GCD: Geocache (Oldest Active Cache in WA) Stolen

[+Hypnopaedia]

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.

 

(I don't know if this is necessarily pertinent to the larger geocaching community, but given the age of the cache I'm going to err on the side of yes.)

Edited September 10, 2011 by Hypnopaedia

[+GeoBain]

Tis a sad day. GCD: Geocache and 6 other cachers, according to good sources, have been stolen.

 

OH MY GOODNESS!!! DID THEY FIND THEM? DID ANYONE CALL THE POLICE TO REPORT THIS KIDNAPPING?

[+popokiiti]

Hmmm - could a certain individual who like to think that they are a group be responsible? Have to check out their blog...

edit to add - the anti-geocaching and anti-letterboxing blog is disabled. Must be down to a few complaints...

Edited September 10, 2011 by popokiiti

[+Roman!]

If you hike up a mountain just to steal someone else's tupperware container, well, seriously, you need to take a good look in the mirror because your life must be real carp.

 

CO: Ajroman

 

Member Since: Monday, 06 November 2000

Last Visit: Sunday, 07 August 2011

 

I suspect it will be replaced but losing the original sucks, I had the honour to find it during the Going Ape Again event and it is one of my favorites.

Edited September 10, 2011 by [Roman]

[+lamoracke]

well, glad to know I am a good source. Am sure we will get them replaced. Will be curious what the CO does. I would adopt the cache if she does not want to bother replacing it, but I imagine I would not be alone in that wish.

 

Hey Hypno, would help you run up there and replace them by the way. Am pretty darn tootin sure Tango does not care if we do that for his one cache. I cant speak for the other owners.

[+jellis]

I have been wanting to go to that cache since before I left WA. Every trip I have made back up there I swore I would go but something always came up. I hope it gets replaced and they find out who is doing this. The Ape cache and the ones on the John Wayne trail, Mingo, others I just recently heard about and now this. Hope someone is keeping an eye on the trio old ones in Oregon. Does someone really have a problem with GC?

Edited September 10, 2011 by jellis

[+Hypnopaedia]

I have been wanting to go to that cache since before I left WA. Every trip I have made back up there I swore I would go but something always came up. I hope it gets replaced and they find out who is doing this. The Ape cache and the ones on the John Wayne trail, Mingo, others I just recently heard about and now this. Hope someone is keeping an eye on the trio old ones in Oregon. Does someone really have a problem with GC?

 

Here's my thing, I don't think it's the same guy as Mission 9. There was a direct connection to GC for that one. This one feels different. Until GW less than 100 people had found the cache. I think it's someone different. There are two PMOC on the trail that were stolen, it's not to crazy to consider asking the CO's to check the audit logs. Maybe publish them, I don't believe there is anything in the T&C restricting that. I'm sure I'll get corrected if I'm incorrect on that and I'm sure I'll get attacked even for the suggestion. But at the end of the day, if there is someone on the list who has committed geocide or is someone who is suspected to have done similar things then we may gain important information that our community can run with. This is just a thought.

[jholly]

Audit logs are a poor way of finding out who looked at the cache. PQ's are not included in the audit logs, as is smartphone queries. The Audit logs only show who went there via a browser. Too many holes to use it for any real "evidence".

[+Hypnopaedia]

Audit logs are a poor way of finding out who looked at the cache. PQ's are not included in the audit logs, as is smartphone queries. The Audit logs only show who went there via a browser. Too many holes to use it for any real "evidence".

 

1 piece of circumstantial evidence is poor. Combine it with a few more pieces and it becomes more valuable. Assuming the thief was smart, you are correct. However, if you posit that the thief may not be smart, then an audit log may lead to quite informative information.

[Mr.Yuck]

Audit logs are a poor way of finding out who looked at the cache. PQ's are not included in the audit logs, as is smartphone queries. The Audit logs only show who went there via a browser. Too many holes to use it for any real "evidence".

 

1 piece of circumstantial evidence is poor. Combine it with a few more pieces and it becomes more valuable. Assuming the thief was smart, you are correct. However, if you posit that the thief may not be smart, then an audit log may lead to quite informative information.

 

Add text message inquiries as a way to get MOC coordinates without visiting a cache page. And you can do it on ANY cell phone, even if it's not tied to a Geocaching.com account for field notes. I think it would be a horrific injustice if someone was accused of these thefts due to audit logs.

[4wheelin_fool]

Audit logs are a poor way of finding out who looked at the cache. PQ's are not included in the audit logs, as is smartphone queries. The Audit logs only show who went there via a browser. Too many holes to use it for any real "evidence".

 

1 piece of circumstantial evidence is poor. Combine it with a few more pieces and it becomes more valuable. Assuming the thief was smart, you are correct. However, if you posit that the thief may not be smart, then an audit log may lead to quite informative information.

 

Add text message inquiries as a way to get MOC coordinates without visiting a cache page. And you can do it on ANY cell phone, even if it's not tied to a Geocaching.com account for field notes. I think it would be a horrific injustice if someone was accused of these thefts due to audit logs.

 

I am aware of a cacher with OCD who liked a certain cache, and was accused of it being missing because of the number of views. The MO designation may help prevent theft, but the audit logs are a lousy tool to catch someone.

[+power69]

Does someone really have a problem with GC?

The more people rant on stolen caches, the more the theif feeds on it.

[+power69]

Audit logs are a poor way of finding out who looked at the cache. PQ's are not included in the audit logs, as is smartphone queries. The Audit logs only show who went there via a browser. Too many holes to use it for any real "evidence".

 

1 piece of circumstantial evidence is poor. Combine it with a few more pieces and it becomes more valuable. Assuming the thief was smart, you are correct. However, if you posit that the thief may not be smart, then an audit log may lead to quite informative information.

 

Add text message inquiries as a way to get MOC coordinates without visiting a cache page. And you can do it on ANY cell phone, even if it's not tied to a Geocaching.com account for field notes. I think it would be a horrific injustice if someone was accused of these thefts due to audit logs.

 

I am aware of a cacher with OCD who liked a certain cache, and was accused of it being missing because of the number of views. The MO designation may help prevent theft, but the audit logs are a lousy tool to catch someone.

doesn't prevent theft, only makes em have to cough up $10.

[+skraeling]

Does someone really have a problem with GC?

The more people rant on stolen caches, the more the theif feeds on it.

 

its a lose/lose no matter how you slice it up. Whether the maggot "feeds" on the forum / cache log postings or not, the cache is still gone and they have gotten their desired result. Here in the greater Phoenix area, we have a running problem with a cache maggot for the past few years now - nothing posted in forums, caches quietly replaced... only to be stolen by the same maggot again and again.

 

Ignore them - doesnt work.

Actively seek them out and show them the error of their ways - While this may work, frowned on for a whole bunch of reasons.

 

End result? They win. or to put it another way, we keep playing by the rules while they are using gorilla warfare. Guess who will keep losing.

[+DanOCan]

Sad to hear this. One of the great things about GCD was how it was both the original container and logbook after all these years.

[+baloo&bd]

Stolen indicates intent. Sure seems like a jump from missing (several innocent ways this could happen) and stolen. Jumping to these types of conclusions is one of the best arguments against PMOC and audit logs, and in this case, even those "tools" were not available..

[+lamoracke]

baloo, I think its pretty obvious these caches were deliberately taken, hence stolen. All the caches on the Ape trail were stolen not long ago and all of these were taken in a span of a few days and they are extremely remote and some not obvious to see. Someone with geocaching knowledge took them, pure and simple. Whether its the same culprit, I make no attempt to show any evidence of that. There are no possible innocent explanations for this given the cache owners were not giving anyone's permission to take them. Hence, stolen, on purpose. What reason can you think of for an entire hiking trail of an elevation gain of over 1600 feet and over 3 miles round trip with many decent sized containers be innocent? Motive? That I do not know. How can an entire system of caches before removed on accident and not done by intent?

 

However, all the references to identifying the culprit based on the audit log seems like a needle in a haystack to me....and I would hate to be a needle wrongly accused. Besides, with pocket queries, sock puppet accounts...there are many ways to get coordinates of a cache without ever touching the cache page.

Edited September 11, 2011 by lamoracke

[+rakis2]

Interesting, there are at least 2 other very RECENT vintage caches that disappeared soon after they were put out on FS RD 9020, which just happens to intersect the John WayneTr. Whoever this misguided idiot is, he seems focussed on the Snoq Pass area. Maybe its time to put GPS tracking devices in some caches out that way...

The hunter becomes the hunted...

[+Hypnopaedia]

Interesting, there are at least 2 other very RECENT vintage caches that disappeared soon after they were put out on FS RD 9020, which just happens to intersect the John WayneTr. Whoever this misguided idiot is, he seems focussed on the Snoq Pass area. Maybe its time to put GPS tracking devices in some caches out that way...

The hunter becomes the hunted...

 

I apologize if I'm being dense and obtuse, but what is a "very RECENT vintage cache"? And what do you mean by "soon after they were put out"?

 

It seems like you are talking about old caches, but are descibing them as "RECENT" and "soon after", which makes it seem like they are new.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Hypnopaedia

[+rakis2]

Sorry, the "vintage" was typo. More specifically GC321MX and GC3076N, put out on 8/11 and 8/14 of this year disappeared almost immediately. Both were on an access road to John Wayne Tr

[+Sol seaker]

This is obviously some very sad individual who has so much pain inside that their only joy in life is to lash out at others. It is very sad that such people don't get help.

 

Yet, I guess I'd rather he be out stealing geocaches than being the next serial killer.

 

I was fortunate to find all of those caches this summer. I would be happy to be a part of a group putting them back. I can help with containers.

[+EraSeek]

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.

[+SwineFlew]

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.

 

Well said. That what was on my mind all along. I will tell people not to setup traps to catch him since its against the stalking guideline. Ignoring it and replacing it very quiet is the best way to do it. The less fuel you use, the better.

[+Hypnopaedia]

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.

 

So, just for the record, I am a firm believer in quickly and always replacing the caches as many times as possible. In fact, when I went up to place Mission 9: Tunnel of Light Reclaimed with a team of volunteers (half of whom I had never met before) I replaced 5 of the other caches that had been stolen by, most likely, the APE thief. I already had all the CO's permission and wanted to get them replaced before the block party weekend.

 

I mention this only to show that someone can have more then one response to a situation. This time that means first putting together a group (or doing it alone if necessary) and getting as many of those caches replaced (With CO Permission) as possible, in fact, it looks to be in the works already.

 

But, that doesn't mean other options should not be considered in addition. I would never call out a cacher in the forums. I was merely pondering the idea of publishing the raw Audit Data. And even that was just a thought.

 

I will always try and discuss and attempt to find an active mitigation to this problem, even if one does not immediately seem obvious. Otherwise, I would feel like I'd given in to these type of people.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Hypnopaedia

[+lamoracke]

What EraSeek said was very true, however, there is one problem with doing this with GCD, the CO. This person has not logged in for over a month. I have tried to email but no luck so far. To just officially replace the cache and do find logs on it, it just seems a bit wrong to me if the CO is not on board. A cache needs a CO.

 

If the CO does not either allow a replacement, or allow someone to adopt it, in a decent amount of time, how many would sadly agree the cache should be archived? (not that I would want this).

 

I mean, the cache is not even disabled (course, it does have an unauthorized replacement there at the moment, I was hoping the CO would have been more active to address that).

[+lamoracke]

does anyone know the CO at all? Only has 4 finds, one of which is GCD itself (probably found it and then adopted it as this person is not the creator of the cache given the dates), so its possible no one knows them.

[+briansnat]

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.

 

The cache thief in the Adirondacks was reported to the police and arrested and prosecuted.

 

In Germany a "trap" caught a chronic thief and led to the end of his cache theft career.

Edited September 13, 2011 by briansnat

[+Hypnopaedia]

does anyone know the CO at all? Only has 4 finds, one of which is GCD itself (probably found it and then adopted it as this person is not the creator of the cache given the dates), so its possible no one knows them.

 

I'm 99% sure it's a Sock Puppet. I think I've even e-mailed them before.

 

*Intermission*

 

Yup. A.J. and I exchanged E-mails in late June. I quote "I don't have any plans to archive the cache." I would expect we will hear from the C.O. soon enough.

 

Even if we don't, there is no reason a (More permanent) replacement couldn't be placed. The last known wishes of the CO is for the cache to go on. We aren't moving any container, or removing anything.

[+Hypnopaedia]

If the CO does not either allow a replacement, or allow someone to adopt it, in a decent amount of time, how many would sadly agree the cache should be archived? (not that I would want this).

 

With all due respect, I do not. As much as I am hesitant to do something without clear instructions from the CO, my last e-mail with the CO gave me the indication that he wanted it to keep going. In my mind, when combined with the age and history of the cache, that somewhat justifies it for me.

[+Sol seaker]

If the CO does not either allow a replacement, or allow someone to adopt it, in a decent amount of time, how many would sadly agree the cache should be archived? (not that I would want this).

 

With all due respect, I do not. As much as I am hesitant to do something without clear instructions from the CO, my last e-mail with the CO gave me the indication that he wanted it to keep going. In my mind, when combined with the age and history of the cache, that somewhat justifies it for me.

 

I'm with Hypnopaedia on this one.

 

It is commonplace for people around here to replace cache containers when the container is muggled.

Often it is done by people who are not the CO. If the person has found the cache before and knows where it belongs, it is not a "throw down".

 

This is not the ape cache that had the policy of archiving caches that were stolen. The ape caches are the only caches I know of that have that policy. Other caches routinely have their containers replaced when they are taken, either by the CO, or another cacher if the CO can't be reached.

 

There's an example of another cache in my area that I put a watch on it after I found it, since it's an old cache and the owner hasn't checked in in years. When it had a few DNF's I posted on the cache page I would check it. I then found out a whole lot of people are watching that very cache for the same reason, and one person has replaced it before. Many came forward to check on it. That is a caching community.

 

We have a very strong community in this area. There's no reason why the community shouldn't replace it and continue to care for it.

[+SwineFlew]

No need to keep it on life support when its dead, pull the plug.

[Clan Riffster]

Turn in a police report and you'll just get laughed at.

For the record, I have been some flavor of law enforcement since 1982. I have never laughed at the victim of a theft. Of the hundreds of cops I know personally, I can't think of a single one who has ever laughed at a theft victim. I don't suppose you have any references you could cite for this rather insulting claim? I suppose that, depending on how an officer interprets their state's particular theft statute, they might tell you that your complaint doesn't meet the elements of the offense, and/or they might tell you that there is practically no chance of catching the perpatrator, but I seriously doubt that they would laugh at you. If they do, ask for a business card and contact me. I'll guide you through the process of making sure they never laugh at another victim, while acting as a public serrvant.

 

Setting a trap will just get you in trouble.

If your idea of "trap" involves punji sticks, you may be right.

But what if your definition of "trap" was to place a few game cameras?

Not sure how capturing an image of an individual committing a crime in a public place would get you in trouble.

[+B+L]

The owner of this cache last logged in yesterday, yet people are talking about replacing the cache on their own. What makes anyone think they have the right to do that?

[+SwineFlew]

The owner of this cache last logged in yesterday, yet people are talking about replacing the cache on their own. What makes anyone think they have the right to do that?

 

Because its the oldest cache of Washington and people dont want to move on.

[+SwineFlew]

Turn in a police report and you'll just get laughed at.

For the record, I have been some flavor of law enforcement since 1982. I have never laughed at the victim of a theft. Of the hundreds of cops I know personally, I can't think of a single one who has ever laughed at a theft victim. I don't suppose you have any references you could cite for this rather insulting claim? I suppose that, depending on how an officer interprets their state's particular theft statute, they might tell you that your complaint doesn't meet the elements of the offense, and/or they might tell you that there is practically no chance of catching the perpatrator, but I seriously doubt that they would laugh at you. If they do, ask for a business card and contact me. I'll guide you through the process of making sure they never laugh at another victim, while acting as a public serrvant.

 

Setting a trap will just get you in trouble.

If your idea of "trap" involves punji sticks, you may be right.

But what if your definition of "trap" was to place a few game cameras?

Not sure how capturing an image of an individual committing a crime in a public place would get you in trouble.

 

Coming from a cop like yourself is laughable. Conflict of interest at best.

[+lamoracke]

well, at least I see the CO logged on yesterday, that is something....

[+B+L]

The owner of this cache last logged in yesterday, yet people are talking about replacing the cache on their own. What makes anyone think they have the right to do that?

Because its the oldest cache of Washington and people dont want to move on.

I'm sure everyone feels the same way, but my question still stands.

[Clan Riffster]

Turn in a police report and you'll just get laughed at.

For the record, I have been some flavor of law enforcement since 1982. I have never laughed at the victim of a theft. Of the hundreds of cops I know personally, I can't think of a single one who has ever laughed at a theft victim. I don't suppose you have any references you could cite for this rather insulting claim? I suppose that, depending on how an officer interprets their state's particular theft statute, they might tell you that your complaint doesn't meet the elements of the offense, and/or they might tell you that there is practically no chance of catching the perpatrator, but I seriously doubt that they would laugh at you. If they do, ask for a business card and contact me. I'll guide you through the process of making sure they never laugh at another victim, while acting as a public serrvant.

 

Setting a trap will just get you in trouble.

If your idea of "trap" involves punji sticks, you may be right.

But what if your definition of "trap" was to place a few game cameras?

Not sure how capturing an image of an individual committing a crime in a public place would get you in trouble.

 

Coming from a cop like yourself is laughable. Conflict of interest at best.

Not sure I follow you. Are you suggesting that police officers should not take action against those within their own ranks who are doing wrong? Wouldn't that be perpetuating the (sometimes true though always despicable) theory that cops are crooks who avoid the consequences of their actions because they won't "rat" each other out? Which interest is conflicted?

 

Or is your "laughable" comment directed toward utilizing game cameras on public lands, where the Supreme Court has ruled the average person has no expectation of privacy? Again, I'm not sure which of my interests would be conflicted by such a statement.

 

Could you clarify?

[Clan Riffster]

The owner of this cache last logged in yesterday, yet people are talking about replacing the cache on their own. What makes anyone think they have the right to do that?

Because its the oldest cache of Washington and people dont want to move on.

I'm sure everyone feels the same way, but my question still stands.

Your question was answered. For many players, an "antique" cache is somehow more valuable than a new cache. When one of these relics goes missing, many members of our community feel the need for immediate action to keep it from being archived. These feelings often run so deep that these folks are willing to set aside the common mores that guide them day to day, including the axiom of letting the issue be resolved between the owner and Groundspeak.

 

Ergo, they feel, justly or not, that they have a "right" to take action.

[+B+L]

Your question was answered. For many players, an "antique" cache is somehow more valuable than a new cache. When one of these relics goes missing, many members of our community feel the need for immediate action to keep it from being archived. These feelings often run so deep that these folks are willing to set aside the common mores that guide them day to day, including the axiom of letting the issue be resolved between the owner and Groundspeak.

 

Ergo, they feel, justly or not, that they have a "right" to take action.

I understand what is motivating people, but that's not what I am asking. This is not a cache owned by someone who last logged in 10 years ago and then disappeared. The owner logged in yesterday, yet people are saying this cache (and the other 5 on the Mt. Margaret trail) must be replaced, even if it is against the owner's wishes.

 

The other 5 missing caches are nothing particularly special, they were all added by people on their way to GCD. The majority of them within the past year.

 

File this under Situational Ethics.

[Clan Riffster]

I understand what is motivating people, but that's not what I am asking.

You asked, "What makes anyone think they have the right to do that?"

I'm not advocating their solution to the perceived problem, I'm only telling you what makes them think they have the right. Had this cache belonged to an absentee owner, I could almost, maybe, accept folks replacing it, as a bit of community maintenance. But, like you, I recognize that the owner is still alive and well, and active on this site, therefor their wishes are paramount. If the owner wants Joe Schmoe replacing it, I have no problem with that. If the owner wants to replace it himself, I have no problem with that. Heck, if the owner decides this one has been out long enough and wants to archive it, I'd be OK with that as well.

 

Situational Ethics.

Exactly.

[Mr.Yuck]

does anyone know the CO at all? Only has 4 finds, one of which is GCD itself (probably found it and then adopted it as this person is not the creator of the cache given the dates), so its possible no one knows them.

 

I'm 99% sure it's a Sock Puppet. I think I've even e-mailed them before.

 

*Intermission*

 

Yup. A.J. and I exchanged E-mails in late June. I quote "I don't have any plans to archive the cache." I would expect we will hear from the C.O. soon enough.

 

Even if we don't, there is no reason a (More permanent) replacement couldn't be placed. The last known wishes of the CO is for the cache to go on. We aren't moving any container, or removing anything.

 

What's this sock puppet stuff? It's quite common for pioneers of the game who placed caches in 2000 to be running around all these years later with single digit hides and finds. More common than not, I'd dare say. And don't sock puppet accounts get created after someone's original account?

 

Add me to the list of not understanding people wanting to run out and replace other people's caches who just logged in yesterday. And so what if you email them all and get permission? Just seems rather pushy to me. I suppose you can call it your "strong community" if you want.

[+Hypnopaedia]

Hey folks. Relax. Please. Discussion is not action. Plans were being put in place for a possible response, a last resort perhaps. Man, I feel like when someone even suggests something on these forums as an idea or a possibility everyone flips out like it's already been done and get straight to damning and shunning them. I have sent an e-mail to the CO, who I've had a relatively recent e-mail conversation with. I am hopefully awaiting a reply.

 

My greatest wish is that some people would not be quite so reactionary. You may want to stop trying to crush the mere suggestion of discussing an idea. Not to mention any discussion of this should have been kept to the Northwest forum, and that's my fault. Mores and community rules differ greatly from one side of this country to the other, let alone worldwide.

 

How about for once trusting in the good intentions and good sense of the majority of your fellow cachers. I feel like, as a newer cacher, I've done quite a bit to prove my commitment to the local community in my own way. I gave an example earlier. I don't go off half cocked.

[+lamoracke]

Personally, if I had a cache in a very remote area that is a long hike and long drive to get to, and its a cool spot that most folks would want to keep, I would welcome the suggestion that someone would replace my cache for me. Do not know what the CO wants yet though.

[+B+L]

My greatest wish is that some people would not be quite so reactionary.

Questioning is hardly damning or shunning. And no one is questioning your intentions, which I think everyone recognizes as good. All anyone has to go on is the what you and others have said in this thread. Someone does not log in for a month and suddenly we are parsing their "last wishes". That seems a little hasty. I'm sure AJ will make his actual wishes known soon enough.

[+tango501]

I would be more than happy for anyone to replace this container. Small L&L. GC2CYXZ

 

My 2 cents worth on replacing somebody elses cache container without permission.

It pisses me off. This has happened to a few of mine when the supposed finder

couldnt find and assumed it was missing. Having 2 containers at GZ now poses a

problem. Ask for permission first, most COs would probably be very happy-I know

I would.

[+Hypnopaedia]

I would be more than happy for anyone to replace this container. Small L&L. GC2CYXZ

 

My 2 cents worth on replacing somebody elses cache container without permission.

It pisses me off. This has happened to a few of mine when the supposed finder

couldnt find and assumed it was missing. Having 2 containers at GZ now poses a

problem. Ask for permission first, most COs would probably be very happy-I know

I would.

 

Tony, you know better than anyone that I would never drop a "throw down". Never have, never will. I believe there is a distinction, albeit perhaps a fine one. I also think that distinction will most likely be moot because I have no reason to believe the CO will not address the issue him/herself.

[+EraSeek]

Turn in a police report and you'll just get laughed at.

For the record, I have been some flavor of law enforcement since 1982. I have never laughed at the victim of a theft. Of the hundreds of cops I know personally, I can't think of a single one who has ever laughed at a theft victim. I don't suppose you have any references you could cite for this rather insulting claim? I suppose that, depending on how an officer interprets their state's particular theft statute, they might tell you that your complaint doesn't meet the elements of the offense, and/or they might tell you that there is practically no chance of catching the perpatrator, but I seriously doubt that they would laugh at you. If they do, ask for a business card and contact me. I'll guide you through the process of making sure they never laugh at another victim, while acting as a public serrvant.

 

Setting a trap will just get you in trouble.

If your idea of "trap" involves punji sticks, you may be right.

But what if your definition of "trap" was to place a few game cameras?

Not sure how capturing an image of an individual committing a crime in a public place would get you in trouble.

Goodness, I don't know how you got that I was insulting police officers out of that! It was a statement that there would be little or no validity to claiming "theft" on a box in the woods, that's all. Nothing so literal was intended.

[+EraSeek]

I think everyone has good intentions here on the forums (other than those that are just here to argue for the "fun" of it). I'm a big fan of civility as well as freedom to explore ideas. As far as I see it, caches should not be replaced without the CO's consent. There are good reasons for that. ~In this case where a string of theft is obvious and known, perhaps it would be OK without that. Not sure yet. Still mulling that one over.

[+lamoracke]

I think everyone has good intentions here on the forums (other than those that are just here to argue for the "fun" of it). I'm a big fan of civility as well as freedom to explore ideas. As far as I see it, caches should not be replaced without the CO's consent. There are good reasons for that. ~In this case where a string of theft is obvious and known, perhaps it would be OK without that. Not sure yet. Still mulling that one over.

 

you can see why I debated whether to even put out a temporary replacement out there. Unlike Tango or Hypnopedia, I could not have simply contacted them via phone and ask if I could put a new one in their place. Tango was referencing an earlier situation where the cache was still there and not one but two people replaced one of his so he had 3 containers at one spot. That would annoy most of us.

Edited September 14, 2011 by lamoracke