Jump to content

Stop throw down caches just log a DNF


farrtom

Recommended Posts

I am sure there are already threads about this but I couldn't find any some I am venting here. I am a semi active cacher but not a newby by any means and it seams like I have been finding more and more throw down replacement caches recently.

The other day way finding a cache that is part of a geoart power trail in a fairly remote are I found the "new" cache in a pile of rocks and while rehiding it I found the original cache under the same rocks. (Fyi I drive by this geoart often for work and have been periodically stopping for one or two caches at a time)

This is not the first time I have found both the original and the "new" container. The only good thing is I take the "new" container and rehide them as new caches.

It is OK to want to help a cache owner but please do some due diligence and remember it is OK to log a DNF.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, farrtom said:

I am sure there are already threads about this but I couldn't find any some I am venting here. I am a semi active cacher but not a newby by any means and it seams like I have been finding more and more throw down replacement caches recently.

The other day way finding a cache that is part of a geoart power trail in a fairly remote are I found the "new" cache in a pile of rocks and while rehiding it I found the original cache under the same rocks. (Fyi I drive by this geoart often for work and have been periodically stopping for one or two caches at a time)

This is not the first time I have found both the original and the "new" container. The only good thing is I take the "new" container and rehide them as new caches.

It is OK to want to help a cache owner but please do some due diligence and remember it is OK to log a DNF.

You're preaching to the choir here. This is a matter that's been discussed many times in the past, and most of the regulars here are fully aware of the issues that arise from throwdowns. A cache I had been watching recently got a throwdown followed by 4 finds from the throwdowning group, so I posted in our local Facebook group reminding people that they shouldn't do it and should instead log a DNF, NM, or NA, as appropriate.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, farrtom said:

I am sure there are already threads about this but I couldn't find any some I am venting here. I am a semi active cacher but not a newby by any means and it seams like I have been finding more and more throw down replacement caches recently.

The other day way finding a cache that is part of a geoart power trail in a fairly remote are I found the "new" cache in a pile of rocks and while rehiding it I found the original cache under the same rocks. (Fyi I drive by this geoart often for work and have been periodically stopping for one or two caches at a time)

This is not the first time I have found both the original and the "new" container. The only good thing is I take the "new" container and rehide them as new caches.

It is OK to want to help a cache owner but please do some due diligence and remember it is OK to log a DNF.

I don't know if I would take the new one, but certainly I would log a NM log stating something to the effect (in the Found it log as well) "I suspect that the container I found is a throwdown because (insert reasons). Cache owner should check on status." Then the monkey is on the CO's back should they choose to do something about it, especially if they are concerned about the red wrench. Whether they do or don't, I think at that point, you have done your due diligence.

Link to comment

I know that tune... As someone that has more fun hiding caches than finding them, I take DNF's very seriously and always make a point of quickly following up. If that's not possible, I will archive it so someone else can use the area to hide a cache. I don't like it when people can't find one and just leave another thinking they are doing you a favor. But I also realize there are just good hearted people out there who want to help.

Back to the tune...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I personally do not like the idea of throwdowns at all. Log an NM/NA, but please don't place a throwdown.

 

Not too far from me, there's a cache that has had many Found It logs that claim the container is mostly intact but could use some slight repair. Then someone comes along, can't find it, therefore replaces the container. IMO, this is even worse than a "regular" throwdown. Not like throwdowns are great or anything, but this one is even worse...No indication the cache is missing, but you can't find it so you replace it? Not something that should be done in my opinion.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Keystone said:

What *is* within my jurisdiction:  if I've temporarily disabled a cache page due to maintenance issues, and someone places a throwdown, I will still archive that cache page after four weeks of owner inaction.  Even if the owner is happy with the throwdown replacement, they still need to enable their cache page.

 

That's MY biggest gripe:  when a reviewer disables a cache and the CO does absolutely nothing, but still gets upset when the cache is archived.  It literally takes a couple of mouse clicks to avoid that

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, schmittfamily said:

I feel like when we have found two containers at a cache site it's been due to a replacement by the cache owner who thought their original cache was missing more often than it has been a throw down by another cacher.   

 

 

 

That does happen, but it’s usually clear from previous logs who dropped the replacement.

 

It can be quite embarrassing when you can’t find your own cache.

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Reviewers should be mandated to remove the throwdown find when cachers leave logs saying they left a container.

 

I know Keystone has already addressed this, but really?  You want volunteers, who have lives outside of geocaching,  to start policing logs as well as all the other stuff they do.  If you're certain a cache has been replaced with a throwdown, contact the CO and let them deal with it.  They don't, file the NM log if it's the only container there, instead of the original, follow it up with a NA log 30 days later and then let the reviewer take care of it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

 

That's MY biggest gripe:  when a reviewer disables a cache and the CO does absolutely nothing, but still gets upset when the cache is archived.  It literally takes a couple of mouse clicks to avoid that

 

A recent occurence in my local area (the CO hasn't been heard from since the Archive).  Note the date of the TD log.

 

Reviewer

Archive

08/14/2018

Owner Maintenance

06/16/2018

I am working on getting this up again please be patient

Reviewer

Post Reviewer Note

06/15/2018

 

Temporarily Disable Listing. [by CO]

12/24/2017

Cache is missing in action will have another one by tomorrow afternoon.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

I know Keystone has already addressed this, but really?  You want volunteers, who have lives outside of geocaching,  to start policing logs as well as all the other stuff they do.

 

Some don't mind. I've seen maintenance enforcement by reviewers in my area, i.e. keyword searches for words that indicate neglected caches. If a reviewer were inclined, they should be given the OK to remove finds if a throwdown log is reported to them (then disable the neglected cache until the owner posts an OM). How else will the throwdown practice of "helping" oneself to a smiley, be reduced? 

 

7.11. Respond to "throwdowns"

Throwdowns are strongly discouraged

A “throwdown” is a container placed by a geocacher who cannot find the original cache.

Some geocachers place throwdowns so that they can log a find on a cache that they suspect is missing. Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the cache owner. This can lead to multiple containers, geocacher confusion, and disputes about whether someone is entitled to log a find or not.

How to handle throwdowns

Cache owners are responsible for maintenance. When you are aware of throwdowns, check if your cache is still there and remove the throwdown cache. Consider disabling the cache until you can remove the throwdown or replace the original cache. If you do not disable the cache, you may want to honor Found It logs for the throwdown. However, the geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the cache as found.

The throwdown clause should be more strongly worded giving reviewers the mandate to remove finds if a throwdown log is reported to them. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Keystone said:

Reviewers review cache pages - not logs.

 

Some sweep. Some do keyword searches. Some reviewers might be OK with removing throwdown finds. Or at least remove the throwdown language from the log, so others don't think it's OK/expected/sanctioned. 

 

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

The throwdown clause should be more strongly worded giving reviewers the mandate to remove finds if a throwdown log is reported to them. 

 

Again, you want reviewers to do something that's outside of their volunteer responsibilities.  Your own quoted section shows how a throwdown should be handled - by the CO.  I've already outlined the method in which you can involve the reviewer, by going through the CO first, filing the NM if they don't respond, and then the NA a bit later.  Throwdowns are an issue, in some areas more than others, but I bet most of us have come upon a throwdown while out caching.  They are maintenance issues, per the guideline you quoted above, so they could follow current best practices, which I've already outlined.  I'm not on board with mandated reviewer policing of throwdown logs because that means that EVERY log after the throwdown is placed has to be deleted.  That could mean anywhere from 1 log to X logs, based on how many cachers visit the cache after a suspected throwdown is placed.

 

Reviewers will spend more time policing those possible situations than they will anything else, meaning that maintenance issues will most likely fall by the wayside, creating even more of the types of caches you lament about, unmaintained caches, in need of repair due to lack of maintenance on the CO.  Reviewers won't even have the time to attempt to address those caches since they'll be required to deal with throwdowns based on your suggestion.  There would be so many other areas this could affect that would cause problems as well.

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, L0ne.R said:

Or at least remove the throwdown language from the log, so others don't think it's OK/expected/sanctioned. 

 

Now you want them to edit logs as well?  A throwdown (and the subsequent logs), per the guidelines, is a CO maintenance issue, not a reviewer issue.  Please don't ask them to do even more than they already do.  They are volunteers, not paid employees.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, colleda said:

Is it time to call out throwdowners then?

 

4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

That’s what I was thinking. 

Reviewers should be mandated to remove the throwdown find when cachers leave logs saying they left a container. 

Rather than place a new burden on the reviewer, we as finders of the throwdown, or throwdown and original should post a NM log stating something like "I suspect the container I found was a throwdown because (insert reasons why). Cache owner should check on status." At that point the monkey is on the CO's back to get rid of the red wrench and whether or not to delete the throwdowner's log.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

The throwdown clause should be more strongly worded giving reviewers the mandate to remove finds if a throwdown log is reported to them. 

 

… or in the case of it "being above a Reviewer's pay grade", whoever in authority is in charge of that (as we see that logs do get messed with and caches archived by somewhere among TPTB).

 

But stricter rules would cause me to catch a lot more grief after I post "Needs Maintenance".  So the new guidelines must have teeth.  Also, there should be rules, if there are posted penalties for breaking rules.

 

I found a cache one time that was a throw-down, a weightless little juice bottle. It's a Micro throwdown, the “Small” original was gone. Strangely, the slip of paper in the Micro seemed to be from the original. Everything else about this cache was Throwdown.

 

I found it out of place on the slope of a hill. The container is blown by wind, or moved by animals. The “dead tree” hint location was long gone. It was not possible to hide the container. I could have gathered items from the area to build a hiding spot, but really. It's not maintained. The hint is now unrelated to the cache. This cache is all wrong and it's gonna blow away. I logged an NM.

 

The Cache Owner made a point to post that my NM log “was a bit much”, and that an NM will “cause us to have to go check on it within a few weeks each time under threat of having the cache archived”. The best option is to shame people into not making the NM logs, which is fine with everybody, with the possible exception of the fool who logs an NM.  Because there's swift and sure punishment for breaking the "no NM" rule.

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, NanCycle said:

 

Oh no!  don't remove the throwdown  language from the log.  The CO needs that to know that there was a throwdown.

 

That is an interesting idea.  There's this monkey-see-monkey-do thing going on.  Cachers see a lot of "I dumped a bunch of my drug bottles here.  Enjoy!" logs, and they could easily believe that it's a cache replacement policy.  I shall ponder the guideline change.

 

I don't think there's a particular issue with community maintenance if it's stated on the cache page. That is, say, when a Small container is replaced by a finder with a Micro and now it's on a slope 40 feet away and there's no dead tree hiding spot, that the cache description is updated by the CO to reflect the new caching experience. Thank Cacher X for the new container, change the cache description, state that there may yet be an old container nearby, describe it. That's not such a big deal to me. If the cache is now entirely different, consider archiving for a new cache. But it's OK for now.


The finder should not have to research the various community maintenance logs, to guess what the current state of the cache is. Either the cache description gets fixed, or the cache does. Go ahead and truthfully log what maintenance was done when the cache is checked. If the CO really finds the cache just fine as is, that's fine. Log that.  "Went to do maintenance, none needed". And no blame-n-shame to cachers who place the NM.

 

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment
3 hours ago, schmittfamily said:

I feel like when we have found two containers at a cache site it's been due to a replacement by the cache owner who thought their original cache was missing more often than it has been a throw down by another cacher.   

 

We've seen the exact opposite, and have yet to hear of a CO who placed another because they couldn't find their own.

Most logs show the throwdowner "helper" even admitting what they did. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Some sweep. Some do keyword searches. Some reviewers might be OK with removing throwdown finds. Or at least remove the throwdown language from the log, so others don't think it's OK/expected/sanctioned. 

 

I think this is a terrible idea...  

Removing that language helps the throwdowner .   I'd like to know who they are, thanks.  I see their name on mine, I might want to go check.

There really isn't any way to get past the idea that the CO is responsible to keep track of his own caches.

Our Reviewers occasionally sweep, and one has removed a lot of "missing" trackables from the system. 

 -  On their own, when they feel like it and have time.  :)

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Team Christiansen said:

 

Rather than place a new burden on the reviewer, we as finders of the throwdown, or throwdown and original should post a NM log stating something like "I suspect the container I found was a throwdown because (insert reasons why). Cache owner should check on status." At that point the monkey is on the CO's back to get rid of the red wrench and whether or not to delete the throwdowner's log.

 

Oh definitely. But often that cache will have NMs and DNFs yet no NAs. In some area the NA is required, otherwise the reviewer will not take action. But no one wants to be that guy, especially when the owner is a popular active CO whose modus operandi is to hide lots, maintain nothing, and wait for the eventual and likely throw down. 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

We've seen the exact opposite, and have yet to hear of a CO who placed another because they couldn't find their own.

Most logs show the throwdowner "helper" even admitting what they did. 

 

That's what I've seen most often. For my caches, not an entire container, yet. I try to be polite with the community maintenance on my caches, although I'm not thrilled by it and I've prepared a replacement for when the time comes. Don't work on my caches, it's a waste of time since I'm replacing the whole setup with an improved version.  I'd prefer it not be unitateral community maintenance.  Ask the CO first.  While one waits, one may have to log a DNF.  Perish the thought.

 

But if someone were to drop a pill bottle, believing they've solved my Cache Maintenance Issues, I'll post a “thank you”. Doesn't mean I greatly appreciate the throwdown, and doesn't mean I'd encourage that kind of thing. It mainly means I acknowledge that you're... out of meds. :ph34r:

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Team Christiansen said:

"I suspect the container I found was a throwdown because (insert reasons why). Cache owner should check on status."

 

That's when a cacher gets labelled a 'cache cop'. How often does a guy that posts those kinds of logs get patted on their back for sticking their neck out, or get supportive logs backing them up when the owner gets publicly snarky? Generally the support goes to the popular cache owner.  

 

Based on human behavior it would have more effect when coming from authority figures (reviewers or GCHQ). 

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, kunarion said:

But if someone were to drop a pill bottle, believing they've solved my Cache Maintenance Issues, I'll post a “thank you”. Doesn't mean I greatly appreciate the throwdown, and doesn't mean I'd encourage that kind of thing. It mainly means I acknowledge that you're... out of meds. :ph34r:

:D

We had one where you didn't have to leave the trail at all.  Simply bend down, reach out and it's right there.

"No need to leave the trail" was the hint.  Simple,  right?

That darn cache was the most "replaced" (throw-downed ?), with most people walking up a small trail and drop a film can quite a few feet away.

The other 2/3rds wouldn't let me delete any of those simpleton's throwdowner names.  If I didn't stop after work, she'd stop on the way.

 - I think she kinda felt sorry for them...

Link to comment
2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

We've seen the exact opposite, and have yet to hear of a CO who placed another because they couldn't find their own.

 

Yeah, I've done this as well.

 

It would have helped if some numpty hadn't put the cache somewhere it obviously shouldn't have been - not like there wasn't an absolutely clear and obvious hint and a ridiculously obvious hiding spot and no reason why someone wouldn't put it back in the right place...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, coachstahly said:

I'm not on board with mandated reviewer policing of throwdown logs because that means that EVERY log after the throwdown is placed has to be deleted.  That could mean anywhere from 1 log to X logs, based on how many cachers visit the cache after a suspected throwdown is placed.

That escalated quickly.

 

Why would all of the later logs needs to be deleted in this case? There was a discussion about this a while back, and I seem to recall that the general consensus was that the cachers who find the throwdown usually do so unknowingly and shouldn't be punished as a result. The Help Center further reinforces this:

Quote

When you are aware of throwdowns, check if your cache is still there and remove the throwdown cache. Consider disabling the cache until you can remove the throwdown or replace the original cache. If you do not disable the cache, you may want to honor Found It logs for the throwdown.

 

In the hypothetical scenario where the reviewers become the throwdown police, I'd have no problem with the admitted-throwdowner's log being deleted*, but unknowing throwdown finders shouldn't be punished.

 

*Although, the obvious side effect will be that throwdowners will simply stop saying so in their log.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

But no one wants to be that guy, especially when the owner is a popular active CO whose modus operandi is to hide lots, maintain nothing, and wait for the eventual and likely throw down. 

 

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

hat's when a cacher gets labelled a 'cache cop'. How often does a guy that posts those kinds of logs get patted on their back for sticking their neck out, or get supportive logs backing them up when the owner gets publicly snarky? Generally the support goes to the popular cache owner.

 

Sounds as if you've been caching around my way :lol:

 

I even had someone try to chastise me because I took my maintenance responsibility seriously and rejected his throw down and Found It log. According to them I was the one who handled it badly. Jog on pal :lol:

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

We've seen the exact opposite, and have yet to hear of a CO who placed another because they couldn't find their own.

Most logs show the throwdowner "helper" even admitting what they did. 

 

Of the five times we have found multiple containers at a cache site:

a. 2 times the logs made it clear it was replaced by the cache owner.  

b. 1 time the original container was broken so a subsequent cacher was trying to replace the container - but there was too much swag in the original cache so the subsequent cacher just moved the log and travel bugs to the new container.  

c. 1 time the second container was from an archived cache that predated the active cache at the same location.  Ironically the archived container was the original container of the archived cache and had been replaced by the cache owner.

d. 1 time the second container was an unrelated letterbox cache (not listed on Groundspeak).  

 

Those are the only times where we have found multiple containers. 

 

There have been instances where the logs around our find made it clear there was multiple containers at the site and we only found one.  Those cases the logs have suggested a mix of throw downs, the cache owner placing a second (or third) container, or the cache owner agreeing to a proxy replacing the cache.      

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, NanCycle said:
22 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 have yet to hear of a CO who placed another because they couldn't find their own 

I've done this also.   Just recently I had a log that mentioned 2 containers. When I went to check I found that both had been left by me. 

I've found one like that. It was a nice cache in a wooded area. After a series of DNFs, the CO thought it was muggled and replaced it. A while later, someone found the original and the replacement, and left them next to each other. I found the two containers next to each other.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I agree, stop throwdowns.

 

I have not knowingly found a throwdown yet.   I have found 2 containers, but both from the CO (one a replacement for a cache thought to be missing).

I've also at least twice found and older/original container, and NOT the replacement (by the CO).    In  these cases I found a cache and didn't think anything unusual, but then later the CO contacted me and asked me to describe it.. as something in my log made him/her think I found an older one.  And sure enough, I had found a long lost version of the cache.  Once I found that I stopped looking, so never found the most recent one.   

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

I have not knowingly found a throwdown yet. 

I have not knowingly logged a Find on a throwdown yet, but I've found a few. One cleverly hidden cache had a throwdown film canister literally inches from the actual cache. Another was left after a regular size cache (placed by a "one weekend wonder") was muggled; the person who left the throwdown insisted that what he did was a good thing, because now others would have "something to find". And so on.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, niraD said:

I have not knowingly logged a Find on a throwdown yet, but I've found a few. One cleverly hidden cache had a throwdown film canister literally inches from the actual cache. Another was left after a regular size cache (placed by a "one weekend wonder") was muggled; the person who left the throwdown insisted that what he did was a good thing, because now others would have "something to find". And so on.

 

I logged a find on a throwdown once.

 

Then I realised this was the case, converted my log to a DNF, called out the throwdow and logged a NA as I was 100% certain the CO would never maintain their cache as all their earlier publications had been reviewer archived for lack of response.

 

The rage from a section of the local community was worthy of song :lol:

 

 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
42 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

  Once I found that I stopped looking, so never found the most recent one.   

 

This brings up something I've never been able to get.   Once you have found a cache,  why would you keep looking for another one.   I did find two once; one was lying on top of the rock pile it was supposed to be under, and when I started moving rocks to hide it I found the other container. This one had been found by someone who took it home, then brought it back after the CO had replaced it.

 

Another scenario I can get is if there are 2 people looking and each one finds one. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
55 minutes ago, NanCycle said:

Once you have found a cache,  why would you keep looking for another one.

I've kept looking a few times when the cache I found didn't match the description of the cache I was looking for. The film canister throwdown for the missing regular size cache was one example. But a couple times, I started reading through the logs and discovered an OM log that described the container I had found; the owner simply hadn't updated the description.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
58 minutes ago, NanCycle said:

 

This brings up something I've never been able to get.   Once you have found a cache,  why would you keep looking for another one.   I did find two once; one was lying on top of the rock pile it was supposed to be under, and when I started moving rocks to hide it I found the other container. This one had been found by someone who took it home, then brought it back after the CO had replaced it.

 

Another scenario I can get is if there are 2 people looking and each one finds one. 

 

Not entirely the same, but I was out for an FTF once where the cache was hidden under a bridge.  I found the key hide pretty quickly, but when I opened it, I saw a bunch of signatures.  I realized I was probably holding an archived cache, so I looked a bit more and found the cache I'd come looking for (a nano, it turned out) just a few feet away from the archived cache container.  So I guess there's always the possibility of finding an archived one where a newer one is hidden, neither one of them being a "throwdown".

Edited by J Grouchy
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
15 hours ago, NanCycle said:

Once you have found a cache,  why would you keep looking for another one.

On one occasion we found a cache, which was quite obviously a throwdown by the previous finder: a low-quality container, with only a scrap of paper in it, and only the name of the previous finder on the paper. But the online log was only a generic copy&paste log, without any mention of the throwdown. Also, there wasn't a string of DNFs before. Instead, the hide was described as "tricky" (which the throwdown hide was definitely not), and there were quite a few DNFs between all the finds. Given that, and because we were not in a hurry, we tried to find the original container. Took almost 20 minutes, but in the end we got it.

 

16 hours ago, NanCycle said:

Another scenario I can get is if there are 2 people looking and each one finds one. 

Yeah, and that can be quite funny :) . I caching with my son, looking for a micro at a small lonely hut in the woods. Lots of places where you could hide one. In the very moment I found the container, I heard a "Here it is!" from the other end of the hut - my half-hearted reply "No, here it is" wasn't taken seriously ;) . By comparing the containers, it was clear that mine was the throwdown. Interestingly, the logs for the previous few months were almost evenly distributed between the throwdown and the original.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 8/15/2018 at 3:27 PM, Blue Square Thing said:

It would have helped if some numpty hadn't put the cache somewhere it obviously shouldn't have been - not like there wasn't an absolutely clear and obvious hint and a ridiculously obvious hiding spot and no reason why someone wouldn't put it back in the right place...

 

Sometimes natural effects can adjust a container's location and make it hard for the CO to find; someone else comes along and finds the "original" - no throwdown, and a legit replacement by the CO also there. It can happen. I've been on both sides of that fence :) (finding a cache with a CO-replacement, but finding old original the CO couldn't find, and owning a cache I couldn't find the original that either a cacher found or I found much later).

 

I think in cases where a "throwdown" has zero illegitimate intent, the CO should absolutely clean up ASAP, but no can be 'blamed' for the existence (or finding) of the additional container.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 8/15/2018 at 6:54 AM, L0ne.R said:

 

Reviewers should be mandated to remove the throwdown find when cachers leave logs saying they left a container. 

 

I am hoping this was a joke. If not, this is exactly why I would never come to the forums for the answer to any real questions that I might have.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

The other day I found a throwdown, or more precisely, a throwup.  LOL  The previous finder couldn't find the silver bison tube so they left a blue bison tube.   It was 10-12 feet above the ground reachable using a TOTT.  But how he hung up a new one without seeing the old one is a mystery to me.  

throwup.jpg

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 3
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...