This log made me uneasy

[+Salvelinus]

Read the third log down on THIS cache page.

 

I hope everything turns out ok. I sent an e-mail to the cache placer hoping to get some information. It looks like the group, who's leader posted the log, was really off from where the cache should have been. Previous finders seemed to have very little trouble and its not surprising to have very little winter activity in this area.

 

What bugs me is that the placer of this cache did not immediatly archieve it! He/She was on the website yesterday and I made a strong suggestion in my e-mail that this should be done.

 

All and all...very unfortunate experience for a new cacher.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Smoochnme

 

"Only when the last tree is cut,

and the last stream is polluted,

and the last fish is caught,

will we realize that you can't eat the money"

[+joedohn]

I think it's a good idea you've aired this out for general notice. The cache needs to be checked and archived/replaced if necessary. Perhaps this thread will catch the cache owners attention before the email you sent them does.

 

Although the scout's fall and injuries are unfortunate (and kind of scary), I don't see a connection between the accident and the cache as much as I see a connection between the scout's level of supervision and his personal ability to judge a hazardous situation. Having grown up with the Boyscouts and having my Dad as Scoutmaster, I remember the personal distress he felt when scouts got injured under his supervision. The incident that I remember most was a fellow scout being hospitalized for an allergic reaction to a severe poison oak exposure gotten in a midnight game of 'Capture the Flag'. Every year though, there was always some kind of significant injury. We were out in the woods doing potentially dangerous things (as carefully as we could) and growing up in the process. I see the pursuit of the cache as no more hazardous than many activities a scout may engage in and certainly no more hazardous than rafting a river.

[+yrium]

quote:

---

Originally posted by smoochnme:

 

What bugs me is that the placer of this cache did not immediatly archieve it! He/She was on the website yesterday and I made a strong suggestion in my e-mail that this should be done.

 

---

 

Usually finders post a message in their logs when they come across a cache that seems dangerous to them. I've seen this many times. The people who did find the cache didn't mention be careful so I have to think that the steep climb is not that dangerous.

 

My guess would be the cache is missing and next to the 'steep' portion is a 'really steep' portion and this is where the accident took place. If I was the placer, I'd put a hold on the cache till I investigated.

 

No part of the fault should lie with the cache hider. The adults in the group are ultimately responsible for the youths they are supervising.

 

--- yrium ---

 

P.S. Love to see those spawner logs!

[+rdw]

First thing I noticed: This was a person who has never found a cache. This person may not be familiar with GPS inaccuracies that a more experienced cacher would know how to handle. They would not be familiar with the force either.

 

Second thing: The previous group didn't have a problem, and had a wide age range.

 

Third thing: This topo map shows this as a fairly smooth hill, not a cliff that you could accidentally fall from. Moreover, the crosshairs suggest the cache is near the bottom of the ravine.

 

$h!t happens. If you have a bunch of kids with an inexperienced leader searching for a cache in a steep area, does it really suprise you that one of them might have an unfortunate fall? It doesn't suprise me. And it's not all that terrible an injury. You could break a rib if you tripped over a stump and fell on perfectly flat ground. The adult leading the group has the ultimate responsibility of knowing when to say when. The previous logs do not suggest that this is a particularly hazardous area. Even if it was, it's still the finder's responsibility to know whether he is up to the task. I see no reason to archive the cache because someone had a bad experience with it.

 

rdw

[+The Cheeseheads]

I agree that you can't hold the hider responsible for the injuries, and that the cache shouldn't be automatically archived for that reason.

 

But, this thread has been discussing abandoned caches, and since it looks like about four months passed since the last successful find, and three others have been unsuccessful, perhaps the cache is now missing. I would deactivate it until I could determine this.

 

[+Salvelinus]

I got a reply from the placer. He said that he cannot get up there until August. But he gave me really specific directions on where it is, so I'll go looking before then.

 

I hope that by posting the original thread I didn't give anyone the idea that I thought he was at fault for the kids fall. In no way do I believe that!

 

I was more curious about the reaction of the scout supervisor and he mentioned nothing about that in his reply back to me.

 

If it were me and I had three no finds in a row...I would temporarily disable the cache until it can be verified.

 

Regards,

Smoochnme

 

"Only when the last tree is cut,

and the last stream is polluted,

and the last fish is caught,

will we realize that you can't eat the money"

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

The 3 no finds in a row. I would think that's cause enough for concern about the cache still being there.

 

The guy who couldn't find it was new and I had trouble with many of my first attempts. There is zero reason to archive it for the problems they had.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

[The 2 Dogs]

Nobody ever said that Geocaching is without risks. If I'm fearful of anything with this sport it's the day that people start blaming cache setters for mishaps that happen during a cache search. Hey c'mon we do this for all the fun and the risks as well.

 

All care taken but......be responsible for you own actions guys.

 

Having said that, I have withdrawn a cache because of concern for searchers safety. A spent syringe was found nearby. It would have been irresponsible of me not to achive it in that case.

 

Hounddog

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hounddog:

Nobody ever said that Geocaching is without risks. If I'm fearful of anything with this sport it's the day that people start blaming cache setters for mishaps that happen during a cache search. Hey c'mon we do this for all the fun and the risks as well.

 

All care taken but......be responsible for you own actions guys.

---

 

I agree with you ... each of us is responsible for our own actions, and those of any minors under our watch.

[+sbell111]

The cache was given a terrain rating of three stars. To me, that would be a warning of a possible climb.

 

The argument could be made that if a cache was placed in a dangerous place with no warning of the danger, the cache owner could be held liable. From the information provided, I do not see that as the case here.

[+Moore9KSUcats]

A local cacher was recently visiting a virtual cache, when she fell down some steps and injured her knee. Does that make it a dangerous cache? As an earlier post stated, you can break a rib, or worse tripping over a stump or rock. Cachers do need to understand the inherent dangers that are or could be present in this sport, as with many other sports. I feel bad for the scoutmaster, but wonder at his experience in geocaching. We shared this sport with our son's cub scout den (Webelos... 4th and 5th grade) but selected carefully where we placed the caches. They all enjoyed the hunt, and wore their ski hats proudly the rest of the weekend! (One of the cache prizes for each scout.) As far as their being three no found posts, did you notice that the other two were on the same day? It appears they were caching together. Yes, they appear to be experienced cachers, but sometimes things go wrong and you just can't find it! Hopefully the cache will be checked on soon (with the help of Smoochnme and extra clues), and the mystery cleared up.

[+briansnat]

Why should this be archived because someone fell and got hurt looking for it? I fell and could have died or been seriously injured while searching for a cache in a steep gorge. The owner rated the terrain as a 4 and warned about the possibility of the area being slippery. I stepped on a rock and found out very quickly that he was right. Luckily I grabbed onto a root as I fell and it saved me from a very nasty fall. In the end, it would have been my fault. Whether I was hiking there or Geocaching, it's my responsibility to be careful

[+Renegade Knight]

Just because someone got hurt doesn't mean there is a problem with a cache. I've found caches that skunked the last 4 people who looked for it, and I've been skunked where people have found it both before and after me. If I'm fising and fall they don't close the creek. There is no reason to close a cache just because one person has a bad experiend. Plus, when you think about it, we will all get hurt evenutally while looking for a cache. The more you hunt the more probability is working against you. It's just reality. Be careful out ther.

[+carivercpl]

My wife just got her leg out of a cast from a fall going after a 1/1...sometimes you find them...sometimes you need to stopand walk away...and if you think we have not hiked a little i spent many years doing SAR...the blame is upon ourself when we go behind our skill level...enough of this rant...time go geocaching

[+Salvelinus]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

Why should this be archived because someone fell and got hurt looking for it? I fell and could have died or been seriously injured while searching for a cache in a steep gorge. The owner rated the terrain as a 4 and warned about the possibility of the area being slippery. I stepped on a rock and found out very quickly that he was right. Luckily I grabbed onto a root as I fell and it saved me from a very nasty fall. In the end, it would have been my fault. Whether I was hiking there or Geocaching, it's my responsibility to be careful

---

 

No, It should be archieved until it can be verified that it is still there! That was my point! Three people in a row have logged "no finds". Shouldn't that ring a bell?

 

Smoochnme

 

"He who hesitates is lost"

[skydiver]

quote:

---

Originally posted by smoochnme:

No, It should be archieved until it can be verified that it is still there! That was my point! Three people in a row have logged "no finds". Shouldn't that ring a bell?

---

Two things I'd like to say...

1. Three no finds in a row should ring a bell, not an alarm, and should not be reason for an immediate archival. Give the guy a chance to go check it out.

2. That was not your point. Your original message said nothing about the three no finds, and pointed entirely toward the message stating someone got hurt, and therefore should have been immedietly archived. The participants in this thread have done an outstanding job of pointing out that someone getting hurt isn't a reason to archive it, so now you're changing your tune. There are plenty of other geocaches with three no finds, but you singled this one out because someone got hurt. Admit you were wrong, and drop it.

--- Two paths diverged in a wood, and my... my GPSr pointed dead center between them. ---

 

[This message was edited by skydiver on May 19, 2002 at 07:22 AM.]

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skydiver:

1. Three no finds in a row should ring a bell, not an alarm, and should not be reason for an immediate archival. Give the guy a chance to go check it out.

---

 

A couple of months back I would have agreed with this point, but the recently added feature that enables cache owners to temporarily disable their cache is truly a worthwhile feature. More cache owners should take advantage of this feature.

[+CharlieP]

I would say that about half of the caches I do here in North Georgia have terrain nearby which could pose a hazard to a person who did not use good judgement. If crossing hazardous terrain is *necessary* to get to the cache, then it should be noted in the cache posting, and there is such a warning in the post for this cache. Perhaps the cache should be archived because it may be missing, but I do not think it should be archived because of this accident. I was a scout leader for a few years, and I have a pretty good picture of what happenened here, and it was not the fault of the cache location. Consider that the terms "good judgement" and "child" are usually mutually exclusive.

 

FWIW,

charlieP

[+KD7MXI]

sounds like nothing more than a scoutmaster taking his scouts to a location thre not ready for

 

If you don,t like my views they must be truth!!!

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

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CacheAcrossAmerica

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest_cache.asp?u=KD7MXI

http://www.cachunuts.com

[+KD7MXI]

sounds like nothing more than a scoutmaster taking his scouts to a location thre not ready for

 

If you don,t like my views they must be truth!!!

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

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CacheAcrossAmerica

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest_cache.asp?u=KD7MXI

http://www.cachunuts.com

[+Allen_L]

I don't think a cache should be archived or deactivated just because it has 3 no finds in a row. I have hunted caches because they had 3 or more no finds. I knew there was a chance the caches might be gone, but as it turned out that I found each one. Now the next time I do it, the cache may really be gone, but in truth that is case even if the last log was a find. To me this is more fun than being the first to hunt a cache.

 

But this one is a little too far for me to go to.

[+Salvelinus]

quote:

---

Two things I'd like to say...

1. Three no finds in a row should ring a bell, not an alarm, and should not be reason for an immediate archival. Give the guy a chance to go check it out.

2. That was not your point. Your original message said nothing about the three no finds, and pointed entirely toward the message stating someone got hurt, and therefore should have been immedietly archived. The participants in this thread have done an outstanding job of pointing out that someone getting hurt isn't a reason to archive it, so now you're changing your tune. There are plenty of other geocaches with three no finds, but you singled this one out because someone got hurt. Admit you were wrong, and drop it.

--- Two paths diverged in a wood, and my... my GPSr pointed dead center between them. ---

 

[This message was edited by skydiver on May 19, 2002 at 07:22 AM.]

---

 

I'll agree that my original message sent a mixed message. For that I apologize. That was the reason for the follow-up messages that I posted. Did you read them?

 

I was also hoping to get some insight on what people thought if they were out on their first geocaching experience and they ended up having to hastily run a young kid to the hospital. Would they have a negative attitude toward this sport? It would be very difficult not too. But that input I hoped for was not given, and its my fault because of the way I worded the original post.

 

I absolutly agree that just because someone got hurt here is no reason to archieve a cache. But, the likely possibility that the cache is missing and it cannot be verified until August by the placer (my second post and third posts) is reason enough to temporarily disable it. I certainly would! How many people may go looking for it between now and August and not have a chance to find anything, just like the last three cachers? Two of those cachers has a good number of finds so they probably know what they are doing. Additionally, one of the previous finders seemed to be a newbie. So, Yes, that raises a question to me as to the existance of this cache.

 

Knowing the popularity of this area...I would say many people will attempt this cache this summer. Thus, I have a problem with it remaining active when it sends cachers on a potential wild goose chase...regardless of the terrain rating. I mentioned this to the placer in my correspondance to him and I hope that something positive happens before he gets around to verifing it in August!!!!

 

Nuff said...NOW do you get MY point.

 

 

Smoochnme

 

"He who hesitates is lost"

 

[This message was edited by smoochnme on May 19, 2002 at 08:42 PM.]

[+Rusty & Libby]

quote:

---

Originally posted by smoochnme:

I got a reply from the placer. He said that he cannot get up there until August. But he gave me really specific directions on where it is, so I'll go looking before then.

 

---

 

I think the fact that the hider only gets to the spot once a year is key here. Cache responsibly folks, don't hide it if you are not willing to accept the responsibility to maintain it. 3 no finds in a row raises a flag, the fact that it's in a area that has seen a lot of weather changes since the previous find several months ago raises another flag. If the hider cannot come up with a way to confirm it's existance in a timely manner they should temporarily deactivate it at the least.

 

Rusty...

 

 

Rusty & Libby's Geocache Page

[skydiver]

quote:

---

Originally posted by AllenLacy:

I don't think a cache should be archived or deactivated just because it has 3 no finds in a row. I have hunted caches because they had 3 or more no finds. I knew there was a chance the caches might be gone, but as it turned out that I found each one. Now the next time I do it, the cache may really be gone, but in truth that is case even if the last log was a find. To me this is more fun than being the first to hunt a cache.

 

But this one is a little too far for me to go to.

---

 

I agree 100%. Anybody who goes looking for this one now, chooses to knowing full well that the last 2 groups (last 2 logs were members of the same group) weren't able to find it, and may very well not find it themselves. If they're really concerend about wasitng time on a no finder, they should choose a different cache to hunt. Where as some of us would choose to go after this one specifically because the last people couldn't find it. It's a matter of wanting to succeed where others have failed.

However, I can understand how caches with no finds do need to be eventually archived, so that we don't have a bunch of 'false' caches cluttering up the website. I just don't think this one qualifies for that yet.

 

--- Two paths diverged in a wood, and my... my GPSr pointed dead center between them. ---