Kougarok?

2.8k · June 10, 2013

So, you decide to travel all the way to the beginning of the new world and you find the cache left by RyAK but not the original micro. Do post a "found it" or a DNF?

3.7k · June 10, 2013

Needs Archive, provided I did a really thorough search of the 50 meter radius around GZ and didn't find the original.

2.8k · June 10, 2013

Needs Archive, provided I did a really thorough search of the 50 meter radius around GZ and didn't find the original.

I'd bet that some of the caches you have found are replacements placed by someone other than the CO.

3.7k · June 10, 2013

Is this where you ask for my opinion, I give it to you and then you argue with me? Kind of like my 5-year old?

2.8k · June 10, 2013

Is this where you ask for my opinion, I give it to you and then you argue with me? Kind of like my 5-year old?

Easy to post what you did from your livingroom, different if you actually made the journey and I'm not arguing just pointing out something you may have overlooked.

6.5k · June 10, 2013

So by this logic only those who have actually traveled to GZ are permitted to post a reply to this thread? :unsure:

If that's the case, why not ask the moderators to close it, and send a PM to RyAK?

2.8k · June 10, 2013

So by this logic only those who have actually traveled to GZ are permitted to post a reply to this thread?

If that's the case, why not ask the moderators to close it, and send a PM to RyAK?

I see that you've done your fair share of power trails so I think it's safe to assume a good chunck of you 18k finds are throwdowns so let's hear your opinion.

3.6k · June 10, 2013

I would done the same thing as The Incredibles would done.

This cache never was found and the CO is history and I am sure the original is 99.999% MIA.

Yes, I had logged throwdowns that was placed by other cachers in my area and I feel they are fine. (I know the CO they were having some serious family issue at the time and people were helping them) But hello, this cache in question is one of the kind deal and if everybody just use the throwdown method to log it, its really a virtual. You dont really have to put a throwdown out. You can just post a bunch of picture of being there and said you "found" it. You can even take a picture of your "cache" at GZ but dont even have to place it there for next person. This cache is ownerless and you can do whatever you feel like it. Like it or not.

Edited June 10, 2013 by SwineFlew

18.9k · June 10, 2013

Given what I read in the logs - I wouldn't even go looking for it. Though I might enjoying hiking the area.

2.2k · June 10, 2013

I would not only log a DNF, I would trash out the throwdown and say so in the logs, to make it clear that there was no longer ANY container there. I have logged caches that were owner approved REPLACEMENTS, but no, I don't think I've ever logged a true throwdown. I understand that some people would be annoyed at this, but so it goes...

14k · June 10, 2013

http://coord.info/GC1259

So, you decide to travel all the way to the beginning of the new world and you find the cache left by RyAK but not the original micro. Do post a "found it" or a DNF?

I wouldn't travel several thousands of miles for a throw down that that is a moot point. In fact, a few years ago there was a cache about 35 miles from me that had only been found 3-4 times since it was originally placed and had gone unfound for four years. It was only accessible by boat and I started scoping out the best launch point for my kayak and started making plans to go for it for my 900th find. A couple of weeks before I was going to go after it someone took a motorboat, couldn't find the cache placed by the CO, threw down a replacement an logged it as a find. I cancelled my plans to go after that cache because, most likely, the only thing there was a replacement.

I may have, at some point, found a cache that was a throw down (can't really remember) and even if I did, none of the caches I've found are alleged to be the oldest unfound cache in the world.

If you (the general you) are going to travel to some remote location with the intent on being the first to find the oldest unfound cache, knowing that you may find some replacement, why even bother looking for the replacement. Go there with another cacher so that you can both throw down a replacement cache, find each others cache, then you can both post found it logs.

1k · June 10, 2013

There is an early thread on this cache posted. Maybe only one thread is needed?

Andrew

2.8k · June 10, 2013

http://coord.info/GC1259

So, you decide to travel all the way to the beginning of the new world and you find the cache left by RyAK but not the original micro. Do post a "found it" or a DNF?

I wouldn't travel several thousands of miles for a throw down that that is a moot point. In fact, a few years ago there was a cache about 35 miles from me that had only been found 3-4 times since it was originally placed and had gone unfound for four years. It was only accessible by boat and I started scoping out the best launch point for my kayak and started making plans to go for it for my 900th find. A couple of weeks before I was going to go after it someone took a motorboat, couldn't find the cache placed by the CO, threw down a replacement an logged it as a find. I cancelled my plans to go after that cache because, most likely, the only thing there was a replacement.

I may have, at some point, found a cache that was a throw down (can't really remember) and even if I did, none of the caches I've found are alleged to be the oldest unfound cache in the world.

If you (the general you) are going to travel to some remote location with the intent on being the first to find the oldest unfound cache, knowing that you may find some replacement, why even bother looking for the replacement. Go there with another cacher so that you can both throw down a replacement cache, find each others cache, then you can both post found it logs.

I think there is a huge difference between you throwing down the cache yourself and logging it and the situation here, don't forget it's been there 5 years. If the CO thanked RyAK and aknowledged the replacement would it then make a difference?

I'm on the fence as to whether I'd log it, leaning towards not. If I choose not to then it could remain the oldest unfound cache for a long, long time as I don't see it getting archived till someone goes to GZ.

Also don't forget about the article GS posted on their newsletter on some really old unfound cache which was a throwdown by the person finding it.

NOTE FOR THE INCREDIBLES: I am trying to explore all aspects of the situation so I am offering alternative views for opinions posted so I can make an educated descicion on whether I choose to presue this cache. Sometimes people actually change their opinions when they learn something they never considered, it's called being open-minded.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Roman!

2.8k · June 10, 2013

There is an early thread on this cache posted. Maybe only one thread is needed?

Andrew

That thread is about archiving the cache, I am seriously interested in going after Kougarok and that is why I started this thread.

3.3k · June 10, 2013

Is this where you ask for my opinion, I give it to you and then you argue with me? Kind of like my 5-year old?

Ah, maybe you cracked the code of his game! :huh: You were supposed to play along. It's more fun for everyone that way!

:drama:

7.9k · June 10, 2013

I have logged throwdowns.

Yes, it makes me feel dirty to think about it. :mad:

In most (maybe/probably all) cases I didn't know the history until I was at the site...or maybe not until I got home.

If the CO pre-approves replacement, it seems much less dirty.

In the case of this cache, I now know the situation.

I wouldn't even step out of the vehicle if I was passing by the location.

The local reviewer needs to follow through and archive this, since it obviously no longer exists.

Then the new cache by RyAK can be published.

June 10, 2013

Is this where you ask for my opinion, I give it to you and then you argue with me? Kind of like my 5-year old?

You know they don't get any better, they still do it at 12

3.3k · June 10, 2013

So by this logic only those who have actually traveled to GZ are permitted to post a reply to this thread?

If that's the case, why not ask the moderators to close it, and send a PM to RyAK?

I see that you've done your fair share of power trails so I think it's safe to assume a good chunck of you 18k finds are throwdowns so let's hear your opinion.

:omnomnom:

1.5k · June 10, 2013

The local reviewer needs to follow through and archive this, since it obviously no longer exists.

Then the new cache by RyAK can be published.

But, RyAK hasn't logged onto geocaching.com since September 2011, so if Kougarok is archived, geolitter will be instantly created, no? Throw down or not, wouldn't it be better to leave the cache active knowing there is likely at least one container there?

Seekers who want to make the journey know the history from the cache page and can make their own decision whether to pursue the cache.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Ladybug Kids

38.2k · June 10, 2013

http://coord.info/GC1259

So, you decide to travel all the way to the beginning of the new world and you find the cache left by RyAK but not the original micro. Do post a "found it" or a DNF?

It would be a DNF in my book. I don't log throw downs, I issue NAs. If the CO refuses to maintain his cache then a NA is warranted.

14k · June 10, 2013

http://coord.info/GC1259

So, you decide to travel all the way to the beginning of the new world and you find the cache left by RyAK but not the original micro. Do post a "found it" or a DNF?

I wouldn't travel several thousands of miles for a throw down that that is a moot point. In fact, a few years ago there was a cache about 35 miles from me that had only been found 3-4 times since it was originally placed and had gone unfound for four years. It was only accessible by boat and I started scoping out the best launch point for my kayak and started making plans to go for it for my 900th find. A couple of weeks before I was going to go after it someone took a motorboat, couldn't find the cache placed by the CO, threw down a replacement an logged it as a find. I cancelled my plans to go after that cache because, most likely, the only thing there was a replacement.

I may have, at some point, found a cache that was a throw down (can't really remember) and even if I did, none of the caches I've found are alleged to be the oldest unfound cache in the world.

If you (the general you) are going to travel to some remote location with the intent on being the first to find the oldest unfound cache, knowing that you may find some replacement, why even bother looking for the replacement. Go there with another cacher so that you can both throw down a replacement cache, find each others cache, then you can both post found it logs.

I think there is a huge difference between you throwing down the cache yourself and logging it and the situation here, don't forget it's been there 5 years. If the CO thanked RyAK and aknowledged the replacement would it then make a difference?

I also think there's a huge difference between a cache that hasn't been found in 12 years and a run-of-the-mill cache that someone couldn't found and threw down a replacement.

Since you're considering going after this one (out of curiousity, are you considering it so that you can beat out the 4.5lb Walleye find?) would you be doing so because you thought the original might still be there?

7.9k · June 11, 2013

The local reviewer needs to follow through and archive this, since it obviously no longer exists.

Then the new cache by RyAK can be published.

But, RyAK hasn't logged onto geocaching.com since September 2011, so if Kougarok is archived, geolitter will be instantly created, no? Throw down or not, wouldn't it be better to leave the cache active knowing there is likely at least one container there?

Seekers who want to make the journey know the history from the cache page and can make their own decision whether to pursue the cache.

I didn't notice RyAK's lack of recent activity, just the original owner.

So now there is probably double geo-litter at the site.

Or even more reasonably, if the original container didn't survive, how likely is it that a throwdown will still be in place?

And the next person who goes there will have to choose whether to triple it?

The CO apparently isn't going to maintain it.

The possibility to request permission from the CO to replace is not available.

This cache is dead.

Active caches need active owners.

6.1k · June 11, 2013

I don't think it would be anyone's buisiness what I did. Theres plenty of loose talk about what is wrong without any serious effort of making the trip. If anyone really needs to know, they can go ahead and check the logbook.

7.9k · June 11, 2013

I would not only log a DNF, I would trash out the throwdown and say so in the logs, to make it clear that there was no longer ANY container there. I have logged caches that were owner approved REPLACEMENTS, but no, I don't think I've ever logged a true throwdown. I understand that some people would be annoyed at this, but so it goes...

I for one would applaud your action and would absolutely pay your bar tab at the pub if we should meet.

7.8k · June 11, 2013

On the one hand, there's nothing in any guidelines or rules saying that you can only claim a find if you sign a log put there by the CO, so I might log it as found if I found the throwdown.

On the other hand, I might remove the throwdown (if it's still there), look for the original, and if I can't locate the original either, log a DNF followed by an NA and proudly wear the badge as the person who finally put Kougarok out of its misery.

Hard to choose...

Maybe log the throwdown as a find and remove it and NA...

2.8k · June 11, 2013

http://coord.info/GC1259

So, you decide to travel all the way to the beginning of the new world and you find the cache left by RyAK but not the original micro. Do post a "found it" or a DNF?

I wouldn't travel several thousands of miles for a throw down that that is a moot point. In fact, a few years ago there was a cache about 35 miles from me that had only been found 3-4 times since it was originally placed and had gone unfound for four years. It was only accessible by boat and I started scoping out the best launch point for my kayak and started making plans to go for it for my 900th find. A couple of weeks before I was going to go after it someone took a motorboat, couldn't find the cache placed by the CO, threw down a replacement an logged it as a find. I cancelled my plans to go after that cache because, most likely, the only thing there was a replacement.

I may have, at some point, found a cache that was a throw down (can't really remember) and even if I did, none of the caches I've found are alleged to be the oldest unfound cache in the world.

If you (the general you) are going to travel to some remote location with the intent on being the first to find the oldest unfound cache, knowing that you may find some replacement, why even bother looking for the replacement. Go there with another cacher so that you can both throw down a replacement cache, find each others cache, then you can both post found it logs.

I think there is a huge difference between you throwing down the cache yourself and logging it and the situation here, don't forget it's been there 5 years. If the CO thanked RyAK and aknowledged the replacement would it then make a difference?

I also think there's a huge difference between a cache that hasn't been found in 12 years and a run-of-the-mill cache that someone couldn't found and threw down a replacement.

Since you're considering going after this one (out of curiousity, are you considering it so that you can beat out the 4.5lb Walleye find?) would you be doing so because you thought the original might still be there?

I was actually considering the walleye cache for next year but, well you know the story, but now and as long as it's active Kougarok is the oldest unfound cache and longest to go without a find. If I choose to go and only find the "throwdown" I will log it but I will certainly search a long time for the original. I would bring a metal detector in case it was a bison tube or something made out of metal.

My dilema is deciding if I'm OK logging the "throwdown".

If I went and both were missing I would post a DNF and an NA.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Roman!

2.8k · June 11, 2013

log a DNF followed by an NA and proudly wear the badge as the person who finally put Kougarok out of its misery.

Now there's an angle I never looked at that could justify the journey.

June 11, 2013

That thread is about archiving the cache, I am seriously interested in going after Kougarok and that is why I started this thread.

I was thinking that this thread is in keeping with the high quality of the many other threads you have started.

2.8k · June 11, 2013

That thread is about archiving the cache, I am seriously interested in going after Kougarok and that is why I started this thread.

I was thinking that this thread is in keeping with the high quality of the many other threads you have started.

You realize that comments like that embiggen me at your expense.

2.8k · June 11, 2013

Just some fun reading promoting throwdowns.

http://blog.geocaching.com/2012/07/ftf-10-years-in-the-making/

7.9k · June 11, 2013

That thread is about archiving the cache, I am seriously interested in going after Kougarok and that is why I started this thread.

I was thinking that this thread is in keeping with the high quality of the many other threads you have started.

You realize that comments like that embiggen me at your expense.

He can afford it.

7.9k · June 11, 2013

...the person who finally put Kougarok out of its misery.

...or maybe not, since the reviewer seems reluctant to do his job... :rolleyes:

4.5k · June 11, 2013

http://coord.info/GC1259

So, you decide to travel all the way to the beginning of the new world and you find the cache left by RyAK but not the original micro. Do post a "found it" or a DNF?

It would be a DNF in my book. I don't log throw downs, I issue NAs. If the CO refuses to maintain his cache then a NA is warranted.

The reviewer posted a note in 2011 about the cache needing maintenance but i didn't see any record of that in the logs. Still,, it's been almost 2 years since that note with no reply from the CO. On top of that, there was a confession that a throwdown was left. I have to wonder why on earth the cache is still up?

Myself, i love vacationing in Alaska and i might enjoy visiting the general area. However, looking for that cache wouldn't be on the agenda!

3.7k · June 11, 2013

That thread is about archiving the cache, I am seriously interested in going after Kougarok and that is why I started this thread.

I was thinking that this thread is in keeping with the high quality of the many other threads you have started.

You realize that comments like that embiggen me at your expense.

embiggen:To enlarge or grow; to make or become bigger.

You need enlarging?

June 11, 2013

If you found Ryak's replacement, you still didn't find the original cache. If he'd used the same container, cammo, and exact hide...maybe. But I doubt that's what he did.

10.2k · June 11, 2013

http://coord.info/GC1259

So, you decide to travel all the way to the beginning of the new world and you find the cache left by RyAK but not the original micro. Do post a "found it" or a DNF?

It would be a DNF in my book. I don't log throw downs, I issue NAs. If the CO refuses to maintain his cache then a NA is warranted.

The reviewer posted a note in 2011 about the cache needing maintenance but i didn't see any record of that in the logs. Still,, it's been almost 2 years since that note with no reply from the CO. On top of that, there was a confession that a throwdown was left. I have to wonder why on earth the cache is still up?

Myself, i love vacationing in Alaska and i might enjoy visiting the general area. However, looking for that cache wouldn't be on the agenda!

I wouldn't bother with this thing if I was in the area either. It has zero appeal to me. 4.5lb Walleye, on the other hand, is beyond awesome. To answer the question, no, I would not log this guys throwdown.

2.8k · June 11, 2013

I have logged throwdowns.

Yes, it makes me feel dirty to think about it.

In most (maybe/probably all) cases I didn't know the history until I was at the site...or maybe not until I got home.

If the CO pre-approves replacement, it seems much less dirty.

In the case of this cache, I now know the situation.

I wouldn't even step out of the vehicle if I was passing by the location.

The local reviewer needs to follow through and archive this, since it obviously no longer exists.

Then the new cache by RyAK can be published.

So you feel dirty but do not go back and change those smilies into frownies, how can you call for the archiving of this cache while claiming finds on the throwdowns you know you found?

Too many people are too quick to judge this cache without holding themselves to the same standards.

I'd be willing to bet more than 1/2 the people that posted in this thread have logged a throw down they are aware of.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Roman!

9.3k · June 11, 2013

I was actually considering the walleye cache for next year but...,

The "but" is the part I don't understand.

The journey to Walleye would be stellar. A once in a lifetime kind of thing. If you have the means to go, then by all means, you should avail yourself of the opportunity. Deciding against going simply because the log already has a name in it seems as snobbish as those Medieval dudes who placed so much importance on a hymen.

1.6k · June 11, 2013

Is there a start to this thread or are we watching a continuation of a face to face discussion? :drama:

Edited June 11, 2013 by ras_oscar

7.9k · June 11, 2013

So you feel dirty but do not go back and change those smilies into frownies, how can you call for the archiving of this cache while claiming finds on the throwdowns you know you found?

Because that's how I roll.

If I went to Kougarok (or any cache, actually), completely oblivious to the throwdown status, found it and signed the log, I would claim it as a find...albeit reluctantly.

Sometimes when I'm out in the field I 'read ahead' in the logs that the container is now an unauthorized throwdown, I put that cache on my ignore list and choose another.

Sometimes the eight logs in my device don't mention the throwdown, so I don't know until I get home and read more, and yes there are probably almost certainly caches I found where I didn't read the logs to notice it was a throwdown.

The difference is the intent on my part to not go out and log a throwdown.

I really don't give a pair of dead AAs whether Kougarok gets archived, or whether you or anyone else goes out and logs it...it has become an accessorized Waymark.

2.8k · June 11, 2013

I was actually considering the walleye cache for next year but...,

The "but" is the part I don't understand.

The journey to Walleye would be stellar. A once in a lifetime kind of thing. If you have the means to go, then by all means, you should avail yourself of the opportunity. Deciding against going simply because the log already has a name in it seems as snobbish as those Medieval dudes who placed so much importance on a hymen.

Then I'm a snob, walleye has been done and I only have limited trips at my disposal so one will not be spent on walleye.

4.5k · June 11, 2013

I have logged throwdowns.

Yes, it makes me feel dirty to think about it.

In most (maybe/probably all) cases I didn't know the history until I was at the site...or maybe not until I got home.

If the CO pre-approves replacement, it seems much less dirty.

In the case of this cache, I now know the situation.

I wouldn't even step out of the vehicle if I was passing by the location.

The local reviewer needs to follow through and archive this, since it obviously no longer exists.

Then the new cache by RyAK can be published.

So you feel dirty but do not go back and change those smilies into frownies, how can you call for the archiving of this cache while claiming finds on the throwdowns you know you found?

Too many people are too quick to judge this cache without holding themselves to the same standards.

I'd be willing to bet more than 1/2 the people that posted in this thread have logged a throw down they are aware of.

Imo, the throwdown has "dirtied up" this cache. It's something that should have never been done, especially without the CO's blessing. But it in itself isn't why the cache should be archived. The reviewer called on the CO to check on things back in 2011 but it doesn't appear this was ever done. Neglect and no response from the owner is why the cache should go away. Yep, it's that pesky maintenance guideline causing trouble again.

Back to the OP's first question. If i did somehow find myself at ground zero, and then somehow found myself looking for the original cache, then i would log it as found,,, if i actually found the original. Finding the throwdown wouldn't be the same and would result in me posting a big fat DNF log.

6.1k · June 11, 2013

Then someone tracks down the owner and he says the throwdown is fine, as it's his cache. After all, the reason why he left a micro was because he wanted someone to prove they visited the spot which is beautiful and beyond awesome, not prove that they visited the silly container. Then what? Most cachers outside the forums would probably log the throwdown as a find. There is no written log history in the logbook because it is a micro and nobody has ever found it. No cache contents either.

Stormgren-X did not post a video of them finding 4.5lb Walleye, and a video of the exact moment probably does not exist. What you see is what they filmed afterwards. Perhaps they replaced the baggies, as that would be the right thing to do. Perhaps they also brought along a replacement logbook in case the original was wet. Maybe they also brought along some of the original items which could be water damaged to carefully restore it as original. Perhaps they brought along ALL of the replacement items, as well as a replacement container. Where do you draw the line? It was hidden 12 years ago, and the cache owner's memory is undoubtedly a little fuzzy on details of his own cache. Perhaps he told Stormgren-X that it was okay to replace it, and they all decided to keep it quiet. Does it really make a difference? The only people they have then cheated out of the original find were themselves. Their journey is much more important than the destination. It probably would be better that way to quell any angst from people who have absolutely no intention of visiting, or any stake in the cache at all. In the end it is only the business of the people involved. Someone getting upset and judgmental at what someone else did in another part of the world, is like the guy who tosses his own TV set out the window.

There have been plenty of hoaxes and counterfeits throughout history. Fake sports memorabilia is popular now, as well as historical artifacts, religious ones, and currency, of course. The Ripley's museum is full of antique hoaxes. A well known counterfeiter, Mark Hofmann, was inspired by creating a rare coin and mailing it to the feds, who then officially declared it genuine. Perhaps he was also inspired by Joseph Smith. Today, most reality shows on TV are faked, and several people have exposed this. I went to the drugstore a few months ago and gave them a $50 bill and got a 1969 $20 bill in change. It was in good condition and rather unusual. I looked it over and could not determine if it was a fake. No magnetic strips or watermarks existed back then. Someone could have bleached a $1 bill and printed an old $20 on top. As long as the ink didn't run, who could tell? A month later I got another one of the same year from the same store. What are the chances?

In all of these examples, someone or something is hurt at the gain of others. It is something that should not be tolerated. But this cache? The only ones hurt, are the finders themselves. That's it. They had fun and an adventure and that's all that counts. If someone goes out of their way to visit the location and signs the throwdown, they are only cheating themselves. They could announce that they found the original and that they removed the other one, and who would know for sure? Someone would visit later and find a micro there. Isn't that's what really is important? It's a great big world and the tiny micro is such a tiny thing to fuss about. I'd buy a beer for whomever visited the location, despite what they did, just to hear the story.

5k · June 12, 2013

http://coord.info/GC1259

So, you decide to travel all the way to the beginning of the new world and you find the cache left by RyAK but not the original micro. Do post a "found it" or a DNF?

I wouldn't travel several thousands of miles for a throw down that that is a moot point. In fact, a few years ago there was a cache about 35 miles from me that had only been found 3-4 times since it was originally placed and had gone unfound for four years. It was only accessible by boat and I started scoping out the best launch point for my kayak and started making plans to go for it for my 900th find. A couple of weeks before I was going to go after it someone took a motorboat, couldn't find the cache placed by the CO, threw down a replacement an logged it as a find. I cancelled my plans to go after that cache because, most likely, the only thing there was a replacement.

I may have, at some point, found a cache that was a throw down (can't really remember) and even if I did, none of the caches I've found are alleged to be the oldest unfound cache in the world.

If you (the general you) are going to travel to some remote location with the intent on being the first to find the oldest unfound cache, knowing that you may find some replacement, why even bother looking for the replacement. Go there with another cacher so that you can both throw down a replacement cache, find each others cache, then you can both post found it logs.

I have some weird ideas here that probably won't be accepted by most. I think the point of this cache is the journey and not the actual container. If I made that journey and found any container with a log in it, I'd more than likely log it. After all, it is not supposed to be a difficult cache to find once you are at GZ. If it were a case where people have been actively looking for it for 12 years, and it is so difficult that no one can find it, then someone left an easy to find throwdown, I would never consider logging it.

There is a D5 cache north of me that I actually need to fill a spot in my grid. I have looked for it four times without luck, while others were finding it and others weren't. Joe power cacher comes by and after a minute of looking, throwsdown a D1 micro. The CO is inactive so doesn't respond. Now everyone goes up there and logs, "Easiest D5 I ever found". I may blur the lines at times but there is no way that I would log that guys throwdown cache as a D5. The road has become kind of bad for my car, but if I ever get back up there I may just do a bit of CITO and try again to find the real cache.

1.7k · June 12, 2013

I have some weird ideas here that probably won't be accepted by most. I think the point of this cache is the journey and not the actual container. If I made that journey and found any container with a log in it, I'd more than likely log it. After all, it is not supposed to be a difficult cache to find once you are at GZ. If it were a case where people have been actively looking for it for 12 years, and it is so difficult that no one can find it, then someone left an easy to find throwdown, I would never consider logging it.

There is a D5 cache north of me that I actually need to fill a spot in my grid. I have looked for it four times without luck, while others were finding it and others weren't. Joe power cacher comes by and after a minute of looking, throwsdown a D1 micro. The CO is inactive so doesn't respond. Now everyone goes up there and logs, "Easiest D5 I ever found". I may blur the lines at times but there is no way that I would log that guys throwdown cache as a D5. The road has become kind of bad for my car, but if I ever get back up there I may just do a bit of CITO and try again to find the real cache.

+1

7.8k · June 12, 2013

There is a D5 cache north of me that I actually need to fill a spot in my grid. I have looked for it four times without luck, while others were finding it and others weren't. Joe power cacher comes by and after a minute of looking, throwsdown a D1 micro. The CO is inactive so doesn't respond. Now everyone goes up there and logs, "Easiest D5 I ever found". I may blur the lines at times but there is no way that I would log that guys throwdown cache as a D5. The road has become kind of bad for my car, but if I ever get back up there I may just do a bit of CITO and try again to find the real cache.

Good to hear and exactly what I'd do.

1.7k · June 12, 2013

Always remember that gc.com is not the only listing site... One man's "throwdown" may be another's valid cache. Bear that in mind when righteously CITOing.

13.7k · June 12, 2013

Always remember that gc.com is not the only listing site... One man's "throwdown" may be another's valid cache. Bear that in mind when righteously CITOing.

If you just happen to stop at GZ and find two caches, sure. Maybe.

But if someone writes in a log (that's what we're talking about here...) on geocaching.com that they left a throwdown near GZ, I'd take it to mean it's either missing or he couldn't find it.

Still wrong either way and it'd probably go bye-bye.

- If dropping a throwdown for another site was intended, doubtful he'd post that in a log here...

5k · June 12, 2013

Always remember that gc.com is not the only listing site... One man's "throwdown" may be another's valid cache. Bear that in mind when righteously CITOing.

The other sites are basically irrelevant in this area.

2.6k · June 12, 2013

Then I'm a snob, walleye has been done and I only have limited trips at my disposal so one will not be spent on walleye.

This is perfectly valid of course. There are lots of caches which are difficult but would be amazing to do; one needs to take into account what is important to them (e.g. FTF).

For me, I'm actually more motivated to find Walleye now that it's been found, as I know there is a cache to find there. (Before I thought it likely could be gone).

Kougarok?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment