GCD: Geocache (Oldest Active Cache in WA) Stolen

[+_Shaddow_]

Also one of the issues forest managers deal with is the intensity of activity. Basically there is so many people visiting the forests that they need to spread the focus around rather than concentrate a bunch in one spot. Concentrated use, among other things, hardens the soil preventing plants from growing well or at all, and increases concentrations of fecal material beyond what the environment can safely handle.

 

Another phenomenon is that once a place starts getting trashed it tends to get more trashed faster; ie people see the trash and think, 'eh, this place is already trashed so what's the difference.' You have to accept that geocaching does by nature concentrate use, a golden example is geotrails. Also, it's been said already in this thread that it's likely that the logbook has many signatures of non-cachers that just happened across it; to the uninformed non-cacher this seems to support the theory that cache the source of the activity rather then what we know to be the reality, that the activity in the logbook is instead a byproduct of a lot of campers that just like to use that area.

 

I'm still thinking that this might be a ranger.

[+B+L]

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.

I agree with Shaddow, but it really depends on what your goal is. if your goal is to resolve this situation successfully, then addressing what the person is actually saying is more likely to have a positive outcome. They've tried to open a dialog. They could have just taken the cache without saying a word.

[+Gan Dalf]

They've tried to open a dialog. They could have just taken the cache without saying a word.

 

True... but they could have also assumed that by doing that their pruprose would not be served. By threatening to remove future replacments of the cache they make it clear that they are serious about keeping cachers away.

[+B+L]

They've tried to open a dialog. They could have just taken the cache without saying a word.

 

True... but they could have also assumed that by doing that their pruprose would not be served. By threatening to remove future replacments of the cache they make it clear that they are serious about keeping cachers away.

 

Apparently their attempt to communicate is unwelcome. At least they tried.

 

 

I have no problem with geocaching. It is a lot of fun for many and done properly, no conflict with the environment or hikers which many of you are too. However, I also read in the cache placement rules that wilderness locations…which this is…is not allowed. Period. That seems a bit harsh too.

 

I have removed the cache and will continue to do so on every visit if it returns. I may look for a better location for this cache on my next visit to Lake Dorothy & post that somewhere on this site. Suggestions?

Consider hiding caches in areas by main trails that can handle the traffic. A boulder field for example is pretty hard to trample. Consider too, many GPS receivers have difficulty getting an accurate locate under trees, and that causes geocachers to trample a much wider area in their search. Adding something in the description to say if you are ever off trail and in vegetation, you are looking in the wrong area would help.

[+Gan Dalf]

They've tried to open a dialog. They could have just taken the cache without saying a word.

 

True... but they could have also assumed that by doing that their pruprose would not be served. By threatening to remove future replacments of the cache they make it clear that they are serious about keeping cachers away.

 

Apparently their attempt to communicate is unwelcome. At least they tried.

 

 

I have no problem with geocaching. It is a lot of fun for many and done properly, no conflict with the environment or hikers which many of you are too. However, I also read in the cache placement rules that wilderness locations…which this is…is not allowed. Period. That seems a bit harsh too.

 

I have removed the cache and will continue to do so on every visit if it returns. I may look for a better location for this cache on my next visit to Lake Dorothy & post that somewhere on this site. Suggestions?

Consider hiding caches in areas by main trails that can handle the traffic. A boulder field for example is pretty hard to trample. Consider too, many GPS receivers have difficulty getting an accurate locate under trees, and that causes geocachers to trample a much wider area in their search. Adding something in the description to say if you are ever off trail and in vegetation, you are looking in the wrong area would help.

 

I can see how you could have misudertood what I was saying.

 

I agree, I'm just saying that simply taking it and not saying anything probably would not suit his purpose.

[+_Shaddow_]

They've tried to open a dialog. They could have just taken the cache without saying a word.

 

True... but they could have also assumed that by doing that their pruprose would not be served. By threatening to remove future replacments of the cache they make it clear that they are serious about keeping cachers away.

 

Apparently their attempt to communicate is unwelcome. At least they tried.

 

 

I have no problem with geocaching. It is a lot of fun for many and done properly, no conflict with the environment or hikers which many of you are too. However, I also read in the cache placement rules that wilderness locations…which this is…is not allowed. Period. That seems a bit harsh too.

 

I have removed the cache and will continue to do so on every visit if it returns. I may look for a better location for this cache on my next visit to Lake Dorothy & post that somewhere on this site. Suggestions?

Consider hiding caches in areas by main trails that can handle the traffic. A boulder field for example is pretty hard to trample. Consider too, many GPS receivers have difficulty getting an accurate locate under trees, and that causes geocachers to trample a much wider area in their search. Adding something in the description to say if you are ever off trail and in vegetation, you are looking in the wrong area would help.

 

I can see how you could have misudertood what I was saying.

 

I agree, I'm just saying that simply taking it and not saying anything probably would not suit his purpose.

 

I didn't read it that but rather this way:

 

By threatening to remove future replacments of the cache they make it clear that they are serious about keeping cachers irresponsible caches away.

 

Whether they are irresponsible, or where that line lays, are other topics

[+Kiersolvd]

First two logs of the new year were quite enjoyable to read, especially since one said there was eight feet of snow still up on the ridge.

[+lamoracke]

Wish they had included info on how they dug it out, if they did. My personal guess based on their pictures is that they reached GZ, but could not find/reach the cache, but are claiming a find for just being there. Am not the CO so my opinion means squat, but that is just my impression reading the logs and seeing their pics.

Edited June 4, 2012 by lamoracke

[+The Jester]

From the looks of the pictures, there's maybe 4 feet of snow (or less) on the ground. We were just up on the Iron Horse Trail today, and the summits aren't that heavy in snow.

[+_Shaddow_]

My personal guess based on their pictures is that they reached GZ, but could not find/reach the cache, but are claiming a find for just being there.

 

That seems pretty clear to me too and though there are few true 'rules' in caching, actually finding the cache to log a find is one of them:

 

"Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

Link

[+B+L]

They must have thought D in GCD stood for Disneyland. On the other hand, they managed to stay quite dry considering their ordeal.

[+GrnXnham]

Wish they had included info on how they dug it out, if they did. My personal guess based on their pictures is that they reached GZ, but could not find/reach the cache, but are claiming a find for just being there. Am not the CO so my opinion means squat, but that is just my impression reading the logs and seeing their pics.

 

Looks like you were right!

 

I'm nominating those cachers who two weeks ago "found" GCD as recipients of the 2012 honor of:

 

"Most Creative Way To Call a DNF a Find!"

Edited June 17, 2012 by GrnXnham

[+lamoracke]

Wish they had included info on how they dug it out, if they did. My personal guess based on their pictures is that they reached GZ, but could not find/reach the cache, but are claiming a find for just being there. Am not the CO so my opinion means squat, but that is just my impression reading the logs and seeing their pics.

 

Looks like you were right!

 

I'm nominating those cachers two weeks ago who "found" GCD as recipients of the 2012 honor of:

 

"Most Creative Way To Call a DNF a Find!"

 

If they had just said found it, took pictures on site, maybe no one would ever notice, but they left so many clues even Inspector Clouseau could have figured it out.

Edited June 17, 2012 by lamoracke

[+Cool Cow Cachers]

Is the the CO going to delete those finds? This isn't some lame lpc after all.

[+JesandTodd]

Doubt it. The COs last checked in in Feb... I wish though...

[+B+L]

Baggies get no respect. They should have dropped a film can.

[+lamoracke]

Doubt it. The COs last checked in in Feb... I wish though...

 

Hydnsek has just adopted this cache. Woo hoo, go Abby!

 

Wonder if she will just police going forward or not. That is nice to see there is now a more active user on this cache. I do appreciate all the time the past CO has placed on this cache and the fact he/she transferred it vs archiving it.

[+hydnsek]

Doubt it. The COs last checked in in Feb... I wish though...

 

Hydnsek has just adopted this cache. Woo hoo, go Abby!

 

Wonder if she will just police going forward or not. That is nice to see there is now a more active user on this cache. I do appreciate all the time the past CO has placed on this cache and the fact he/she transferred it vs archiving it.

Thanks. Yes, I will be actively maintaining and geo-policing this cache, due to its high profile and historic nature. The three recent cachers who claimed finds while it's still under snow have been contacted and asked to change their Finds to Notes or risk log deletion. Others logged DNFs when they couldn't locate the container and sign the log (either because it's under snow or when it was missing last year), so a consistent approach seems only fair. (As others have noted, finding a location without a cache is Waymarking. I have snowshoed several miles to a cache, dug an 8-foot trench, and still logged a DNF when we didn't find the container, so I understand the frustration.)

 

I have changed Geocache's status to PMO in hopes of deterring future thefts. I hate to do this on the oldest WA cache, but the fact that it was stolen twice last year (along with other non-PMO caches in the area), after surviving 11 years without an issue, seems to warrant the change. Esp. as PMO caches in the area seem to be surviving. I will watch the situation and hope to change it back at a later date.

 

I also upped the Terrain rating to more accurately reflect the experience for future finders.

 

For those wondering how I wound up with GCD: As WSGA president, I was getting emails from cachers upset about the "false" finds and lack of CO response/maintenance, in addition to seeing the angst in this thread. So I contacted ajroman (the CO) as WSGA president to discuss the situation. He doesn't cache and wasn't inclined to actively maintain the cache, although he was upset at the "geolitter" that recent finders left on trees. So I suggested he adopt it out instead of archiving it, and mentioned several seasoned geocachers (including some on this thread) who would be honored to care for it. But he said I seemed reasonable, and an adoption request appeared in my inbox.

 

I will be making a maintenance visit to the cache once the snow melts (late July most likely). If you're interested in going and can do it mid-week, drop me a note and I'll let you know when I pick a date.

 

Here's hoping that GCD's second decade will be as spectacular as its first!

Edited June 28, 2012 by hydnsek

[+lamoracke]

one thing Hydnsek...PMO status change? If the rumors are true and it was stolen by one certain individual who even took the PMO caches, why stop all the non PMO members from finding the oldest cache in Washington when its been rumored its one individual who knows where it is, PMO or not? Just my 2 cents. You're the CO know so you get to make those kind of decisions.

 

Would agree that its terrain was a bit low!

Edited June 28, 2012 by lamoracke

[jholly]

one thing Hydnsek...PMO status change? If the rumors are true and it was stolen by one certain individual who even took the PMO caches, why stop all the non PMO members from finding the oldest cache in Washington when its been rumored its one individual who knows where it is, PMO or not? Just my 2 cents. You're the CO know so you get to make those kind of decisions.

 

Would agree that its terrain was a bit low!

Well, she could always move it before the status change, then you do need to be PM unless you want to do a bit of work to find the new coordinates.

[+hydnsek]

one thing Hydnsek...PMO status change? If the rumors are true and it was stolen by one certain individual who even took the PMO caches, why stop all the non PMO members from finding the oldest cache in Washington when its been rumored its one individual who knows where it is, PMO or not? Just my 2 cents. You're the CO know so you get to make those kind of decisions.

 

Would agree that its terrain was a bit low!

Sorry, I don't know about these rumors. I do know that non-PMO caches on the I-90 corridor have been going missing repeatedly over the past year (including mine), while PMO ones remain in place (as other loggers have noted). If you want to communicate details privately, please do so.

 

Edit: I removed the PMO status, since I don't know the details of the disappearances and GCD should be enjoyed by all. However, if it continues to have issues like other non-PMO caches in this area, I may reconsider.

Edited June 29, 2012 by hydnsek

[+eagsc7]

Personally, I'd make GCD a PMO. Then have Another cache thats Non-PMO mention GCD in the description and if your looking for the Oldest active cache in the state to contact a Premium member and its Near this one...

 

The Steaks

[+_Shaddow_]

Personally, I'd make GCD a PMO. Then have Another cache thats Non-PMO mention GCD in the description and if your looking for the Oldest active cache in the state to contact a Premium member and its Near this one...

 

The Steaks

 

I would also go the PMO route. I believe the troll is a PM and this won't stop them, but their visits to the page will be logged and that information is all we have right now.

 

As far as non-PM logging the cache, there is a known workaround. At least there used to be, not sure if still there or not.

 

I've had some of my caches along I90 and near the pass go missing many times by this person. It's not just a rumor, it's quite clear that it's intentional and directed. All my caches but one were non-PM but he also got the PMO as much as the others. So like I said above, it really doesn't matter if PMO but there is at least the log for us to compare notes. All my caches that were attacked are now PMO.

 

It's a guess on my part, but a very educated guess, that it seems very logical that the person responsible for these caches being stolen is also the same person that stole the Ape and related caches. From my understanding, this person's motivation is related to a beef with one particular person, a cacher, that now happens to work for GS. It should would be nice if that person would step up and resolve the issue so the rest of us don't have to suffer the consequences. Just say'n

[+lamoracke]

that was what I was alluding to Shaddow, for what its worth, but its all secondhand information.

[+_Shaddow_]

that was what I was alluding to Shaddow, for what its worth, but its all secondhand information.

 

I figured but it needs to be said clearly and I figure I can be the one to do it. I don't mind taking any heat for speaking up and saying / doing what needs to be done. Heat, if any, that should be directed towards the thief...

[Moun10Bike]

It's a guess on my part, but a very educated guess, that it seems very logical that the person responsible for these caches being stolen is also the same person that stole the Ape and related caches. From my understanding, this person's motivation is related to a beef with one particular person, a cacher, that now happens to work for GS. It should would be nice if that person would step up and resolve the issue so the rest of us don't have to suffer the consequences. Just say'n

 

I initially had the same suspicions, but your guess is wrong. There is evidence that that certain someone initially stole the lid of the APE cache, but he has not been to the state during the times that other caches - including the APE - were stolen. He has been in contact with other Lackeys recently and has expressed regrets for his past actions, and has even tried to mend fences with me. I do not believe that our I-90 thief is in any way related to him.

[+BrewerMD]

I would like to take this opportunity to thank GrnXnham for maintaining/replacing this cache up to now (I was with them the last time) so that the cache lived on.

[+_Shaddow_]

It's a guess on my part, but a very educated guess, that it seems very logical that the person responsible for these caches being stolen is also the same person that stole the Ape and related caches. From my understanding, this person's motivation is related to a beef with one particular person, a cacher, that now happens to work for GS. It should would be nice if that person would step up and resolve the issue so the rest of us don't have to suffer the consequences. Just say'n

 

I initially had the same suspicions, but your guess is wrong. There is evidence that that certain someone initially stole the lid of the APE cache, but he has not been to the state during the times that other caches - including the APE - were stolen. He has been in contact with other Lackeys recently and has expressed regrets for his past actions, and has even tried to mend fences with me. I do not believe that our I-90 thief is in any way related to him.

 

Well that seems like good news and thank you for finally filling us in.

 

The ape replacement went missing again just weeks so then we must assume that we have a second cacher whose is currently very vindictive, passive-aggressive and irrational. And also highly motivated. It seems odd that such a person would not also make it known their issues. Not a diss to you, M10B, but the issue surrounding the first person was kept tight under wraps. I hope this isn't another case of that as well.

[Moun10Bike]

The only reason things were kept "tight under wraps" was that I was not comfortable making accusations without proof that the individual was responsible. Not all of us are so quick to accuse.

[+_Shaddow_]

The only reason things were kept "tight under wraps" was that I was not comfortable making accusations without proof that the individual was responsible. Not all of us are so quick to accuse.

 

Except that he outright told you long ago.

 

I'm apparently more direct than you, and I apparently also see it as a virtue. If it seems that I'm frustrated and feed up with this situation, and the handling of the well known TB thief as well, it's because I am.

[Moun10Bike]

The only reason things were kept "tight under wraps" was that I was not comfortable making accusations without proof that the individual was responsible. Not all of us are so quick to accuse.

 

Except that he outright told you long ago.

 

 

No, he taunted me with saying that he had gotten his hands on one of my geocoins (and was going to sell it on eBay) immediately after he visited the state and the lid of the APE cache went missing, with its attached geocoin. He never said "I took the lid" and may have just been trying to needle me, for all I know.

 

A few months later a local cacher reached out to him to ask if he was responsible, and he laughed, saying no, but that he wished he had been the one.

[+_Shaddow_]

The only reason things were kept "tight under wraps" was that I was not comfortable making accusations without proof that the individual was responsible. Not all of us are so quick to accuse.

 

Except that he outright told you long ago.

 

 

No, he taunted me with saying that he had gotten his hands on one of my geocoins (and was going to sell it on eBay) immediately after he visited the state and the lid of the APE cache went missing, with its attached geocoin. He never said "I took the lid" and may have just been trying to needle me, for all I know.

 

A few months later a local cacher reached out to him to ask if he was responsible, and he laughed, saying no, but that he wished he had been the one.

 

Thank you. Forgive though as I'm not completely clear, did he contact you before or after it was made public that the cache was missing? If before, than obviously it was him. If after, then there is still very strong circumstantial evidence pointing to him: motive, means, apparent confession, etc. Regarding his motive, you two obviously have some negative past history prior to the time of the highly valued cache that you maintained going missing and his taunting you shortly there after with apparent ill-gained treasure.

 

Since he's come clean, was it the same person?

Edited June 30, 2012 by _Shaddow_

[Moun10Bike]

The contact came before the cache went missing but after the lid was stolen. He was in Washington when the lid disappeared but not when the cache did. He lives back east and has not been back out here since the lid incident.

[Moun10Bike]

Also, he was with his girlfriend during his trip, and said to the local cacher who befriended him that she really enjoys geocaching and that he never would have done anything like that in front of her.

[+_Shaddow_]

Ok thank you. Given that information, then I think we all can agree that it looks like he didn't take the lid, and he most certainly didn't take the cache. At first that sure sounds like very good news but on quick review, it is actually very, very bad news indeed. How many people have you angered M10B? Just kidding

 

I think we are beyond the stage of it being 'a rumor' that there is an active cache thief working the I90 corridor and taking mostly easy access trail related caches but also those along the length of some trails (GCD, Rattlesnake). If not motivated by anger or retaliation (right?) than it must be a do-gooder. I can't think of any other reason these specific caches would repeatedly go missing. Also extremely odd in my book that the individual(s) have not let their reasons be known (right?). I would expect it to be similar to the do-gooder along the HW2 corridor who she has voiced her reasons and demands very clearly; and thankfully her actions are focused one cache right now rather than going about it half random shotgun style.

 

Regarding the topic: all of this is germane as we ultimately need to directly solve this problem to keep the cache in place over the long term. Which is a much better approach than dealing with the symptoms.

[+B+L]

I think we are beyond the stage of it being 'a rumor' that there is an active cache thief working the I90 corridor and taking mostly easy access trail related caches but also those along the length of some trails (GCD, Rattlesnake). If not motivated by anger or retaliation (right?) than it must be a do-gooder. I can't think of any other reason these specific caches would repeatedly go missing. Also extremely odd in my book that the individual(s) have not let their reasons be known (right?). I would expect it to be similar to the do-gooder along the HW2 corridor who she has voiced her reasons and demands very clearly; and thankfully her actions are focused one cache right now rather than going about it half random shotgun style.

There's no reason for them to say anything, unless they want the attention or they are trying to goad people. I can see how some people might think they have as much right to take caches as we do to place them. I'm actually surprised this kind of thing has not happened more frequently.

 

A quote from back in the early days:

 

Have any of you thought about the fact that you are littering every time you leave a cache? This is a pretty disgusting "sport".

[+Sol seaker]

 

A quote from back in the early days:

 

Have any of you thought about the fact that you are littering every time you leave a cache? This is a pretty disgusting "sport".

 

Litter:

 

 

Geocache:

(Yes there is actually one there.)

 

 

Do you see a difference?

 

So then is building a fence in the woods litter?

How about an information kiosk?

How about an information sign?

A bench for a rest?

Is anything placed in the woods litter?

Then how about geocaches in the city?

 

Wiki:

Litter consists of waste products that have been disposed of improperly, without consent, in an inappropriate location. Litter can also be used as a verb. To litter means to throw (often man-made) objects onto the ground and leave them as opposed to disposing of them properly. While most litter is associated with containers, wrappers and paper product; dumped items may include furniture, appliances (white goods), old electronics (e-waste), abandoned vehicles or construction materials. These categories of waste often contain hazardous materials. The distinction between littering and illegal dumping is sometimes defined by volume [1] or the location of the disposed of waste.[2] Illegally dumped items containing hazardous waste can harm the environment and have a potentially negative impact on human health.

 

These are not waste products, we are not disposing them inappropriately, where appropriate we have gotten consent, and they are in appropriate locations.

 

That last is probably what they take issue with: whether the location is appropriate or not.

 

You can't see it, it's not being disposed of, but used as a game piece, it's not litter. We're still using it so it can't be litter.

 

They're removed when we're done with the game.

If they weren't removed when we are done, then it would be litter then, at that point.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Sol seaker

[+B+L]

A quote from back in the early days:

 

Have any of you thought about the fact that you are littering every time you leave a cache? This is a pretty disgusting "sport".

So then is building a fence in the woods litter?

How about an information kiosk?

How about an information sign?

A bench for a rest?

Is anything placed in the woods litter?

Then how about geocaches in the city?

 

Wiki:

Litter consists of waste products that have been disposed of improperly, without consent, in an inappropriate location. Litter can also be used as a verb. To litter means to throw (often man-made) objects onto the ground and leave them as opposed to disposing of them properly. While most litter is associated with containers, wrappers and paper product; dumped items may include furniture, appliances (white goods), old electronics (e-waste), abandoned vehicles or construction materials. These categories of waste often contain hazardous materials. The distinction between littering and illegal dumping is sometimes defined by volume [1] or the location of the disposed of waste.[2] Illegally dumped items containing hazardous waste can harm the environment and have a potentially negative impact on human health.

 

These are not waste products, we are not disposing them inappropriately, where appropriate we have gotten consent, and they are in appropriate locations.

 

That last is probably what they take issue with: whether the location is appropriate or not.

 

You can't see it, it's not being disposed of, but used as a game piece, it's not litter. We're still using it so it can't be litter.

 

They're removed when we're done with the game.

If they weren't removed when we are done, then it would be litter then, at that point.

You mis-attributed your quote. Shaddow did not write it. I did. I never said I thought geocaches were litter, I quoted someone who did. Unfortunately, they'd probably find your arguments to be mostly irrelevant and completely unpersuasive.

[+eagsc7]

Personally, I'd make GCD a PMO. Then have Another cache thats Non-PMO mention GCD in the description and if your looking for the Oldest active cache in the state to contact a Premium member and its Near this one...

 

The Steaks

 

As far as non-PM logging the cache, there is a known workaround. At least there used to be, not sure if still there or not.

 

YES, the workaround is still there, at least the way that my wife and I log PMO Caches. I think there's at least 3 different workarounds, and we do 2 of the 3 that we know of...

 

REALLY! Did the Replacement APE cache go missing. Will have to look at it ...

 

The Steaks

[+B+L]

Summit registers are being stolen across the Sierras. Like the missing I-90 corridor caches, so far no one has claimed responsibility and their motives remain unknown.

[+_Shaddow_]

Summit registers are being stolen across the Sierras. Like the missing I-90 corridor caches, so far no one has claimed responsibility and their motives remain unknown.

 

That smells of a for-profit gig, those must be worth something...

[+The Jester]

Summit registers are being stolen across the Sierras. Like the missing I-90 corridor caches, so far no one has claimed responsibility and their motives remain unknown.

 

That smells of a for-profit gig, those must be worth something...

I don't think so, it happened around here a couple of decades back. There are some who think nothing man-made should be left in the wild...