Does this just eat at you?

[+K13]

Try this one:

 

Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

 

The combined experience of many seasoned cachers has shown that the stance of GC and its reviewers is as follows:

A nail will damage or deface a tree, therefore it is against the guideline.

 

When you ask your reviewer if the cache you plan to hide is nailed to a tree, please copy the reply here. We all want to see how they explain it to you.

[+IslandsAndOcean]

Yeah I get that, but where is the written rule about perception of landowners, that you continue to reference yet provide to link or copy and paste. Can you back up what you are saying with proof?

 

Oh, for cryin' out loud! Take me up on my challenge or stop this futile arguing!

 

All I'm asking for is a link or for you to copy and paste the rule you are referring too.

 

Sigh...

 

Hello. As a Land Manager, I can assure you that we do not allow geocaches that alter the environment in which they are placed. This means no nails, carriage bolts, eye loops, etc should be put in a tree, bush or rock. We also require that no geocaches be placed in the ground. Geocaches are also reviewed on a case-by-case basis for permissions and location. We do not want caches disturbing sensitive natural areas, animal or plant species in the hide or hunt portion of geocaching.

 

I was introduced to this Land Management process with input from the local Reviewer and Groundspeak. I also handle each cache submission in regards to specific rules, regulations, and laws that affect the lands we manage.

 

I can assure you, at least for my jurisdiction, that the guidelines provided by Groundspeak are broad enough for interpretation, while being specific enough to address Land Manager concerns. Placing nails, as you have mentioned, in a tree to assist in the placement of a geocache is not allowed in our case. As I can tell from the input of others, and my knowledge of the game of geocaching elsewhere, many Reviewers will not allow those types of caches without specific, written, explicit permissions from authorized managers.

[+IslandsAndOcean]

Try this one:

 

Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

 

The combined experience of many seasoned cachers has shown that the stance of GC and its reviewers is as follows:

A nail will damage or deface a tree, therefore it is against the guideline.

 

When you ask your reviewer if the cache you plan to hide is nailed to a tree, please copy the reply here. We all want to see how they explain it to you.

Thank you for posting this clearly, and with citations.

 

The other standpoint is that, when an item is left--intentionally or unintentionally--on lands, it can send a message to others that it might be ok to follow suit. At the USFWS, we weigh every option and outcome before even placing seemingly simple items such as bird feeders, bird houses, etc. We don't want folks to just head out and place items on Refuges or around Administrative grounds simply because they saw it previously. We are very deliberate with the land management decisions we make on a day-to-day basis.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Yeah I get that, but where is the written rule about perception of landowners, that you continue to reference yet provide to link or copy and paste. Can you back up what you are saying with proof?

 

Oh, for cryin' out loud! Take me up on my challenge or stop this futile arguing!

Take it from me. I have it on good authority that at least 1 Land Manager has been instructed to not allow geocaching user-installed "attachment devices" such as nails in trees.

 

 

I did a google search using: nails goecaching policy and here are just a few of the policies, drafted by land managers which forbid the use of nails in trees. These few examples (I'm sure that you could find a lot more if you searched for them) demonstrate that land managers due have a perception about nails in trees to the point that the specifically forbid it.

 

Here's an example of a geocaching policy from a county parks department which specifically forbids using a nail in a tree for the placement of a cache:

 

"Cache locations must be naturally occurring hiding spots. There can be no trees cut, pruned or have things attached to them with nails, screws or other fasteners; holes dug; vegetation removed or planted; nor new items brought in such as sculptures, boxes, etc"

 

http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/parks_recreation/activities/geocache%20policy.html

 

Here's another:

 

When placing a cache, do not disturb the surrounding environment in any way. This includes digging holes, cutting vegetation, or attaching the cache to live trees in a detrimental way. Example, no nails in live trees.

 

http://www.vi.deforest.wi.us/vertical/sites/%7B5DDB5418-8268-440C-BD18-45CB7768531A%7D/uploads/Geocaching_Policy.pdf

 

And another:

 

Be careful to not disturb the surrounding environment in any way when placing a cache, including digging holes, cutting of vegetation, or attaching a cache to a tree in a manor that may harm the tree. Example, no nails in live trees.

 

http://www.jeffersoncountywi.gov/jc/public/jchome.php?page_id=1777

 

And finally, this one from a town parks and recreation department, has the following preface:

 

"A few park systems have experienced problems with geocaching activities. People have placed caches in dangerous or sensitive locations, buried them, or hunted them during times when parks are closed to the public. To avoid future problems, the City of Worthington has created the following geocaching policy:"

 

"Cache locations must be naturally occurring hiding spots. It is not permissible to have trees cut, pruned or have things attached to them with nails, screws or other fasteners;..."

 

http://www.worthington.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=467

[+jellis]

We did multiple times. You just don't want to read it.

[AZcachemeister]

I went on a hike the other day in a national forest along a well marked trail. Guess how the forest service marked the trail. They nailed the trail markers into live trees, and it wasn't just one or two. In fact I would guess most back country trail markers are attached to live tree with a nail.

 

And sometimes they even completely chop down a few trees.

How long do you think you would get away with that?

[+Totem Clan]

I went on a hike the other day in a national forest along a well marked trail. Guess how the forest service marked the trail. They nailed the trail markers into their live trees, which they own, and it wasn't just one or two. In fact I would guess most back country trail markers are attached to live tree with a nail by the people that own and manage that land.

There. I fixed it for you.

[+snow_rules]

Actually with the right permit chopping down trees can be done all the time! Ever hear of firewood?

[+Totem Clan]

Actually with the right permit chopping down trees can be done all the time! Ever hear of firewood?

Well guess what. With the right permit (read premission) you can use a nail to secure your cache.

[+snow_rules]

I went on a hike the other day in a national forest along a well marked trail. Guess how the forest service marked the trail. They nailed the trail markers into their live trees, which they own, and it wasn't just one or two. In fact I would guess most back country trail markers are attached to live tree with a nail by the people that own and manage that land.

There. I fixed it for you.

 

Actually we own the the forest since they are our federal lands. Forest service worker are paid with federal funds which are collected from taxes we pay. They may manage them but they don't own them (at least in the U.S.A.) unless it is a private preserve.

Edited December 13, 2012 by snow_rules

[+Totem Clan]

I went on a hike the other day in a national forest along a well marked trail. Guess how the forest service marked the trail. They nailed the trail markers into their live trees, which they own, and it wasn't just one or two. In fact I would guess most back country trail markers are attached to live tree with a nail by the people that own and manage that land.

There. I fixed it for you.

 

Actually we own the the forest since they are our federal lands. Forest service worker are paid with federal funds which are collected from taxes we pay. They may manage them but they don't own them (at least in the U.S.A.) unless it is a private preserve.

Quit trolling. You konw EXACTLY what that meant. If you say you didn't then you are only showing how dumb you are.

[AZcachemeister]

Yeah I get that, but where is the written rule about perception of landowners, that you continue to reference yet provide to link or copy and paste. Can you back up what you are saying with proof?

 

Oh, for cryin' out loud! Take me up on my challenge or stop this futile arguing!

 

All I'm asking for is a link or for you to copy and paste the rule you are referring too.

 

Sigh...

 

Hello. As a Land Manager, I can assure you that we do not allow geocaches that alter the environment in which they are placed. This means no nails, carriage bolts, eye loops, etc should be put in a tree, bush or rock. We also require that no geocaches be placed in the ground. Geocaches are also reviewed on a case-by-case basis for permissions and location. We do not want caches disturbing sensitive natural areas, animal or plant species in the hide or hunt portion of geocaching.

 

I was introduced to this Land Management process with input from the local Reviewer and Groundspeak. I also handle each cache submission in regards to specific rules, regulations, and laws that affect the lands we manage.

 

I can assure you, at least for my jurisdiction, that the guidelines provided by Groundspeak are broad enough for interpretation, while being specific enough to address Land Manager concerns. Placing nails, as you have mentioned, in a tree to assist in the placement of a geocache is not allowed in our case. As I can tell from the input of others, and my knowledge of the game of geocaching elsewhere, many Reviewers will not allow those types of caches without specific, written, explicit permissions from authorized managers.

 

And even though the guidelines don't specifically state I can't hammer a piton into a rock face to hang my cache from, it would likely be denied/archived on the same basis.

[AZcachemeister]

 

Actually we own the the forest since they are our federal lands. Forest service worker are paid with federal funds which are collected from taxes we pay. They may manage them but they don't own them (at least in the U.S.A.) unless it is a private preserve.

 

True, to a degree. But you are employing a logical fallacy.

 

Citizens own the National Forests. (good so far)

Corporations and logging companies are made up of citizens. (sure)

Therefore, the corporations and logging companies own the forests and can go cut them down anytime they like.

[knowschad]

All I'm asking for is a link or for you to copy and paste the rule you are referring too.

 

Sigh...

 

I've never had hoarse fingers before!!

[knowschad]

I went on a hike the other day in a national forest along a well marked trail. Guess how the forest service marked the trail. They nailed the trail markers into their live trees, which they own, and it wasn't just one or two. In fact I would guess most back country trail markers are attached to live tree with a nail by the people that own and manage that land.

There. I fixed it for you.

 

Actually we own the the forest since they are our federal lands. Forest service worker are paid with federal funds which are collected from taxes we pay. They may manage them but they don't own them (at least in the U.S.A.) unless it is a private preserve.

 

You answered your own question when you said that we pay them to manage them. Part of the authority we give them when we pay them to manage the forest is the authority to set and enforce policies, and those policies can allow them to do things to the trees that we, as "owners" can't do.

 

You also own the highways. Try speeding past a cop sometime. When he is writing the ticket, remind him that you are one of the owners of that road.

[+NeverSummer]

I went on a hike the other day in a national forest along a well marked trail. Guess how the forest service marked the trail. They nailed the trail markers into their live trees, which they own, and it wasn't just one or two. In fact I would guess most back country trail markers are attached to live tree with a nail by the people that own and manage that land.

There. I fixed it for you.

 

Actually we own the the forest since they are our federal lands. Forest service worker are paid with federal funds which are collected from taxes we pay. They may manage them but they don't own them (at least in the U.S.A.) unless it is a private preserve.

I can assure you, the ability to cut firewood or call federal forests "all of ours" only gets you so far. The USDA, US Forest Service is the managing authority of federal forests. Their implementation of rules and law are much deeper than your simple description. "We" own the forests, yes. But, the US Forest Service is the steward and administrator of the land and their contained resources. There are always going to be federal laws and regulations that trump our your claim that "the forests are ours, we can do as we please".

[knowschad]

Yeah I get that, but where is the written rule about perception of landowners, that you continue to reference yet provide to link or copy and paste. Can you back up what you are saying with proof?

 

Oh, for cryin' out loud! Take me up on my challenge or stop this futile arguing!

 

All I'm asking for is a link or for you to copy and paste the rule you are referring too.

 

Sigh...

 

Hello. As a Land Manager, I can assure you that we do not allow geocaches that alter the environment in which they are placed. This means no nails, carriage bolts, eye loops, etc should be put in a tree, bush or rock. We also require that no geocaches be placed in the ground. Geocaches are also reviewed on a case-by-case basis for permissions and location. We do not want caches disturbing sensitive natural areas, animal or plant species in the hide or hunt portion of geocaching.

 

I was introduced to this Land Management process with input from the local Reviewer and Groundspeak. I also handle each cache submission in regards to specific rules, regulations, and laws that affect the lands we manage.

 

I can assure you, at least for my jurisdiction, that the guidelines provided by Groundspeak are broad enough for interpretation, while being specific enough to address Land Manager concerns. Placing nails, as you have mentioned, in a tree to assist in the placement of a geocache is not allowed in our case. As I can tell from the input of others, and my knowledge of the game of geocaching elsewhere, many Reviewers will not allow those types of caches without specific, written, explicit permissions from authorized managers.

 

Thanks for stopping by and posting. I'm not sure that even your reply will satisfy some that seem to be looking for some exact wording in Groundspeak's guideline text, but at least it may be useful to have someone with an authoritative position support what we have been trying to say.

[+NeverSummer]

Yeah I get that, but where is the written rule about perception of landowners, that you continue to reference yet provide to link or copy and paste. Can you back up what you are saying with proof?

 

Oh, for cryin' out loud! Take me up on my challenge or stop this futile arguing!

 

All I'm asking for is a link or for you to copy and paste the rule you are referring too.

 

Sigh...

 

Hello. As a Land Manager, I can assure you that we do not allow geocaches that alter the environment in which they are placed. This means no nails, carriage bolts, eye loops, etc should be put in a tree, bush or rock. We also require that no geocaches be placed in the ground. Geocaches are also reviewed on a case-by-case basis for permissions and location. We do not want caches disturbing sensitive natural areas, animal or plant species in the hide or hunt portion of geocaching.

 

I was introduced to this Land Management process with input from the local Reviewer and Groundspeak. I also handle each cache submission in regards to specific rules, regulations, and laws that affect the lands we manage.

 

I can assure you, at least for my jurisdiction, that the guidelines provided by Groundspeak are broad enough for interpretation, while being specific enough to address Land Manager concerns. Placing nails, as you have mentioned, in a tree to assist in the placement of a geocache is not allowed in our case. As I can tell from the input of others, and my knowledge of the game of geocaching elsewhere, many Reviewers will not allow those types of caches without specific, written, explicit permissions from authorized managers.

 

Thanks for stopping by and posting. I'm not sure that even your reply will satisfy some that seem to be looking for some exact wording in Groundspeak's guideline text, but at least it may be useful to have someone with an authoritative position support what we have been trying to say.

It's funny, knowschad, I can remember specific times with 3 different Reviewers now in MN where this case of nailing caches to trees came up. I seem to remember it being enforced a certain way...don't you?

 

Hmmm...maybe if we wait long enough, we'll hear the echo of the answer?

[knowschad]

It's funny, knowschad, I can remember specific times with 3 different Reviewers now in MN where this case of nailing caches to trees came up. I seem to remember it being enforced a certain way...don't you?

 

Hmmm...maybe if we wait long enough, we'll hear the echo of the answer?

 

I remember when you couldn't hide any caches in Eden Prairie parks for a couple of years. And I can think of a few caches that I have seen archived with reviewer notes specifically mentioning nails in trees as the reason. If I could remember which ones, I might post links to them, but somehow I think it would be futile anyway.

[+ShaunEM]

They don't get the fave points around here.

 

In order to get those points you have to create a great cache AND follow the rules. Screw something into a tree.. you are very very very unpopular.

 

Report them... do it.

 

Shaun

[knowschad]

They don't get the fave points around here.

 

In order to get those points you have to create a great cache AND follow the rules. Screw something into a tree.. you are very very very unpopular.

 

Report them... do it.

 

Shaun

 

Not sure where you get that idea from. Favorite points only mean that a premium member enjoyed your cache. It has nothing at all to do with following rules per se.

[+Don_J]

I went on a hike the other day in a national forest along a well marked trail. Guess how the forest service marked the trail. They nailed the trail markers into their live trees, which they own, and it wasn't just one or two. In fact I would guess most back country trail markers are attached to live tree with a nail by the people that own and manage that land.

There. I fixed it for you.

 

Actually we own the the forest since they are our federal lands. Forest service worker are paid with federal funds which are collected from taxes we pay. They may manage them but they don't own them (at least in the U.S.A.) unless it is a private preserve.

 

You sound like the guy that gets pulled over for speeding and declares, "you can't give me a ticket, I pay your salary". How's that working for ya'?

[4wheelin_fool]

I'm just wondering why Keystone has not replied yet..

 

There are any number of reviewers that still read some portion of the forums. I think it's fear of being (mis)quoted seven years from now.

 

How about being misquoted five years later?

 

If I tap the maple trees on your property for syrup without asking you, would you be upset?

Or say I'm a forestry student who takes random samples from trees in your suburban neighborhood... is that OK?

"Hi, I'm a tree surgeon, and I was passing by your home and saw some drooping limbs, so I chopped them off."

"My kids like your yard better, so they built their treehouse in your oak tree. You gotta problem with that?"

 

See a pattern? It's not simply whether there is harm to the tree. It's a land manager perception issue, and an issue of amateurs not being expert enough to know when a hole is too big of a hole.

 

Permission cures the problem in my maple syrup, forester, tree surgeon and treehouse examples.

 

From a listing guidelines perspective, as opposed to a pure "save the trees" perspective, the issue is inextricably linked with permission. The guideline exists as a basis for questioning the normal assumption that adequate permission has been obtained. If a reviewer learns that an object like a tree was defaced, it is reasonable to ask whether the cache owner had permission to do this.

 

Briansnat is more concise, however.

 

It's irrelevant whether or not it harms a tree. The guidleines prohibit it. End of story

 

Eight years ago it was just a "bad idea".

 

Nails in trees are a bad idea, if not because of harm to the tree, then because of land manager relations. See this recent thorough discussion.

 

However, I could not find any specific mention about lag bolts, anchors, or set screws, so perhaps they are okay..

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Noob question: how does one privately contact a reviewer in the manner in which you've described?

 

Look at the bottom of a cache listing from your hmoe area. The "Published" log entry (usually just below the FTF, is the review for that area. Click on their username to send them an e-mail through the GC website.

 

Best to give the reviewer the facts, not your opinion, keep it simple, yet complete. They're busy volunteer people and will want to get to the heart of the matter as expeditiously as possible.

 

Photos of the cache, or No Trespassing signs, etc helps as well. If you think the property is privately owned, send a link to the plat maps if they are online indicating who the owner is.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Actually with the right permit chopping down trees can be done all the time! Ever hear of firewood?

Well guess what. With the right permit (read premission) you can use a nail to secure your cache.

 

I'd be curious to see an example of a cache that was nailed to a tree (with permission) to see whether or not a reviewer would archive the listing.

[+Oxford Stone]

It begs the question - why does a CO find it necessary to nail / screw the cache to a tree? Just find another hiding place! I've seen a cache which nestles in the crook of a low branch but is tied, loosely, round that branch. Neat solution.

[Clan Riffster]

Dan seems to be hung up on the fact that Groundspeak sells pointy things which are specifically designed to be driven into trees, whilst claiming that driving things into trees is bad. He can't quite wrap his mind around the principle that the decisions from Groundspeak have little to do with harming trees, but rather, has to do with the perception of harm. As an owner of several night caches, I have driven gobs of pointy things into trees, and each time, I did so with easily verifiable explicit permission from the land manager in question. These land managers do not perceive reflectors as causing harm. Yet, we're I to hammer a birdhouse to a tree trunk, I can assure you they would perceive this as harm. Since I happen to love night caches, I am quite thankful for this quirky bit of inconsistency.

 

Dan, if you really are so obtuse as to ignore all the information you have received do far, perhaps it would be best to stay literal. You have seen numerous quotes/excepts dictating that property cannot be altered. A tree certainly qualifies as property, does it not? If you drive a pointy thing in it, you create a hole which was not present prior to you driving a pointy thing into it, correct? Such a hole would "alter" the tree, would it not?

[knowschad]

However, I could not find any specific mention about lag bolts, anchors, or set screws, so perhaps they are okay..

 

I'm sure you were just kidding, but thought I'd add this reviewer's archival log for a cache in my area:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=d600d834-4fac-419d-bc33-8a46508a8d9c

 

Tricolor seems to have dropped out. Lagbolts in trees are not proper either. If you can fix or verify this cache it can be easily unarchived. For now I am going to archive it. Feel free to contact me through my profile linked below if you fix it.

[Clan Riffster]

However, I could not find any specific mention about lag bolts, anchors, or set screws, so perhaps they are okay..

After careful review of the latest guidelines, I could not find anything explicitly prohibiting the use of low yield thermonuclear weapons for manipulating the landscape around ground zero. (though, apparently they are prohibited as swag) After all, all such an explosion would do is rearrange atoms. That's not really damaging anything, right? Those who follow the big bang theory of universal creation could even argue that detonating such a device is restoring at least a small part of the world to its natural state...

[+jellis]

I went on a hike the other day in a national forest along a well marked trail. Guess how the forest service marked the trail. They nailed the trail markers into live trees, and it wasn't just one or two. In fact I would guess most back country trail markers are attached to live tree with a nail.

 

And sometimes they even completely chop down a few trees.

How long do you think you would get away with that?

How about ones who drill a hole in a tree to put a branch in the hole with a bison in the inside end. Or cut off branches to create a hole to hide a cache.

[+jellis]

Dan seems to be hung up on the fact that Groundspeak sells pointy things which are specifically designed to be driven into trees, whilst claiming that driving things into trees is bad. He can't quite wrap his mind around the principle that the decisions from Groundspeak have little to do with harming trees, but rather, has to do with the perception of harm. As an owner of several night caches, I have driven gobs of pointy things into trees, and each time, I did so with easily verifiable explicit permission from the land manager in question. These land managers do not perceive reflectors as causing harm. Yet, we're I to hammer a birdhouse to a tree trunk, I can assure you they would perceive this as harm. Since I happen to love night caches, I am quite thankful for this quirky bit of inconsistency.

 

Dan, if you really are so obtuse as to ignore all the information you have received do far, perhaps it would be best to stay literal. You have seen numerous quotes/excepts dictating that property cannot be altered. A tree certainly qualifies as property, does it not? If you drive a pointy thing in it, you create a hole which was not present prior to you driving a pointy thing into it, correct? Such a hole would "alter" the tree, would it not?

The only item I see is the Fire Tacks, which are not invasive to the tree. They don't drive deep into the tree and they can be removed easily.

This also applies to privately owned fences, city, county or state park signs and fences and telephone poles.

Edited December 14, 2012 by jellis

[Clan Riffster]

The only item I see is the Fire Tacks, which are not invasive to the tree.

Dan's argument, if I read it right, was that folks are citing a guideline which specifically states no property can be altered when hiding a cache, yet this very website sells pointy things, (Firetacks), which do precisely that. If I walk up to a tree and shove a Firetack into its bark, I have just altered the tree, have I not?

 

Since it's pretty much understood that Firetacks generally do not cause harm, just as nails, barbed wire, fence posts, bicycles and farm implements generally cause no harm, the issue of how deep they penetrate becomes largely irrelivent. He's hung up on the whole "alter" thing, stuck in some kind of loop, knowing that both Firetacks and nails alter trees, yet only one is vilified on these forums.

 

He just can't grasp that, with proper, explicit permissions, reflectors are generally accepted, and if he could find a land manager willing to grant explicit permission for driving nails into trees, those would probably be viewed as tolerable as well.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Clan Riffster

[AZcachemeister]

The only item I see is the Fire Tacks, which are not invasive to the tree.

Dan's argument, if I read it right, was that folks are citing a guideline which specifically states no property can be altered when hiding a cache, yet this very website sells pointy things, (Firetacks), which do precisely that. If I walk up to a tree and shove a Firetack into its bark, I have just altered the tree, have I not?

 

Since it's pretty much understood that Firetacks generally do not cause harm, just as nails, barbed wire, fence posts, bicycles and farm implements generally cause no harm, the issue of how deep they penetrate becomes largely irrelivent. He's hung up on the whole "alter" thing, stuck in some kind of loop, knowing that both Firetacks and nails alter trees, yet only one is vilified on these forums.

 

He just can't grasp that, with proper, explicit permissions, reflectors are generally accepted, and if he could find a land manager willing to grant explicit permission for driving nails into trees, those would probably be viewed as tolerable as well.

 

And on the flipside of that, IF the land manager denied the use of firetacks, then they would be excluded on that basis.

And if the land manager were so anal as to refuse the use of a sticky piece of reflective tape on 'his' trees, THAT would also be excluded.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I am not the Cache Police. If you, or your cache, irritate me, then yes. I will report major violations.

About ten feet off a trail. It's been archived, but it's probably still there. Sorry, that was a horrible thing to do!

[+Don_J]

I am not the Cache Police. If you, or your cache, irritate me, then yes. I will report major violations.

About ten feet off a trail. It's been archived, but it's probably still there. Sorry, that was a horrible thing to do!

 

I agree. Why would anyone want to blow up a tree?

[+Moe311]

I think sometimes people hide a clever cache without thinking that it could damage nature. I remember one of your puzzles with some great camo that was screwed into a tree. Seen plenty of trees with old treehouses that are still growing away, despite tons of nails pounded into them. Here's a response from HGTV about nails in trees that states it's generally pretty harmless: HGTV

 

Anyhow, I see your point, cachers should be careful and respect the environment we hide and seek caches in.

 

Recently I found some caches that are totally crafty and really well done. So many cachers are giving them favorite points and compliments in the logs. Even I think they are fantastic. But should I give them favorite points? Should I praise them? Of course I should. I may not give them favorite points. Why? because most of them are against the guidelines. How? How about caches screwed into trees or tree branches. Dug trenches to lay pipe and possibly on private, unoccupied business property and city parks. Should I report them? yes. Have I? No. Why not? because of past experiences on what happens when you do.

[+jellis]

yes and I removed it a long time ago and never did it again. I now use wire loosely.