To whom do I suggest that a dangerous cache be removed.

[+rooboy]

I came across what I consider a dangerous cache today (see my did not find entry in the Dutch Hollow Cache [waypoint: GC83FC]).

 

I have indicated that I think that this cache is too dangerous, and I have emailed the cache owner suggesting that they remove the cache.

 

Why do I think that this cache is dangerious? The number of bullet holes in various metal pieces tells me that this location is often used illegially for target practice. And if I entered the cache coords correctly, the cache is just 400 feet south of this target practice area.

 

Ciao

RooBoy

[+Renegade Knight]

Your log is fine, the cache is fine. If guys with AR-15's don't do much for you leaving was the right thing to do. You can come back again when people who can read are in the area.

 

By any chance did you report them so they can get a friendly reminder that "No Shooting" here includes them?

 

However if you really and truly feel that the cache is just to much of a danger to exist use the "This cache should be archived" feature. It can be found under "Log your visit" in the pull down log type.

[+smithdw]

There are quite a few caches that are near ( <1000 feet) areas where people go out to shoot up trash that others have left in our area. I wouldn't worry about it. I don't know about your area, but around here people can and have used many areas for target shooting, even if there aren't old cars/appliances/etc in the area. I'd just re-visit the cache when no one else is around.

 

"The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec/sec."

-Marcus Dolengo

[+Wadcutter]

I think this one (GC6DC7) and this one (GCGHP7) are too dangerous. Others disagree. If you think a cache is too dangerous, the easiest solution is then don't go there.

[+mtn-man]

RooBoy, as Renegade Knight says, the cache is fine and your log is fine. I agree that you should have reported them though. I would have called the DNR or the Forest Service or somebody. I would have just turned around and left.

 

Wadcutter, both of the cache placements you suggested are also fine. Both are rated as high level caches as they should be. Anyone who wants to attempt them will know they are extremely difficult. The definition of a high level difficulty/terrain cache is that you will need special equipment. The GC6DC7 cache can even be done without special equipment (free climbing) but is just dangerous. As long as they are properly rated and there is a legal way to get to the cache then they can stay on the site. The second one needs to be archived though since it looks like the finder took the cache with him. I have sent him an email.

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mtn-man:

As long as they are properly rated and there is a legal way to get to the cache then they can stay on the site.

---

 

Some day, some one will get seriously injured or killed attempting a cache that involved serious risk. Shortly thereafter, we will learn precisely how little protection the disclaimer on this site provides the cache owner, the website owner and the individual who approved the cache.

[+rooboy]

Thanks for everybodys input. I did not report anyone yesterday because it was not a situation I could control. But I will make some calls (fax stuff) to the appropriate authorities tomorrow. And as I was leaving, I did take some photos of the alleged offenders car (license plates etc...) [i saw both men get out of this car].

 

I feel that I was in control of yesterdays situation. I saw the location and direction of the live fire and decided that being 400 feet down range of this was not a good idea, no matter how many trees were between us and the guns. I suppose my concern is what would happen if the order of events were switched--geocacher at cache location and then someone comes down for a little target practice. Also from looking at a map, it appears that there is another entrance to the this park.

 

Ciao

RooBoy