Tree climbing for the older generation, not a good idea

[+hullnewfy]

I have just come back from another trail were we found 8 out of 8 .  

No need to congratulate me yet as the last one wasn't where it was suppose to be.  It was suppose to be about 15 foot up a tree.

Can someone please tell me why do we need to risk life and limb by placing caches up in trees were there is a risk of falling i thought this was suppose to be a fun thing that we can all enjoy.  

Not all of us have happy tree climbing kids, that will easy place them up as high as they can and say let see if anyone finds it.

Is that really necessary as it has a tendancy it ruins the experience if you can not complete a trail without the aid of someones child to help you 

we are not all that lucky to have these facility available to use.

Surely common sense must prevail in these circumstances. this is suppose to be an enjoyable experience not a challenge of wits and bravery  

lets have a think before placing them high up   

[+hzoi]

2 hours ago, hullnewfy said:

Can someone please tell me why do we need to risk life and limb by placing caches up in trees were there is a risk of falling i thought this was suppose to be a fun thing that we can all enjoy.

Geocaching as a whole is supposed to be a fun thing that we can all enjoy.  However, it is up to each individual geocacher to decide whether a particular cache is worth the risk.  There are hundreds of scuba, rappelling, mountain climbing, spelunking, etc. caches that are not accessible to everyone.  There's even one hidden in an abandoned nuclear facility that requires a radiation counter and a protective suit.

And, of course, for physically disabled geocachers, anything over a T1 may be inaccessible.

You've been around geocaching since 2009 and have over 600 finds -- this should not be news to you that not every cache is for every geocacher.  Though I see that you have yet to hide a geocache, so if I may be so bold, perhaps your frame of reference would be expanded by placing a geocache or two.

2 hours ago, hullnewfy said:

Surely common sense must prevail in these circumstances.

It does for me.  I have aborted several tree climbs over the years.  Just chickened out on one a couple weeks ago, in fact.  I took plenty of risks in the pursuit of geocaches ten years ago that I wouldn't take today.  I don't begrudge cache owners for hiding caches I can't, or won't, get to.  I just move on to the next one.

[+Michaelcycle]

Why (as humans) have we invented climbing gear and scuba equipment? Because we are an adventuresome and curious species. Why not place geocaches in places that require the use of such equipment? If a cache is beyond my abilities/access to equipment I don't let that bother me. 

There are a lot of hydrocaches where I live. I was not able to go after them because I did not have a kayak or canoe. About six years ago I rented a kayak at a local park and found one of those caches. Susancycle joined me and LOVED the experience. We bought kayaks within a month and have found perhaps 200 hydrocaches in the intervening years. 

(our combined age is 130 years, btw)

Step out of your comfort zone, team up with someone with experience and try something new!

[+jenny08_1015]

I enjoy caches that involve climbing.

Did the cache in question have an appropriate terrain rating?

[+hzoi]

3 minutes ago, jenny08_1015 said:

Did the cache in question have an appropriate terrain rating?

It's a T4, has the tree climbing attribute, and the other logs openly discuss the fact that it's in a tree.

But it's the last cache in a series of eight, so, naturally there is a legal requirement to post a find.  (I presume this is a quirk of British law, as I've not experienced this elsewhere.)

[+geodarts]

I have a friend that loves tree climbing and I have watched him do amazing feats that go beyond my abilities.    When he places a cache, it often goes to my ignore list.  

The difference between genius and stupidity is knowing your limits.   He might be a genius.  But I am generally not stupid (or so I am told) when it comes to trees.  

[+ChileHead]

If I come across a cache I'm not comfortable searching for, I move on. I don't expect anybody to only hide caches that meet my criteria (no more caches with pavement views!)

[kanchan]

3 hours ago, hullnewfy said:

Can someone please tell me why do we need to risk life and limb by placing caches up in trees were there is a risk of falling i thought this was suppose to be a fun thing that we can all enjoy.  

We don't need to.

[+bflentje]

(typed and deleted two different comments..)

Never mind. I am not sure I have anything productive to add here..  wow, just wow.

 

[+pantadeusz]

I am especially amazed by the suggestion that when we find a task like climbing a tree dangerous, we should send a child to do it

3 hours ago, hullnewfy said:

Can someone please tell me why do we need to risk life and limb by placing caches up in trees were there is a risk of falling i thought this was suppose to be a fun thing that we can all enjoy. 

I enjoy climbing trees. Finding these caches is rewarding for me. However, there are some really crazy COs in Dublin and because of this, I do skip some of the climbs that I consider too difficult. See how I manage to easily handle the problem of not risking my life when I don't want to?

[+captnemo]

Not all caches are for everyone.  If the cache is rated right and I know before I go then it's up to me to decide if it one to ignore or not.

[+arisoft]

3 hours ago, captnemo said:

Not all caches are for everyone.  If the cache is rated right and I know before I go then it's up to me to decide if it one to ignore or not.

In good ols days every tree climbig cache was at least T4. Nowadays I am not surprised if T3 needs climbing to a tree. One T2,5 was 5 meters high in a spruce.

I would welcome better instructions and examples to terrain level classification.

My simple idea would be this:  If you need only one limb to find the cache, then it is T1, two limbs required is T2, three limbs T3,  four limbs T4 and T5 may need some extension to your limbs. For example If the cache owner can climb to the tree with one hand in a pocket then the cache could be T3. Could it be easier?

Edited August 28, 2017 by arisoft

[+MartyBartfast]

I totally disagree too.

You don't have to find them all so skip the ones you don't feel safe doing, and leave them for those of us who enjoy the excitement/thrill/danger.

 

[+cerberus1]

6 hours ago, hullnewfy said:

I have just come back from another trail were we found 8 out of 8 .  

No need to congratulate me yet as the last one wasn't where it was suppose to be.  It was suppose to be about 15 foot up a tree.

Can someone please tell me why do we need to risk life and limb by placing caches up in trees were there is a risk of falling i thought this was suppose to be a fun thing that we can all enjoy.  

Not all of us have happy tree climbing kids, that will easy place them up as high as they can and say let see if anyone finds it.

Is that really necessary as it has a tendancy it ruins the experience if you can not complete a trail without the aid of someones child to help you 

we are not all that lucky to have these facility available to use.

Surely common sense must prevail in these circumstances. this is suppose to be an enjoyable experience not a challenge of wits and bravery  

lets have a think before placing them high up   

Well, at least you didn't mention  a "bit of decorum and give us a chance", as in your nearly identical post in that "50's" thread, which has nothing to do with decorum, but a lot to do with entitlement.

Curious where people are sending children up higher rated tree hides.  Yikes... 

Every cache has a Difficulty and Terrain.      D/T ratings are set for a reason.   This isn't Pokémon, so no need to get 'em all... 

If you feel that you can't access it ... skip it.    At only 62 I'm the opposite, I skip right by the 1.5 caches with no regrets. 

[+RocTheCacheBox]

Im 58. Last time I did a tree cache was about 3 years ago. The cache you speak of even warned you climbing a tree was required.

"Can someone please tell me why do we need to risk life and limb by placing caches up in trees were there is a risk of falling"

You risk life and limb getting into a car, riding a bike, etc.   

"i thought this was suppose to be a fun thing that we can all enjoy."

It is! Most caches are pretty descriptive about what your going to get into. You don't HAVE to to do that cache. There are literally millions to chose from. Pick another one. 

"Not all of us have happy tree climbing kids, that will easy place them up as high as they can and say let see if anyone finds it."

LOL.  "Im not risking MY life and limb, Gee, if only I had a kid here."

"Is that really necessary as it has a tendancy it ruins the experience if you can not complete a trail without the aid of someones child to help you"

Lesson learned? Read the cache discription.

"Surely common sense must prevail in these circumstances. this is suppose to be an enjoyable experience not a challenge of wits and bravery"

Sorry, wrong. completely wrong. Many people love puzzle caches BECAUSE they require wits.  Many people love dangerous caches BECAUSE the require bravery.

I've chose not to do many caches over the years. I don't like poison ivy, thorns, guardrail caches on busy highways or caches in playgrounds because I don't want to be "that old guy hanging around the playground". So I skip what I don't want to do regardless of how much time or distance I have involved in the cache. 

   

Edited August 28, 2017 by RocTheCacheBox

[+J Grouchy]

I guess I should be grateful that tree-climbing caches are very rare in my area.

I don't really have anything against the idea of them, but I would say that they ought to only be placed in trees that are healthy and able to hold a variety of people/body types.  While it's great if the tree has low branches that make accessing it easier for klutzes like myself, I wouldn't rule a tree out if it doesn't.  Like any other style of hide, don't do it just because you can...put it up in that tree because it's a really interesting branch structure...or it offers a terrific view when you're up there...or it offers a good place to practice rigging and whatever else you need to get up and down.  I don't know anything about that part of it, but I imagine there are types of trees that folks look for to practice on.

Me...I'll most likely just stand on the ground and marvel at how easy it looks when others do it.

Edited August 28, 2017 by J Grouchy

[+Rainbow Spirit]

I'm 65 and still enjoy climbing trees to find and set caches, in fact I'm about to buy a telescopic ladder to assist me get up to those sneaky ones that are hard to get to that first branch or two.

[+barefootjeff]

34 minutes ago, Rainbow Spirit said:

I'm 65 and still enjoy climbing trees to find and set caches, in fact I'm about to buy a telescopic ladder to assist me get up to those sneaky ones that are hard to get to that first branch or two.

Yes, they're great for getting to those hard-to-reach caches. I even lugged mine along on a 5km hike - it wasn't in a tree but on a ledge below the top of a small cliff that I didn't feel comfortable climbing down onto unaided. Boy was that ladder heavy by the time I got back to the car!

My approach to these sort of climbing caches is to find a workaround I'm comfortable with, get a mate to help me or just proudly DNF it.

[+geocat_]

9 hours ago, hullnewfy said:

Can someone please tell me why do we need to risk life and limb by placing caches up in trees were there is a risk of falling i thought this was suppose to be a fun thing that we can all enjoy.  

Not all of us have happy tree climbing kids, that will easy place them up as high as they can and say let see if anyone finds it.

Is that really necessary as it has a tendancy it ruins the experience if you can not complete a trail without the aid of someones child to help you 

we are not all that lucky to have these facility available to use.

Surely common sense must prevail in these circumstances. this is suppose to be an enjoyable experience not a challenge of wits and bravery  

lets have a think before placing them high up   

1. Tree climbing can be risky but it can also be fun for some.  Therefore, some people choose to hide caches in trees which require a climb.  That's as basic as I can put it.  
2. I don't have kids either.  So what?  Either ignore those hides or go caching with others who have kids.  
3. No caches are "necessary".  That's a fact.  And if you are letting it ruin your experience, that's on you.  I have caches that are beyond my abilities on my ignore list.  Doesn't bother me in the least.  Try it and see!
4. Common sense must prevail?  Hmmmmmm.... so you are suggesting that all cachers be governed by your preferences?  I think common sense would be to try to look for caches that YOU want to look for.  So if you don't have a boat, don't look for caches on an island.  If you are scared of tunnels, don't look for caches down tunnels.  If you can't climb trees (or have kids to do this for you), then DON'T LOOK FOR CACHES IN TREES!  But common sense tells me to NOT tell others not to hide caches that others might enjoy simply because you don't like them.  
5. Geocaching sometimes IS a challenge of wits and bravery.  Trust me, I could go on for an entire dissertation about places I have gone for caches that were quite challenging!  AND I LOVED THEM ALL!

[+Harry Dolphin]

4 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

I totally disagree too.

You don't have to find them all so skip the ones you don't feel safe doing, and leave them for those of us who enjoy the excitement/thrill/danger.

 

Yup.  There's a CO nearby who like to hide caches atop glacial erratics.  Some I can climb.  Some I cannot.  If not, then DNF.  Same goes for tree climbs.  And evil mystery caches.  If I can, I do.  If not I DNF.  That goes for crawling into caves.  No thanks.  But other people enjoy them.   So, let them enjoy them!   Not for this senior dolphin.

[+SweetPea&Crew]

I've climbed a couple of trees that I had no business climbing, and I enjoyed logging finds on both 'caches. I've also found two others that were WAAAAY up there but had "mechanisms" for lowering the 'caches safely down, and I enjoyed logging finds on those as well. One of my most memorable finds involved hanging from a tree which itself was hanging from a rocky outcropping several hundred feet above a river (it was rated appropriately for terrain). There have been many others that I walked away from without attempting. On some I logged DNF, and on others I posted a note reading essentially "did not attempt." Sometimes when you get to GZ you just need to exercise some common sense if you realize that the 'cache is beyond your individual limitations...and Dirty Harry always said "a man's got to know his limitations."

[+thebruce0]

I've recently been going on a treeclimb binge and have just published a small series of climbs along a trail that I intend to grow. I attempt to provide a good variety of climbs and styles, and note that many are made much easier with a ladder. But there are a few pretty extreme cedar/pine climbs right to the very top.

Locally there are groups of people who go out to find caches like this taking along one "monkey" (whatever age/size) who can sign everyone in.

Quite often there's at least one or two people who take along a ladder as well, just in case.

There are many ways to get around the inability to climb trees and still be able to technically log the cache as found (if it's in your own ethic).

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Getting a group together for high T caches can be a good social opportunity too, and it can be entertaining watching whoever decides to make the climb (and probably safer for them too if anything happens ;))

[+SeattleWayne]

Why do you need to climb the tree at all? Come up with a neat TOTT to get the cache down. 

[+Mudfrog]

13 hours ago, hullnewfy said:

I have just come back from another trail were we found 8 out of 8 .  

No need to congratulate me yet as the last one wasn't where it was suppose to be.  It was suppose to be about 15 foot up a tree.

Can someone please tell me why do we need to risk life and limb by placing caches up in trees were there is a risk of falling i thought this was suppose to be a fun thing that we can all enjoy.  

Not all of us have happy tree climbing kids, that will easy place them up as high as they can and say let see if anyone finds it.

Is that really necessary as it has a tendancy it ruins the experience if you can not complete a trail without the aid of someones child to help you 

we are not all that lucky to have these facility available to use.

Surely common sense must prevail in these circumstances. this is suppose to be an enjoyable experience not a challenge of wits and bravery  

lets have a think before placing them high up   

No one, i repeat, no one is making anyone climb a tree. There is always the option to just walk away. Myself, i'm thankful that there are few more challenging caches out there. Tree climbs are among my favorite caches but even then, there are some that are beyond my skill level. It would be ridiculous for me to come on here and complain that a cache owner made one too difficult for me.

As far as common sense, mine tells me that it would be selfish of me to expect every cache be hidden just the way i wanted it. It also tells me that i'm NOT entitled to find every cache out there. Skip the cache if you think it's unsafe, beyond your capabilities, or not to your liking.  

[+thebruce0]

19 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

Why do you need to climb the tree at all? Come up with a neat TOTT to get the cache down. 

Sometimes that's simply not possible It may be attached, it may be far too high or inaccessible by any form of tott...

There's one nearby that's not next to a road, but requires an extra extra, extra long ladder or climbing equipment, being far out on a limb with no other limb below. A couple of groups fashioned multi-ladder ladders; makeshift... I wasn't there but I'd have loved to see that retrieval...

[+cerberus1]

12 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

There's one nearby that's not next to a road, but requires an extra extra, extra long ladder or climbing equipment, being far out on a limb with no other limb below.

A pure vertical rope climb like that's my favorite !    Don't see many of those here anymore... 

Edited August 29, 2017 by cerberus1

[+pantadeusz]

6 hours ago, SweetPea&Crew said:

I've climbed a couple of trees that I had no business climbing, and I enjoyed logging finds on both 'caches. I've also found two others that were WAAAAY up there but had "mechanisms" for lowering the 'caches safely down, and I enjoyed logging finds on those as well. One of my most memorable finds involved hanging from a tree which itself was hanging from a rocky outcropping several hundred feet above a river (it was rated appropriately for terrain). There have been many others that I walked away from without attempting. On some I logged DNF, and on others I posted a note reading essentially "did not attempt." Sometimes when you get to GZ you just need to exercise some common sense if you realize that the 'cache is beyond your individual limitations...and Dirty Harry always said "a man's got to know his limitations."

Could you provide the gc code of the cache where you have to hang from such a height?

[+hullnewfy]

Thanks for all you views and suggestions.  its been interesting to hear all your views.  With what has been said i will conside my tree climbing days over and continue to search on ground level .  as someone said theres enough of them in and around the ground area so missing the odd few up high i dont think will do any harm to my score. 

thanks again for all you input it has been interest ..   happy caching 

[+SweetPea&Crew]

2 hours ago, pantadeusz said:

Could you provide the gc code of the cache where you have to hang from such a height?

https://coord.info/GC12PGA

My found log from 11/27/2009 (following a couple of DNF's from earlier months):

After getting the other three along this hike, I knew I would have to come back for this one. I came prepared this time, with a fifty-foot rope (seemed wise with the steep escarpment nearby) and a good friend. I should have thought twice before asking him to "belay me." We searched for a while, made a PAF (thanks, River), still couldn't find it, decided to give up (again), and when SweetPea's Mama declared she wouldn't be making this hike again any time soon, we re-doubled our efforts and my friend finally spotted it. We spent way too much time looking, and ended up picking along the trail slowly in the dark after nightfall, which wouldn't have been too bad except for the w-e-r-e-w-o-l-v-e-s (and gurbals).
SL/TFTC!

The 'cache page indicates that one should exercise caution, which I certainly did.

 

[+dprovan]

22 hours ago, hullnewfy said:

Can someone please tell me why do we need to risk life and limb by placing caches up in trees were there is a risk of falling i thought this was suppose to be a fun thing that we can all enjoy.

I walk by tree climbs all the time. The question you should be asking is why you feel like 7 out of 8 wouldn't have been fun.

[+Michaelcycle]

3 hours ago, hullnewfy said:

Thanks for all you views and suggestions.  its been interesting to hear all your views.  With what has been said i will conside my tree climbing days over and continue to search on ground level .  as someone said theres enough of them in and around the ground area so missing the odd few up high i dont think will do any harm to my score. 

thanks again for all you input it has been interest ..   happy caching 

Thanks for reading the responses and commenting. So often in these fora a geocacher will open a thread with a complaint and then is never heard from (on that topic) again. 

Maybe your tree climbing days are over but unless you have a significant physical disability that doesn't have to be the case. I know one crazy geocacher (love ya' GG) that used rope and harness to get a cache while in an ankle cast.

If you want to see the world from a different perspective find some local geocachers with equipment that are willing to at least let you try it.

Whatever you decide to do, don't stop trying to stretch your boundaries. You get old quick that way. Good luck!

[+SeattleWayne]

9 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Sometimes that's simply not possible

But sometimes it is possible. 

[+thebruce0]

11 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

10 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Sometimes that's simply not possible

But sometimes it is possible. 

Sometimes redundancy is sometimes redundant, and sometimes it's also not redundant as well, too.

[+Team Microdot]

18 hours ago, arisoft said:

My simple idea would be this:  If you need only one limb to find the cache, then it is T1, two limbs required is T2, three limbs T3,  four limbs T4 and T5 may need some extension to your limbs. For example If the cache owner can climb to the tree with one hand in a pocket then the cache could be T3. Could it be easier?

Which two limbs would a T2 require?

[+fuzziebear3]

Maybe it is time to dig up the the ClayJar system for geocache rating again.

http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/

 

[+Team Microdot]

 

11 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Sometimes redundancy is sometimes redundant, and sometimes it's also not redundant as well, too.

I'm just curious as to how you got those nested quotes

[+thebruce0]

4 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

16 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Sometimes redundancy is sometimes redundant, and sometimes it's also not redundant as well, too.

I'm just curious as to how you got those nested quotes

Drag and block the text, click the little "Quote this" popup.

[+Team Microdot]

3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

9 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

21 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Sometimes redundancy is sometimes redundant, and sometimes it's also not redundant as well, too.

I'm just curious as to how you got those nested quotes

Drag and block the text, click the little "Quote this" popup.

Oh wow!

I must have missed the little popup previously.

Thanks

[+NYPaddleCacher]

52 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

55 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Sometimes redundancy is sometimes redundant, and sometimes it's also not redundant as well, too.

I'm just curious as to how you got those nested quotes

Drag and block the text, click the little "Quote this" popup.

Oh wow!

I must have missed the little popup previously.

Thanks

I asked about that just after the forums were updated.  I use it all the time now.

[+dprovan]

59 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I must have missed the little popup previously.

It's easy to miss. I find it pops up and disappears with hardly any logic to it. Besides, until someone told me what it did, I just assumed it was equivalent to the nearly useless "quote" button at the bottom of each post. I find it both amusing and disturbing that you really must discover and understand this obscure little feature in order to do any non-trivial quoting.

[+Team Microdot]

3 minutes ago, dprovan said:

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

I must have missed the little popup previously.

It's easy to miss. I find it pops up and disappears with hardly any logic to it. Besides, until someone told me what it did, I just assumed it was equivalent to the nearly useless "quote" button at the bottom of each post. I find it both amusing and disturbing that you really must discover and understand this obscure little feature in order to do any non-trivial quoting.

I also miss the ability to edit the underlying HTML of a post - unless that's buried away somewhere too...

[+SeattleWayne]

Some times geocaching requires physical effort. Trail running helps me stay in shape for climbing trees. 

[+narcissa]

Not all caches are for all people. Rather than complaining about a tiny proportion of caches you can't do, move on to ones you can.

And please leave it to individuals to determine their own capabilities. It has little to do with age.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

21 hours ago, narcissa said:

Not all caches are for all people. Rather than complaining about a tiny proportion of caches you can't do, move on to ones you can.

And please leave it to individuals to determine their own capabilities. It has little to do with age.

Come back when you're in your 60s and see if think the same.  There are some things I just physically can't do that I could when I was in my 20s.  I do, agree, however that ignoring caches that one can't do is the best option...better than getting someone else to do all the work then claiming a find.

[WW41]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

...better than getting someone else to do all the work then claiming a find.

Yes.

[+thebruce0]

YMMV on that one. (obviously) since "getting someone else to do all the work" is extremely unspecific, vague and subjective

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

YMMV on that one. (obviously) since "getting someone else to do all the work" is extremely unspecific, vague and subjective

Here we go

[+thebruce0]

...I wasn't "going" anywhere, it was a reply I think is fairly agreeable, but I have no interest in further debate about that ethic. Anyone who does, here's one relevant thread of many to take it to: Found it = Didn't Find it

[+MartyBartfast]

3 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Come back when you're in your 60s and see if think the same.

I started climbing trees with ropes when I was already in my 50s largely following the example of another cacher who only started himself when he was in his 60s, he's 70 this year and still actively searching out tree climbing caches. I don't see any reason to stop when I hit 60, unless something really bad happens in the next 5 years.

 

[+cerberus1]

3 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

I started climbing trees with ropes when I was already in my 50s largely following the example of another cacher who only started himself when he was in his 60s, he's 70 this year and still actively searching out tree climbing caches. I don't see any reason to stop when I hit 60, unless something really bad happens in the next 5 years.

I agree.  Many we introduced were well into their fifties.  All noticed that mechanical devices on rope is easier than they imagined.