"Hermit Crabbing" a Cache

[+Postholedigger]

I've recently had the opportunity to go out and look for a cache that has been archived for some time. After reading the rave reviews about the cache and seeing no other reason, aside from mentions of a full log, why the cache was disabled and archived, I decided to check it out. The container was still there. The log was indeed full. But the cache, after some maintenance, could probably still be used. The CO doesn't seem to be active anymore (nor are any of his/her caches). I tried emailing the owner and haven't heard back.

 

I understand that the process of transferring ownership of an active or archived listing can only be initiated by the CO. However, in this case, is it permissible to "adopt" or "hermit crab" an abandoned cache by creating a new listing at the same exact location, using the same container?

 

For the record, I wouldn't try to pass the recycled idea and container off as my own. I would probably set it up as an IHO or tribute cache to the original listing and owner and list the story of how this cache came into existence.

[+J the Goat]

I get the feeling I may be in the minority here, but I say go for it! Giving credit to the original CO (active or not) is classy and commendable, all assuming the spot is a good one. I really appreciate the old caches, and this sounds like it would be the next best thing.

[+Snoogans]

I've recently had the opportunity to go out and look for a cache that has been archived for some time. After reading the rave reviews about the cache and seeing no other reason, aside from mentions of a full log, why the cache was disabled and archived, I decided to check it out. The container was still there. The log was indeed full. But the cache, after some maintenance, could probably still be used. The CO doesn't seem to be active anymore (nor are any of his/her caches). I tried emailing the owner and haven't heard back.

 

I understand that the process of transferring ownership of an active or archived listing can only be initiated by the CO. However, in this case, is it permissible to "adopt" or "hermit crab" an abandoned cache by creating a new listing at the same exact location, using the same container?

 

For the record, I wouldn't try to pass the recycled idea and container off as my own. I would probably set it up as an IHO or tribute cache to the original listing and owner and list the story of how this cache came into existence.

 

Sensitive territory.

 

If the cache is some unique elaborate hide just leave it alone.

 

Otherwise, put your own container there and save the other one for the owner.

 

The co abandoned the location so IMO it's yours to claim.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Snoogans

[+L0ne.R]

I've recently had the opportunity to go out and look for a cache that has been archived for some time. After reading the rave reviews about the cache and seeing no other reason, aside from mentions of a full log, why the cache was disabled and archived, I decided to check it out. The container was still there. The log was indeed full. But the cache, after some maintenance, could probably still be used. The CO doesn't seem to be active anymore (nor are any of his/her caches). I tried emailing the owner and haven't heard back.

I understand that the process of transferring ownership of an active or archived listing can only be initiated by the CO. However, in this case, is it permissible to "adopt" or "hermit crab" an abandoned cache by creating a new listing at the same exact location, using the same container?

 

For the record, I wouldn't try to pass the recycled idea and container off as my own. I would probably set it up as an IHO or tribute cache to the original listing and owner and list the story of how this cache came into existence.

 

Can't see a problem - it's a new listing, with an active owner.That's a good thing.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Solitario R

[4wheelin_fool]

It all depends on whether the CO is active. If you send them an e-mail and they do not respond or even log into the site, I'd say it would be fine to put the container to good use, rather than leave it as garbage. Just make sure it is not listed anywhere else.

[+Snoogans]

BTW I was involved in an involuntary adoption that may have led to the CO permission for adoption guideline.

 

It was the second oldest cache in the Houston area and I was asked by the approver (they were approvers in the olden days) to rescue the 3 digit cache from an impending archival. A couple years later the owner cried foul and wanted their cache back. Their cache had been replaced by 9Key then stolen ransomed by pirates and quietly replaced by me twice over the years. I archived the listing and pulled MY container. After more than 6 months of them not reclaiming THEIR location with a new hide or unarchiving the old one, I put my own cache back and started a new listing. Ya snooze, ya loose.

[+Snoogans]

Just make sure it is not listed anywhere else.

 

Yep. That too. There's more than one lane on the geocaching highway.... Of course, all the other lanes are pedestrian lanes, but some folks would rather walk than ride.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Ther was a cache nearby that was archived. Someone hid a new cache at the same location, with the old cache inside. Some people are logging both caches.

[+niraD]

Technically, the cache itself is property of the original CO, and the cache description is intellectual property of the original CO. When a local puzzle cacher committed geocide, several people tried to keep his puzzle caches alive. They couldn't adopt the caches because the CO was no longer responding. The reviewers also didn't want them reusing the CO's caches; they had to replace the CO's containers, logs, and camouflage. The reviewers also didn't want them violating the CO's IP rights by copying the cache descriptions wholesale, although I'm not sure how that issue was finally resolved. But some of his puzzles were resubmitted with new owners, new containers, new GCxxxxx codes, etc.

[Trinity's Crew]

Is it this cache? God NO!!!!!

Just kidding. Go for it.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Trinity's Crew

[+lamoracke]

there was an ammo can in one of my favorite parks. The CO archived the cache, effectively abandoning the cache. I emailed the CO if they were going to take the ammo can, but never got a response. So, I took the ammo can home, cleaned it out, put new swag and re-hid it in the park about 80 feet away, though not the same spot. Eventually it got stolen, but I saw no reason to not recycle the container if the owner does not seem to want it.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Ther was a cache nearby that was archived. Someone hid a new cache at the same location, with the old cache inside. Some people are logging both caches.

 

I was going to suggest this. Not to often you get 2 smilies for the price of 1. We have a cache like this here (one active, one archived) with one container inside the other. It was alot of fun finding them!!!!

Edited March 1, 2012 by The_Incredibles_

[+Sky King 36]

Co-opting an existing container is always a judgment call. I think the more involved in the local caching community, and the longer you've been involved, the easier this call is to make.

 

I absolutely understand why GS doesn't provide for forced adoptions. For so many reasons, that makes perfect sense. The cache is someone's private property and GS doesn't want to get involved in property disputes... It is a slippery slope that would ultimately lead to GS having some element of legal liability for damage a cache, or cacher may cause. Much safer to say "we aren't involved in ANY way other than simply listing the cache."

 

Here's the other side of the judgment call, assuming the cache is not on the cacher's private property. If a cache is on public property, or hidden in "quasi-public" property where the owner's permission wasn't sought... Which is probably 90% of all caches... No hider is ever really "entitled" to have a protected cache there. To anyone outside of geocaching, the cache is just trash that can simply be picked up and thrown away with a clear conscience. What citizen is not well within their rights to do so? We hide caches fully accepting that this is the case, it is just part of the game. Since my fellow cachers didn't sign a "waiver of their rights as citizens" to become cachers, the same really applies to them as well. We all share in a gentleperson's agreement to protect each other's caches, but in most cases, a hider isn't really "entitled" to claim the cache they left in a park as their protectable private property.

 

My point being that while we all share a community interest in preserving each other's caches, it would be pretty disingenuous for a long-gone cacher to exert some claim that re-purposing their abandoned cache is morally equivalent to theft. Quite the contrary, re-purposing is often the "highest calling" of the cache they left behind.

 

You just have to use YOUR own best judgement about the cache, the hider, the circumstances, and make the best decision you can. The same is true for trying to decide whether to pick up, or leave, an archived cache you come across.

 

And one more thought edited in: You also have to weigh the community value of the cache. A well known cache from 2001 may well be worth trying very hard to contact the owner, in an attempt to get an adoption going and preserve the original cache listing. Barring that, it may still be "nostalgic" to re-use the existing container in the same hide, but in a new listing. The upshot to that is that it gives everyone an incentive to revisit an old spot they may have been to years before. And, if it is a recent cache in a dreadfully boring spot, it may be a better "honor" to the legacy container to re-purpose it elsewhere, in a more interesting spot.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Sky King 36

[AZcachemeister]

It would be kind of weird, but I like the 'old cache in a new cache' idea. If the 'old cache' owner wants his cache back, he can come and get it.

 

Sky King 36 has made some very astute observations as well. If you're not taking care of your cache, how can you show up three years later and claim FOUL?

[+KI4HLW]

1 second, got to put on my flame retardant suit before I type this..... OK here we go.

 

As the Cache is Archived that is no longer a Geocache, just garbage, so I would follow CITO rules and throw it away.

 

Now since there is no cache there I would look around for a suitable cache container... look hard, and think about recycling... look in the trash again because I think a suitable container may be in there right on top.

 

So you have saved the environment, twice. Once by throwing away litter, once by recycling trash into a useable object.

 

P.S. Always nice to note an old cache was once in the same location.

[+Corfman Clan]

I actually relisted a cache that had been archived. I was able to contact the original CO and he was happy for me to relist it. The cache is, what a view!. I tried to make the listing as close to the same as the original. I used the original placed date, placed by name, and description. I did put the description in italics and added some additional informationa and a link back to the original cache listing. I also updated the coordinates and adjusted the terrain rating.

[+Sol seaker]

1 second, got to put on my flame retardant suit before I type this..... OK here we go.

 

As the Cache is Archived that is no longer a Geocache, just garbage, so I would follow CITO rules and throw it away.

 

Now since there is no cache there I would look around for a suitable cache container... look hard, and think about recycling... look in the trash again because I think a suitable container may be in there right on top.

 

So you have saved the environment, twice. Once by throwing away litter, once by recycling trash into a useable object.

 

P.S. Always nice to note an old cache was once in the same location.

 

 

I was going to say something similar to this, but you said it so much better. :laughing: :laughing:

 

If it's not an active game piece, then it's trash.

Try your best to contact the old cache owner to give back what really belongs to him. If you've made an honest effort, then it's just garbage.

 

If he shows up one day though and wants it back, be prepared to give it to him, unless of course it's been muggled and replaced like in Snoogans case. Then I'd say it's yours.

But if he showed up and wanted your dirty old tupperware that was in the same place his dirty old tupperware used to be, I'd say give him that too. What the heck. The few bucks is not worth the hassle.

[+Postholedigger]

Thanks, guys. I appreciate the input. I'll take all that advice into consideration. I still may choose not to revive this cache, but if I do, I would most certainly be open to "returning" the cache to the previous owner and let them adopt it if they decide they want it back. I'm not really into being a cache owner yet, so rabidly fighting to retain a cache is not a road I would go down.

 

Thanks again, everyone.