Oregon Hell Hole?

August 23, 2003

It was the forest service that revealed the location in the first place with the video. And let's not forget Lewis and Clark. Who started the migration to Oregon.

I enjoyed searching for Hell Hole. In the end we found it by luck not GPS. We simply followed someone else to it. It was the same people that was originally shown to them by the forest service 19 years ago.

As far as the danger, it is dangerous. But only if you go inside. Hwy 58 to Hell Hole is far more dangerous than Hell Hole.

I knew that when Grin'n'Bearit placed a cache there it would open an interesting can of worms. After I read the three pages of the Hell Hole forum. I was driven to find it because of all the hoopla.

I think Grin'n'Bearit places the most interesting caches. You should see the ones he did in Arizona. Geocachers down there are still raving and wondering how he found such cool places. And Hell Hole is a cool place. It is at least 20 degrees cooler in the bottom.

August 24, 2003

Joining this conversation at its tail's end, I'm not sure what my 2 cents is worth, but...

While it's awesome that GeoCaching has helped people learn enough about mapping and terrain to uncover these long-hidden secrets, and even I would like to go see this place someday, moving the topic out of the forums, where only a small few will read, and announcing it the world over with "NEW CACHE!!" written all over it is probably not the best idea... Besides attracting people to a neat little "secret", you're now attracting a whole lot more people to something that's dangerous enough to have been omitted from maps for 70 years.

By not directly announcing what this location is on the cache page, you are not only "protecting" the Hell Hole from being widely revealed, but you are disallowing yourself from both explaining what this area is, and all the relevant intriguing information, but from placing disclaimers as to the danger of the location as well.

No doubt without the proper warnings, some unwary cacher, not knowing there's a giant hole in the ground up ahead, or that he/she is not supposed to go into it, will do something stupid, either accidentally, or by misjudgement, and ultimately get injured or even killed.

If someone heads out there by way of this thread, they know the dangers, and if anyone asks, they can quite truthfully say that they and a few friends researched and uncovered the location, and had to see it for themselves. If a geocacher is asked how they found the place, and they're not sure where they are or what they've been led to, what are they going to say?

"Well, err... uh... *shows cache pages* I'm geocaching."

"I'm looking for these co-ordinates."

"Uh... I lost my dog?"

"I thought I could get better cell phone reception over here... 'Can you hear me now? GOOD!'"

Point: The location of Hell Hole has been kept secret for this long for an actual *reason*. You may not personally think it's too dangerous, but a) you knew what you were looking for, and what not to do, and you may think you're smart and know not to do anything stupid, but significant evidence of human injury and fatalities at the location speaks otherwise about the average human. We're curious beings, and when we get a stupid idea in our heads that way, we don't realize that there may be dangers we haven't thought of.

A great serial killer once said, "Beauty is only skin deep. Trust me, I've looked..."

1.2k · August 24, 2003

An argument has been made to excuse the geocache being placed near the Hell Hole by pointing out this thread exists, it tells everyone where the Hole is, so that excuses placing the cache pointing out where it is too.

No it doesn't. Talking about the place among geocachers and actually PLACING the thing are two different things. No one can blame folks for pure curiosity and the fun of talking together and finding things out. But crossing the line of putting a cache where the Forest Service has been trying to keep safe for 70 years? Uh, yeah, AHEM... anyone wanna know the true definition of the phrase "ballistic podiatry"?

A positive goal of geocaching is to teach and learn respect for the lands where we cache, and to teach the various park authorities that caching is kosher and cool.

You can read threads complaining about entire parks banning caches for much less reason than what was done here with the current cache. I think there was a recent one in Ohio like that. Do we really want this to happen with the Forest Service? They know they can't ban internet chatting but they can sure ban geocaching in their forests.

Having the HellHole cache there has the potential to shoot geocaching in general in at least in a few toes, if not the entire foot as far as the Forest Service is concerned.

Placing the cache there does not exactly serve the goal of getting park authorities at all levels to look kindly upon geocaching in general, not to mention the Forest Service in particular.

One "I have a dadgum right to place this cache here" short-sighted misstep like this can actually have the potential to hurt all of us in the long run.

If it could a lot or just a little, that doesn't matter: the question is: do we really want those park authories who are arguing against geocaching to have something like this to help bolster their side of the argument? Hello?!!

Might as well bury a cache on the most sensitive state park-land possible, and then call a whole bunch of park rangers to the site to show off what ya did and say: see, go have yourselves a truely wonderful reason to turn against our sport! Oh yup, that's really helpful to geocaching overall.

-Elana (a.k.a. "Sparrowhawk")

[This message was edited by Sparrowhawk on August 24, 2003 at 10:58 AM.]

August 24, 2003

Those of you that have a complaint with the cache at Hell Hole do not have a leg to stand on!!!!!!!

Geocaching is about finding those seceret places and introducing them to others. It is not a treasure hunt. Most of the time the caches are full of junk. So if your are worried about the Forest Service banning Geocaching on their land, well there is always virtual caches.

We are NOT A SECRET SOCIETY tring to keep things secret except for a select few!!!!!

Hell Hole needs a cache!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who gives a darn what the Forest Service thinks. They should have never removed it from the maps in the first place and with this new found publicity they should fix the problem by educating the public not by hiding things from the public.

As for those of you who think that "safty" is a reason why a cache should not be there, what about all the other more dangerous caches out there.

I really thing all this crying is because you didn't find it first and put YOUR CACHE there!!!!

[This message was edited by fatdumbandlazy on August 24, 2003 at 05:34 PM.]

August 24, 2003

Let's remember what where talking about here. Are we talking about Area 51 or a natural rift. Their are plenty of neat places that aren't on maps. Doesn't mean they are secret and no one is supposed to go there. This thread is what's making it sound like a conspiracy. Everyone that is against Hell hole hasn't even seen it. I'm sure once you've seen it. You will probably say "this is what everybody is making a big deal about". There has been an enourmous amount of exaggerations about the Hole. First of all it really isn't a hole. Nobody is just going to be walking along a flat forest floor and woops! fall in a hole. This is a rift where the side of mountain has been pulling away for many years. If your coming from above you know your reaching the edge of the hill. It's just like walking to the edge of any hill or cliff. It would take a pretty stupid person to just walk off the edge of cliff and not realize it. If having a cache along the edge of hill is dangerous. Then all caches with nice viewpoints are just as dangerous. Even if you come up to the rift from below you're aren't just going fall into it without any sign of a hole. Once you get up near the top you will come to a cliff. If you walk along the bottom of the cliff you can practically walk right to the bottom of rift. It's just the last 50 feet that is steep. A rope is handy and nice for safety. But isn't neccassary.

You are treating the Forest service Like they're Saddam and us geocachers are at there mercy. We can't do or say anything in fear of the mighty USFS or they will take all are caches away. This is on Public Land. If the USFS really wanted this place off limits they would have done so long ago. Remember this is the United States of America. We the people are the government. Don't let the government control you like Saddam

[This message was edited by Grin'n'Bearit on August 24, 2003 at 05:52 PM.]

August 24, 2003

Lets also not forget, some of the responses on this thread are of people meeting other people that were there 19 years ago. They had a bunch of people with them that they were showing the hell hole too. So I bet those people were trained in the dangers of the hell hole and that was sanctioned by the Rangers?

The arguments against a cache there are completely ridiculous. It is not the Forestry Departments or anybody elses right to keep things on public lands secret.

It will not hurt geocaching in the long run nor the short run. If people hunt caches, they know the risks based on the difficulty and terrain rating.

Using that same argument, allot of caches will have to be yanked as they represent too much of a danger to people. I can list at least 20 caches that were life threatening and dangerous if a wrong step was taken.

This area is public land, if someone wishes to place a cache there, then it violates no rules, it, it doesnt hurt geocaching at all.

If they want noone there, then they need to make it private property and put a fence up all the way around it..because after all, only rangers and their friends and family and whomever else they decide to tell where it is are the only ones allowed to go there.

monkeys are everywhere

August 24, 2003

The Geologist that was there helping us find Hell Hole was shown the place by the forest service 19 years ago. He had 14 people in his group. everyone of them were his kids and friends. Not exactly people with special training. The area is not closed to the public. Why should only friends or family of the forest service be the only people allowed to visit?

2.3k · August 24, 2003

Not to offend anyone, but just because someone did the bulk of the research to find this place does not give them the say-so as to who can and cannot place a cache there. I say place the cache. It's on public land. We already have caches at volcanos, mountains and other so-called "dangerous" locations. If you think they are too difficult, don't do them.

7.4k · August 25, 2003

I think that you're all misunderstanding the concern here. The issue isn't that the area is too dangerous, but that - for whatever the reason - the USFS does not want the location of Hell Hole known. By placing a cache there, we are thumbing our noses at a land management agency that has been among the friendliest to us. Do you really want to risk harming our chances to cache in the National Forests?

Please, think long term rather than short term. Some of the comments made in defense of this cache have been unbelievably ignorant and shortsighted, and I would ask that people think about the consequences of their actions.

August 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by dasein:

The above sentence says it well. The Forest Service has kept this natural wonder effectively 'hidden' for years for some reason.

Is it worth the risk to 'cross' the Forest Service for one cache, which could very possibly jeopardize the life of many caches already located on Forest Service 'territory?'

--laurak

I've already posted my personal feelings on government trying to 'babysit' it's citizens, so I won't repost that, and I ABSOLUTLY agree with laurak and Moun10bike's last post...

However, ask yourself if your feelings about this cache would change if it had been placed by someone who doesn't read these forums, and didn't know about the search for the Hell Hole. What if a cacher had just stumbled across it, however unlikely that is, didn't know that the FS didn't want the location reveiled and decided it was such a cool place they wanted to place a cache there? Since there are no outward signs that the FS doesn't want people there, how would this person know? Do you think the cache should be removed if that is the case?

You may argue that just because a person doesn't know it's off limits doesn't make it right. But, in this case do we actually have any inclination that the FS would disallow a cache there? All we have is the fact that they don't want the location of the Hell Hole reveiled to the average person. And it seems to me that they are doing a pretty lousy job of keeping it a secret if they allow a video to be taken there and then broadcast, they allow geologists in there who then bring their friends and family back, etc.

Now, back to the specific cache. I also don't think it's a really good idea to place a cache here. The FS so far has been pretty good to us and I wouldn't want to jepordize that in any way. There is the possibility that they will find out about this cache and be so pissed off that they will ban caching from the area altogether. It also comes down to the general rule of caching, get permission from the land owner first. In general, the FS has let us pretty much do what we will with caches, but this seems to be the exception. It is in a place that they specifically don't want people to know about. That is absolutley thumbing our noses at them. We should at least approach them about allowing a cache there before placing one. You can say what you will about this thread leading more people there than a cache will, but the fact remains that (as of yet) the government can't control what is written on a geocaching.com message board. They CAN control what sort of activities are allowed on the land they control (even though it's public land, but I won't go into that). If we p!ss them off they might just turn around and ban caching on FS land altogether.

As Moun10bike wrote, please THINK about the future and how this cache will affect others.

there's my $10 worth.

Gloom

----

Never let Common Sense Get in the Way of Determination.

August 25, 2003

markl32 says; no cache at the Hell Hole. That is all. Carry on.

August 25, 2003

I don't have a problem with Grin'nBearit's cache. While I had earlier advocated no caches at the Hell Hole I've changed my mind.

The location of the Hell Hole is public knowledge. These messages are archived all over the Internet. To propose that putting a cache there is in some fashion advertising the location and will bring down the wrath of the Forest Service is foolish.

I don't worry about the Forest Service trying to pay Geocaching back for revealing this secret location. I think they are more professional than that and have better things to do, besides if they tried to ban every recreational activity that had the possibility of someone being injured, there would be no recreational use of the forest. No recreation means no jobs and who in their right mind puts their job at risk?

Finally as someone who has actually been there, the Hell Hole is no more dangerous than some other caches I've visited. How many of you have levered yourself off the couch to go there and see for yourself?

Croaker

August 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by dasein:

The above sentence says it well. The Forest Service has kept this natural wonder effectively 'hidden' for years for some reason.

A few years ago my mother who has reserched a cave in Eastern Oregon. This cave was on OPS and in her research she found some animals (small, need a mircoscope to see). She requested that the place of this cave was to be quiet, becuase it is a ecologically sensitive area. The more people who went through the area the less likely that the animals would remain. Remember this is the ONLY place in the world that these animals are. You all think it has to do with safety, but sometimes that is the reason that is given to keep people out of an area. Some people would disreguard the reasons no matter what. I realize a cache is placed, but remember this is not a world for humans.

HappyFrog

2.3k · August 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Croaker:
I don't have a problem with Grin'nBearit's cache. While I had earlier advocated no caches at the Hell Hole I've changed my mind.

The location of the Hell Hole is public knowledge.

Finally as someone who has actually been there, the Hell Hole is no more dangerous than some other caches I've visited.

How many of you have levered yourself off the couch to go there and see for yourself?

Croaker

Well, I am entertaining the idea of seeing this place for myself while I am up there Sept 6-8.

August 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Croaker:
if they tried to ban every recreational activity that had the possibility of someone being injured, there would be no recreational use of the forest. No recreation means no jobs

Yeah, right. That's why there are absolutley no limits on what you can do on public land, right? That's why I can take my Jeep and go blazing new trails in pristine forest, right? Cause I'm 'recreating' and helping them keep their jobs. Open up your eyes a little and you'll see that they pretty much limit every kind of recreation that you do. How much different is it for them to say that I can't drive my Jeep in X location, or there are no fires allowed in Y, or you can't drink alcohol at Z campground than it is for them to say, you can't place a cache here?

quote:
the Hell Hole is no more dangerous than some other caches I've visited.

Again, you're missing the point. It's not that the hell hole is dangerous, it's that they DON'T WANT THE LOCATION KNOWN.

----

Never let Common Sense Get in the Way of Determination.

1.1k · August 25, 2003

Me again.

I do not think the danger is in the location or the object of this thread.

I think the danger in this cache is it being that final step in the USFS regulating our cache

placements, more then they do now.

Now if this cache was run past the Ranger for that district and He/She said okay, I would

have no problem with it.

Maybe some of you missed my earlier statement or did not understand it. So here it is

again in a different layout.

IF the USFS decides that this is a "SENSITIVE" area, they will prohibit caching in the

area.

And I have seen them go one step further and close area's that "might" be effected in the

future. I have had a geocache - GCB698- removed by the USFS just for this very reason. No notice’s posted, just not marked on the maps. And it was implied that the whole area is watched everyday for caches and any caches in this area, like several sections of ground, will be removed. Do they watch? I do not know.

Why cause a conflict where one need not be?

Just because you “can” do something, does that mean you "should"?

This game is more then a supersize hide and seek thing. It started out as such but has

went way past what anyone ever thought it would be. Ask Jeremy and I would put

money on him saying he did not have any idea of having some much work to do with this

game.

And the more often “we” put our best foot forward and take steps to prevent conflict, the

more access we will maintain.

And with luck, we will prove ourselves and get to put "legal" caches in the Wilderness areas and National Parks as well.

logscaler.

"It is not fair to have a battle of wits with unarmed people."

2.3k · August 25, 2003

So who else has learned about this place outside of this board? I would venture to say no one. And if they really wanted to find it, they could. Geocachers found it in a matter of days, just looking at maps and the video. Even though we know about it here, I doubt there will be a herd of people running out to this place, leaving a trail of food wrappers and McToys....

Here we had all these people on the forums chasing this place down, and then when they find it, there is a big stink about keeping it a secret...why didn't anyone speak up while the hunt was on? Ya can't put the toothpaste back in the tube...

August 25, 2003

I have been away at my grandfathers funeral (unfortunately) so just got home and caught up on this thread. I must say I agree with logscaler and laurak of dasein, and pdxmarathon, and several others.

To find this spot you HAD to have read the forum. There is no way around it. Did you FAIL to read the individual posts? Or did you not care? Honestly, I have so much respect for Navdog and his caches, I would NEVER EVEN THINK of putting a cache where he specifically stated would be a bad idea... I guess I read this thread with such interest I thought everyone had sortof agreed it was stupid and a bit irresponsible to place a cache there. Don't want to put Nav on the spot, but here are a few of his posts from earlier in the thread:

quote:
I do want to say that after watching the video, I would not recommend putting a cache there. The rocks are extremely unstable and the rangers wore hardhats and needed ropes to get down into the hole. The last thing we neeed is for geocaching to get a bad rap from the Forest Service. If it is there I will enjoy checking it out sometime this summer, but as always, the hunt has been as much fun as finding the treasure!

and oh, here:

quote:
It was fun solving the mystery of the Hell Hole and it would be fun to have an informal geo-gathering to go check it out and maybe descend down into it, but I really hope nobody runs down there and places a cache nearby to advertise the location to the world. Somehow that seems a little unethical as the Forest Service has strived to keep its location secret. But it is on public land and it is not an ecologically sensitive area, so we have a right to go there, and in the long run it would be in our best interests to not ruffle too many feathers at the Forest Service.

and then Croaker:

quote:
I have to agree with Navdog. This isn't a place for a cache. Not a traditional, nor virtual or any other.

then PDXmarathon:

quote:
I couldn't agree more with Navdog.

and there are more.

So, I have to ask. Did the folks who placed this cache, and those who advocate its existence here, DID you read the forum? All of it? Did it not matter what others thought? Do you care if you get anyone else, or geocaching as a whole.. bad publicity?

I don't get it. Honestly. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. And just because other people have decided they could do something, which they were warned not to do.. slowly we have seen rules and regs that hurt all of our chances to recreate in some of the best places. I have no beef with the people who placed this cache, it was probably going to happen sooner or later, but I have to ask again... did you READ all the messages here? To hell with the honor system I guess, eh?

I think I have learned a valuable lesson. I think Navdog has too-and probably others. Some folks just don't give a dadgum and do what they want regardless of warnings or requests. Bottom line. A quick story some of you have heard on cogeo: I have often been torn about divulging the locations of many of the fossil hunting spots we have found. I once told a coworker about a favorite spot with fish fossils. We had gone there many times and carefully extracted them, with dental tools, dry paintbrushes and small garden tools. It was a neat spot, and each time we went out, we were careful not to destroy any that we weren't directly working on. I told my coworker about this spot, thinking he was interested and he wanted to take his kids out to see it and perhaps try to find a fossil or two. Next thing I know, I come to work and he has a large bucket of fossils, he says they took shovels, wheelbarrows and a big screen and basically dug the entire bed up. They completely ruined the spot. He found some fossils, yes.. but he has no idea how they went together as portions of individuals skeletons or anything. I just about got sick. Now I know that if there is a spot that is important or significant that is not generally known about.. there is probably a reason. Someone will always get greedy and ruin it for everyone else. Not saying this cache ruins anything but it has major potential to. I thought the "let's all agree not to place a cache here" message was pretty clear after reading the first couple pages of this topic.

*sigh* long week and darn smokey here too

WARNING: I cannot be responsible for the above, as apparently my cats have learned how to type.

August 25, 2003

I've been leaning towards the "no big deal" camp on the cache placed at Hell Hole, but now I'm leaning slightly the other way.

Actually, the solution is hidden in some of the other posts... we (those reading this thread) know that the Forest Service has, for whatever reason, been keeping the Hell Hole as a loosely kept secret. Grin'n'Bearit knew this when he placed his cache. What he should have done, and should do now, is contact the Forest Service and ask whether a he can place the cache in this location. If he can explain the game and explain his placement and the precautions on the cache's web page, the Forest Service may allow it. If not, it should be removed.

I do think that this would be different if there was no knowledge of the 'hidden' nature of the area by the cache placer. Unless the area is posted as a sensitive area, then I think it is open to reasonable cache placement. Those who disagree should be advocating the removal of ALL caches that don't have the specific permission of the land management authority where the caches are placed. (I wonder how small the number of caches will be after that clean up.)

August 25, 2003

illDRIVE here... The previous post was made by Zzzoey, and I pretty much agree wholeheartedly with all she had to say... Particularly, I wish some folks who have posted in the last few days would go back and read the first three pages... It's a fascinating history. Secondly, I agree with the post that suggests this thread should be locked, thereby removing that excuse for a cache being placed there. Thirdly, and to me most importantly, I felt it was just bad form to post a description of the visit to the sight on this forum and neglect to mention a cache had been placed. That just made it feel dirty to me. And the fact that it was disabled as soon as it was placed was concerning to me as well. I am in complete support of this cache staying put if the owner e-mails Mike Long (his address is posted earlier in the thread, by sluggo methinks) and talks it over with him. There's not a darn thing I'll be doing if that doesn't happen, but as others have mentioned, it's just my opinion.

And for the record, although I had nothing to do with locating the hole, my incessant geo-lurking opened this latter bag of beans. Although it's unlikely I'll be wedging my arss off my couch to go in search of the hole any time soon, I feel privileged to be aware of its existence and location, and I hope those who visit will tread lightly...

Nuff said.

WARNING: I cannot be responsible for the above, as apparently my cats have learned how to type.

August 25, 2003

I think what bothers me also is the way the cache at this location was set up. I know the placer thinks it's no big deal to put a cache there, then why all the secrecy and the restrictions on logging it. How is any casual cacher to know about the potential dangers or the Forest Service concerns about the place. Yes, I know it is not an ecologically sensitive area, but it looks like it was placed purely for selfish reasons. Just my honest opinion. Sometimes a little foresight is the better part of discretion.

August 25, 2003

Well, I think it's great that everyone figured out where the hole is, but I think it's a pretty rude place to put a cache. Just because it is not terribly difficult to get to doesn't mean that it's safe in any conventional sense. I think of it as the kind of place where proper equipment and skills will only take you so far - luck has a bit to do with it too... In the Oregon Field Guide video, one of the Geologists pointed out some Peterbuilt sized rocks that tumbled into the hole since his last visit. He said he thought it would be a really rotten place to be during even a small earthquake.

They also mentioned how it seemed possible that a further fracture of the Hell Hole might one day dam the North Fork of the Willamette. Now that’s a scary thought (though small potatoes in the geologic scheme)!

Personally, I like going to dangerous places, and maybe you all do too. However posting a geocache is like in open invitation that screams COME ON DOWN! I think it's like thumbing our collective nose at the Forest Service, who had some possibly well conceived reasons to make this place as obscure as possible.

I don't think this thread should be locked. I think this is an important discussion about the degree that geocaching is going to be self policing. Forest Service policy toward Geocaching is not written in stone by any means, and how Geocachers behave in the next few years might have long term effects on geocacher access to FS lands. I think a bit of discretion now might be in our best interest in the future.

August 25, 2003

Two points Gloom.

1. I never said anything goes in the NF. The point I was trying to make is that they don't stop idiots from killing themselves on Mt Hood or any of the other Cascade peaks do they? Yet we, the public, end up paying millions of dollars for some fools mistake. Personally I think you go in the woods, you are on your own. Don't expect to be rescued, that would thin out the crowds fairly quickly.

2. If they didn't want the location known then they shouldn't have put their faces on the TV and in the newspaper. They brought this before the public, more than once. If they have a problem with it now being an "open" secret they only have themselves to blame.

Croaker

August 25, 2003

Grinnbearit,

Why not just ask permission to place the cache there? I have dealt with the (Detroit ranger district)Willamette NF and they do have a geocaching policy and are receptive to caching. In fact, one of the rangers is a cacher.

The first sentence in their geocaching poster includes "it is extremely important that you contact the land manager when you place a cache". They also add that they are "happy to help in the location of a cache to avoid impacting biologically or resource sensitive areas".

August 25, 2003

Those of you that are against it that are saying that everybody was in agreement of not putting a cache there. You are only agreeing with others that don't think there should be a cache there. They are only your opinions. There was no mandatory agreement that anybody reading this forum must agree to not place a cache there. I read every post and disagreed with every person that said there shouldn't be a cache there. I wished croaker or navdog would've placed a cache there. I wouldn't have wasted no time to go out and find it. It would've been the first cache to get a 5 grin rating. I figured a place like this would be right up Navdogs alley. I've checked out his website and was impressed with the caches he had placed. I look forward to visiting them. It almost seems to me that navdog couldn't run down here and place a cache himself so he doesn't want anybody else either. But since no one else seemed to be interested in placing a cache there. I decided I would step up to the plate. I don't like to reveal neat places that aren't on maps by detailing exactly what you will find at the cache on the cache page. I like to leave that a surprise for the seeker. I could just imagine the amazement and exictment I would have if I found this cache and not knew this place was here. It just makes the find that much more fun. I've hidden a few other caches in the same manner because I don't want to spoil it for those that may not know what is there. I think there is plenty of warnings of the dangers and necassary preperations needed for the cache. Once you find the cache. The front page of the log book describes exactly what your looking at along with other details that would have given it away if it was listed on the cache page.

Now if we really want to have good standing with the forest service let's all agree to not hide any caches on USFS land unless we call the forest service first and ask for permission. We seem to be heading in that direction anyways wether we decide to require it or if the forest service decides to require it. This new rule also applies to all caches that are already hidden on USFS land. I'm sure depending on who you ask at the USFS, you will get a no answer on most of them. Or better yet Let's not litter our pristine forests with caches. Let's give geocaching a good name and only litter our Urban areas. There is still plenty of posts, signs, trees, bushes, bridges and other nook and crannies that don't have caches yet. Plenty to keep all geocachers busy that we can stay off USFS land all together.

August 25, 2003

Actually, I could have run down and placed a cache there the day I figured out where it was. But I chose not to for the reasons I originally mentioned. I guess it has to do with my idea of discretion.

August 25, 2003

Grin'n'Bearit - I have been 'lurking' to some sense and watching this thread since its inception. I have to admit I am amongst those that think there probably SHOULD NOT be a cache placed here. I can think of many reasons, but two of those are probably the most valid:

One - Navdog almost singlehandly located this 'hidden treasure' and as far as your previous assertion that 'navdog couldn't run down here and place a cache himself so he doesn't want anybody else either' I don't find that convincing in the least. I think Navdog found this location as far as 'geocachers' are concerned (certainly those following this thread) he should get to place a cache there... or decide that one shouldn't be placed there.

Reason Two: I think we need the NFS as our friends, definitely not our enemies. What they 'can' or 'can not' do is irrelevant... it's about human nature. If we 'thumb' our noses to them on this, there WILL be a price to pay. Maybe not today... maybe not tomorrow... but trust me, that time will come. I would rather 'play nice with others' and see geocaching live on, not just 'do it' becacuse I can.

As a sidenote to you Grin'n'Bearit, I can't help but notice that you have been a member of geocaching.com for over one year, yet almost half of your posts have been in response to this thread and 'defense' to your cache placement here.

I think that perhaps your arguments would be more convincing to me if this wasn't the first time I had 'heard' your voice.

I am not naive enough to think that anything I have said will convince you otherwise or change your mind, but I hope that you will listen to what is obviously the majority here, and pull your cache at 'hell hole'. If for no other reason than it is by far the consensus of contributing geocaching members.

My opinion... for what it's worth.

August 26, 2003

My friend Shane (whose geocaching name is 'chickenstrips,' although he refuses to register on geocaching.com because, in his words, geocaching is gay), a total wigger that used to wear a mullet back when christian metal was his thing but now sports plain backwards baseball-caps because of the eminem and the snoop dog and whatever else is popular to middle-class white kids today has at least a partial influence in my web-vernacular: When he started saying 'be-otch,' i eventually started saying 'be-otch.' The same can be said with the infusion of the word 'shizzle' into my vocabulary. For example, when i was at Dairy Queen yesterday, the girl asked me if i wanted dessert with my grilled chicken sandwich, and i replied: 'For shizzle my oreo blizzle.' This has been a trend in my everyday speech patterns (on and off) since i met chickenstrips about 10 years ago. Personally, i find this kind of speech laughable, if not offensive. It serves no purpose other than to whore out the english language to sexual deviants and irish immigrants. Saying 'aks' instead of 'ask' is--from my point of view--as bad as using an emoticon.

Of course, you can't deny the power of both:

quote:
Originally posted by oregone:

quote:
Originally posted by Navdog:
Yeah, I thought for sure there would be some eager beaver down there this last weekend.

I was almost said eager beaver, but a random fever and an even randomer unexplained electrical problem in the CRX prevented it. Both of which could have been prevented had a certain photo-taking cacher made it down there first. [props)]

As improper as it is to quote myself, i feel that the above usage of both fake emoticons and outdated-wigger-language demonstrates the fact that it is important to give props where props is due, be-otch.

My point of view is as follows: We had a mystery to solve, and one of us solved it. Hence, he that solved it reaps the spoils. Common courtesy and common sense, right?

All that throat-clearing preamble to an introduction diverted me from saying what i really wanted to convey: There's a certain amount of respect and trust that i expect (usually) when it comes to these forums. If we can't solve an honest-to-audrey mystery without somebody capitalizing on it, than what are we here for?

August 30, 2003

I'm sure that the Forest Service is proud of themselves for keeping the location a big secret, but I am also sure that there are thousands of people who know the spot and don't know that they aren't supposed to know about it. I would be willing to bet that the site is a common visit for a lot of people, and few if any are seriously injured or killed while visiting.

There are 2 other Oregon rifts that I can think of offhand. Crack-in-the-Ground has a virtual simply because it's designation doesn't allow a traditional. Beaver Creek Canyon http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=56053e1c-cf8a-494c-b0a7-82d26bf13ea6

has a traditional because it's designation (or lack thereof) allows for one. Aside from some elitists in the Forest Service wanting to protect people from an identical hole, what makes these two places any different than Hell Hole? Heck, Beaver Creek is a 200 foot deep rift with sheer walls, AND they've built neighborhoods on the rim!

I can understand the desire to keep the Forest Service happy, but at the same time what they're doing is pretty arrogant. Is this area really any more dangerous than any of 100,000 other places in Oregon? There are plenty of steep climbs, plenty of areas with thick vegetation, plenty of areas with falling rocks, plenty of areas with dropoffs.

Will NOT having an existing cache reduce the number of people who already know this place? Nope. Will placing a cache bring hordes of people milling through? Probably not.

--------------------

You have the right to defend yourself, even when geocaching!

August 30, 2003

Just went back to Hell Hole today. The roads are open to Hell Hole. They still have roads closed as you get closer to where the fire was. But getting to Hell Hole is no problem. I found a much closer and easier way to the rift. It took only 3 minutes to walk from the car to the edge. There is a trail all the way there. Obviously there are many people that do know about it if there is a trail. There are also trails running back and forth along the edge with trails leading to several viewpoints. Getting to the edge is the easy part. However finding a way down is tough. After looking for awhile for the best way down I found a rope tied to a log. after careful inspection of the rope I saw it was still in good shape and used it to help me climb down a steep enbankment about 50ft. The well beaten in trail continued on to the bottom. I was able to do the last 50ft to the bottom without a rope this time. I walked the entire length of the deep end and climbed out the other side which is tougher. I went to where I had hid the cache and removed it to the delight of the protesters. I still think this place needs a cache but on the easy side. It is very easy to get to and most geocachers should have no problem getting to the edge for viewing.

August 31, 2003

Greetings!

Well, I must say that I have really enjoyed this thread. Searching out and finding the natural wonders of our world is my favorite hobby. I even found another secret cave at N44 20.914 W121 42.957 that the USFS probably doesn't want you to know about. I then researched it on the Internet and with much difficulty found that it was named Skylight Cave for the openings to the sky you see when inside. The cave is closed in the winter to protect the bats so says a sign.

I hope to visit Hell Hole in a couple of weeks.

Thanks,,

Dave...

3.5k · August 31, 2003

Wow! Welcome Dave! Great to have you here. Guess you know you're a legend. Hope you join in a bit more often. Boy, I'd love to go find these places, but a ways away for me. Enjoy guys! Hope I can make it down that way some day.

Maybe I'll go revisit a couple of local "secret" places I know about.

"See the wonderous works of Providence! The uncertainty of human things!" Geo.Washington

1.1k · September 1, 2003

Sorry guys.

Grin'n'Bearit has provided some new information about the Hell Hole that has me changing my tune for this area. If there is already a well beaten trail all around the edges, leading to the crack and a way into the crack like he states, that I would have to say no problem with a cache here.

I was under the impression all along that there was no easy way into this location, that there was a major danger to the public at said location and that few people knew where it was.

It sounds like a go for a cache from my standpoint now.

And welcome Dave.

There are a lot of those lava tubes in that area that are not on the maps. BUT, if you go to Red Oaks Square in Bend, to the Fort Rock Ranger district office, they have a notebook with information on tons of those locations. And if you want, I have located several on a map that you can go look at also.

And mckee, I have a cache at Crack In The Ground but I know nothing of a virtual in the area.

logscaler.

"It is not fair to have a battle of wits with unarmed people."

September 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by logscaler:

And mckee, I have a cache at http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=21715 but I know nothing of a virtual in the area.

I thought it was a virt, but I was mistaken. Crack in the Ground is one of my favorite spots to visit down there. We were going to make the trek down there this weekend, but plans didn't go as.... well, as planned.

--------------------

You have the right to defend yourself, even when geocaching!

1.5k · September 3, 2003

Hey McKee, I'm a McKee too! Of the (McKee's)Farmer's Barn tavern on Lombard McKees. Isn't that McTastic?

5.9k · September 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mckee:

quote:
Originally posted by logscaler:

And mckee, I have a cache at http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=21715 but I know nothing of a virtual in the area.

I thought it was a virt, but I was mistaken. Crack in the Ground is one of my favorite spots to visit down there. We were going to make the trek down there this weekend, but plans didn't go as.... well, as planned.

--------------------

You have the right to defend yourself, even when geocaching!

OK, I'm laughing, what's up with the avatar?

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

September 4, 2003

As you have all have probably noticed I have totally revised the cache to meet some of the concerns. I've put allot of thought into the what route I want to take the cache. I have removed the secrecy and surprise factor. There is no longer a restriction on logging your visit. The concerns of dangers by un-susupecting cachers is solved by having them reading the forums before visiting. I was also considering only putting the cordinates in the forum so anybody interested in the cache would have to read the forum to find the cordinates to the cache. They may after reading the forum decide it isn't the cache for them. The cache is also on the easier side of the rift. It is easy to get to and there are trails to follow. I also wanted to make sure those that helped in the search for Hell Hole also got well deserved credit for there efforts. I'm also thinking of making certificates of excellence for there hard work. Maybe put them in the cache to be picked up at there convenience.

September 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:
Hey McKee, I'm a McKee too! Of the (McKee's)Farmer's Barn tavern on Lombard McKees. Isn't that McTastic?

McWild! It's my middle name, my Grandpa's first name. He was one of the last of Oregon's Fish Commissioners and the first of the Fish and Game Commissioners under Tom McCall when the agency turned from fish to fish and game back in 1975.

--------------------

This space for rent! Ask about our easy layaway plan!

September 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:
OK, I'm laughing, what's up with the avatar?

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

What? I found this thing while digging around in my home state of....aw, never mind.

I took the "What is this?" picture from your site and digitally removed the pin from the back so I could see what the design was. That was....2 weeks ago? I ran across the image again while cleaning out some files and thought "That would make a cool avatar, even if I'm not a meatcutter." If the Unemployed get their own guild and crest, I'll change it to that.

--------------------

This space for rent! Ask about our easy layaway plan!

September 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Grin'n'Bearit:
As you have all have probably noticed I have totally revised the cache to meet some of the concerns. I've put allot of thought into the what route I want to take the cache. I have removed the secrecy and surprise factor. There is no longer a restriction on logging your visit. The concerns of dangers by un-susupecting cachers is solved by having them reading the forums before visiting. I was also considering only putting the cordinates in the forum so anybody interested in the cache would have to read the forum to find the cordinates to the cache. They may after reading the forum decide it isn't the cache for them. The cache is also on the easier side of the rift. It is easy to get to and there are trails to follow. I also wanted to make sure those that helped in the search for Hell Hole also got well deserved credit for there efforts. I'm also thinking of making certificates of excellence for there hard work. Maybe put them in the cache to be picked up at there convenience.

Sounds good. I'm glad you found that traffic was far heavier than was previously thought.

--------------------

This space for rent! Ask about our easy layaway plan!

September 5, 2003

quote:
Michael J Long
Full Name

Michael J Long

Last Name (Surname)

Long

E-Mail

Michael.J.Long@usda.gov

X.400 Address

G=Michael;I=J;S=Long;OU1=R9;O=FS;P=GOV+USDA;A=attmail;C=US

Preferred Internet Address

mjlong@fs.fed.us

He may be in Ohio instead of Oregon (They both begin with "O".

Gotta go!

- - Sluggo

WARNING: I cannot be responsible for the above, as apparently my cats have learned how to type.

5.9k · September 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mckee:
If the Unemployed get their own guild and crest, I'll change it to that.

--------------------

This space for rent! Ask about our easy layaway plan!

Use that one. It can represent "job cuts", "cutting back personnel", or hiring slashes".

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

September 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:

Use that one. It can represent "job cuts", "cutting back personnel", or hiring slashes".

You forgot "getting axed." A meat cleaver is close enough. Hmmm... trimming the fat would be good too. Mmmmm.... fat!

--------------------

This space for rent! Ask about our easy layaway plan!

1.1k · September 5, 2003

Zzzoey.

That Long guy is from Region 9

quote:
OU1=R9

Edit : Oopps, wrong Region 9. Corrected.

logscaler

[This message was edited by logscaler on September 05, 2003 at 09:55 PM.]

October 4, 2003

Greetings!

Well, I made it to Hell Hole today! And it is indeed a Hell of a Hole! Found the old brown rope and climbed down inside. SCARY!! All them loose rocks hanging over my head! And there were other people snooping around on the rim while I was down inside. Yuk! Scary!

But quite an experience! Thanks!

Dave...

Dave Ulmer - Inventor of Geocaching

October 5, 2003

Sounds like road trip time!

2.8k · October 5, 2003

We were the only ones around today. Except for whoever fired the 2 rifle shots in the distance.

An amazing place. We went in from both ends. On one end we used our own rope, on the other we used the old brown rope

Any more info will cost you a pint

October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by pdxmarathonman:
We were the only ones around today. Except for whoever fired the 2 rifle shots in the distance.

An amazing place. We went in from both ends. On one end we used our own rope, on the other we used the old brown rope

Any more info will cost you a pint

It's Opening Weekend for deer season in Oregon. Probably someone getting lucky.

--------------------

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

October 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mckee:
Probably someone getting lucky.

What does that have to do with deer season???

----

Never let Common Sense Get in the Way of Determination.

1.3k · October 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Gloom:

quote:
Originally posted by mckee:
Probably someone getting lucky.

What does that have to do with deer season???

Well, as a deer hunter myself, I can tell you when you pull the trigger the rush of emotions can be so huge that it's easy to get uh... "confused." And who knows what that may happen then.

Oregon Hell Hole?

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