). Am glad GCD will live on.

Link to comment

Looks as if I lost another one of my hike to caches. GCP565 This really irritates me when self appointed wilderness police don't have a clue. It's these kind of people that are removing caches. First time I've actually had one post about it. Guess he/she couldn't stand to go unnoticed. The cache is located on rock and no time do you bushwack to reach it. The garbage etc. is not being left by geocachers. I hardly doubt 3 cache finds in the past 2 years and a total of 11 in 6 is causing any impact what so ever. That Island has always been a primo camping spot and has seen a drastic decline in people and garbage the past 20 years. There's no nesting ospreys any where close to the cache site. Ospreys are every where now and having camped and fished close by to many they aren't bothered by people. Should I bother contacting Groundspeak? I've always wanted my caches open to every one, but it looks like I'll have to make them Premium if they keep getting stolen. I've quietly replaced a dozen or more the past couple years and have had another dozen replaced by cachers. I appreciate the help as many of mine aren't so easy to reach. If my sick dog is better tomorrow maybe I'll run up and replace this cache and the Trout Lk one that was stolen. :mad: :mad: :mad:

To paraphrase G-L's log "It's okay for me to come to this island whenever I want but the rest of the world should stay the hell away" anyway that's the way I read it.

Link to comment

Looks as if I lost another one of my hike to caches. GCP565 This really irritates me when self appointed wilderness police don't have a clue. It's these kind of people that are removing caches. First time I've actually had one post about it. Guess he/she couldn't stand to go unnoticed. The cache is located on rock and no time do you bushwack to reach it. The garbage etc. is not being left by geocachers. I hardly doubt 3 cache finds in the past 2 years and a total of 11 in 6 is causing any impact what so ever. That Island has always been a primo camping spot and has seen a drastic decline in people and garbage the past 20 years. There's no nesting ospreys any where close to the cache site. Ospreys are every where now and having camped and fished close by to many they aren't bothered by people. Should I bother contacting Groundspeak? I've always wanted my caches open to every one, but it looks like I'll have to make them Premium if they keep getting stolen. I've quietly replaced a dozen or more the past couple years and have had another dozen replaced by cachers. I appreciate the help as many of mine aren't so easy to reach. If my sick dog is better tomorrow maybe I'll run up and replace this cache and the Trout Lk one that was stolen. :mad: :mad: :mad:

To paraphrase G-L's log "It's okay for me to come to this island whenever I want but the rest of the world should stay the hell away" anyway that's the way I read it.

Yeah, easy to take shots at the geocachers, but if you look at the logs not that many have been that way. Thirteen in six years, geeze. 2009 was a real Grand Central Station year with six visits. The carnage he is talking about, if it really exists, was caused by others than geocachers. What a [removed to protect my ability to continue posting]. I agree, it is my island so stay away.

Link to comment

Yeah, easy to take shots at the geocachers, but if you look at the logs not that many have been that way. Thirteen in six years, geeze. 2009 was a real Grand Central Station year with six visits. The carnage he is talking about, if it really exists, was caused by others than geocachers. What a [removed to protect my ability to continue posting]. I agree, it is my island so stay away.

What he is saying is a little more nuanced than, "stay off my island".

 

... It is likely not you doing the trashing, but this posting is open to all ...

 

... All I ask is for those of you who set up these caches to please consider the many unintended consequences and then remove/relocate inappropriate listings! If they stay, I will try to get geocaching.com to remove them…there is a process for that. The better process is to police yourselves.

Link to comment

Yeah, easy to take shots at the geocachers, but if you look at the logs not that many have been that way. Thirteen in six years, geeze. 2009 was a real Grand Central Station year with six visits. The carnage he is talking about, if it really exists, was caused by others than geocachers. What a [removed to protect my ability to continue posting]. I agree, it is my island so stay away.

What he is saying is a little more nuanced than, "stay off my island".

 

... It is likely not you doing the trashing, but this posting is open to all ...

 

... All I ask is for those of you who set up these caches to please consider the many unintended consequences and then remove/relocate inappropriate listings! If they stay, I will try to get geocaching.com to remove them…there is a process for that. The better process is to police yourselves.

Okay, how about "I've found this really cool place that I love to come to but please don't encourage anyone else to experience it because I'm the only one that can be here without causing unintended consequences."

Link to comment

Yeah, easy to take shots at the geocachers, but if you look at the logs not that many have been that way. Thirteen in six years, geeze. 2009 was a real Grand Central Station year with six visits. The carnage he is talking about, if it really exists, was caused by others than geocachers. What a [removed to protect my ability to continue posting]. I agree, it is my island so stay away.

What he is saying is a little more nuanced than, "stay off my island".

 

... It is likely not you doing the trashing, but this posting is open to all ...

 

... All I ask is for those of you who set up these caches to please consider the many unintended consequences and then remove/relocate inappropriate listings! If they stay, I will try to get geocaching.com to remove them…there is a process for that. The better process is to police yourselves.

Okay, how about "I've found this really cool place that I love to come to but please don't encourage anyone else to experience it because I'm the only one that can be here without causing unintended consequences."

 

No not that either. More, this place is getting trashed and this is a likely suspect cause. Obviously an incorrect one but also a minor mistake and not really that far out to come to that conclusion. I'm sure that you make mistakes too. Your efforts would be much better spent to help people like this understand the reality rather then how you are currently dealing with it.

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...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...