Jump to content

How in the world can this be considered a "find"??


eelsid

Recommended Posts

When someone goes to a cache site, and instead of finding the cache, finds a note from the park ranger stating "It is illegal to abandon property on a National Wildlife Refuge" does this count as a find? Note the following four caches:

 

Monkey Man

 

End of the Road

 

Niche Cache

 

View of Rice Lake

 

I've been discussing this with the person who logged these as finds and he is saying that because he finds caches all the time that are just a log and a pencil this should be one too, since there is a "log" there (meaning the note from the ranger).

 

But since there is no pencil, nor container (other than the plastic bag) nor did he even sign the "log", how can this be a find? Not to mention that by his logic then anytime a cacher finds a piece of paper near where they think a cache is supposed to be they can sign it and log the find. "Gee you know at first I thought it was just litter, I mean it really looked like a page from the Target ad, but since it must be where the cache should be I signed it and posted a find!"

 

I'm not trying to be a stickler about it, I could really care less whether he deletes his logs, I'm just wondering where others stand on this type of situation.

Link to comment

You say you don't care if he counts it as a find, yet posted a not on the cache page saying the find should be deleted.....

 

Personally, I wouldn't log it as a find, since the cache wasn't there. I would however post a "Should be archived" and send the cache placer an e-mail about the note found at the cache site.

 

Just to be arguementative, I'm sure the Ranger left the note in the spot where the cache was left, so the cacher DID find the cache SITE, just the container had been removed.

 

I'm lost. I've gone to find myself. If I should happen to get back before I return, please ask me to wait.

Link to comment

Sorry, I'm gonna steer clear of the question you asked. Everyone plays this game different, and has different standards for a find. While I might never consider logging a find on a missing cache, this issue is between the finder and the hider.

MUCH more important to me is the issue of the note. Can someone please explain to me how a sheet of paper intentionally left in place of the cache is any better then the cache itself? In the strictest sense, the ranger also abandoned property (his notebook paper) at the cache site. Also, his paper is clearly litter, which is against park rules, and likely to be blown away from the cache site. If that happens, the paper is not only random litter in the park, people searching for the confiscated cache are more likely to cause eviromental damage by searching for something that isn't there. Just another case of someone who thinks they are in a position of power acting instead of thinking. Clearly if there is a problem with the cache, the best course of action would have been to leave the cache in place and contact the cache owners and site admins here to have it removed.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

>I'm not trying to be a stickler about it,

 

Certainly sounds like you are.

 

I think the bigger issue here is leaving caches on FWS lands. Looks like Ranger Rick has a GPS and a link to geocaching... IMHO, I'd say archive 'em and, keep future caches out of FWS lands. Then stop worrying about what consists of a ‘find’ and get on with your life...

 

(I'm not exactly sure what your logs mean when you said:

 

"Please remove the I found it logs that show that they found a note." ) icon_rolleyes.gif

Link to comment

We need to find out who left the notes.

 

In the cache, there should have been contact information. The "ranger" could have contacted the cache owner or the folks here at GC.com to clear up the matter.

 

Leaving a (basically) unsigned note without contact information is unprofessional.

 

Through communication, we can avoid situations like this.. whether it be that we no longer leave caches where they're not supposed to go, or the land manager sees that geocaching isn't as harmful as first thought.

 

I hope the cache owners are making an attempt to get ahold of those in charge.

 

Jamie

Link to comment

Wouldn't the note and baggie be abandoned property too?

 

They get on this site (and others I'm sure) and find the coordinates then go to the caches and remove them.

 

What a shame. We need to get together and see if we can get some laws passed and or somehow get permission to place caches in refuges or places like that as long as we ask for the permission and show them where they are. I know this has been debated countless times, the places that charge admission profit off of us. I just wish they would wake up and see the cache. icon_wink.gif

 

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.

Link to comment

quote:
EelSid wrote:

I'm not trying to be a stickler about it


 

Really?!?

 

quote:
Then he wrote:

I could really care less whether he deletes his logs, I'm just wondering where others stand on this type of situation.


 

It's obvious that you care way too much about this -- I just read your notes on the cache pages. Sounds like you'd be a shoe-in for a job with the Cache Police.

 

You ask how others feel about this -- if someone wants to log these notes, it makes no difference to me.

 

Seriously though, you really should consider applying for a career with the Cache Police -- you've get the right mentality for it. I'll bet with your attitude you'd be up for promotion in no time.

 

Maybe with your astute detective skills you could lead the investigation to help Jamie Z find out who left the notes in question. icon_wink.gif

 

Chill out man.

Link to comment

quote:
Leaving a (basically) unsigned note without contact information is unprofessional.


 

It does kind of make you wonder if a ranger did leave that note in the picture. I was thinking that a ranger would leave his name or badge and also in the note telling the owner of the cache to contact him or the rangers headquarters. icon_confused.gif

 

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.

Link to comment

Hey not for nothing, but this team of cachers deserve this find. I mean, they continued to look for your caches after the first, second and third notes were found, they took pictures of the notes and even posted them online.

 

To me there is only one thing more they could have done, and that would have been to email you of the circumstances (and they may have even done that too)

 

Give em the find, they deserve it!!

 

TEAM SHIBBY!!!!

 

Krs, Kar & Na

Link to comment

Remember the big broohaha thread about the person who was taking caches and posting notes. It went to something like 10 pages af heated argument. Perhaps there is someone else out there who has taken it upon themselves to act as a "volunteer". A ranger would probably have contacted the hider or GC.com admins. A ranger would not have left more litter out there.

 

Cache you later,

Planet

 

I feel much more like I do now than when I first got here.

Link to comment

GET A LIFE...There are two concerns here...1. Which is the most important....caches should not be placed in NPS territory...if indeed they were.

 

2. If I'm cache hunting and find a note where the cache used to be...and now isn't...it's a find!!

 

And as a side note...why do you care what people log as finds....does it interfere with you?

 

ElDiablo

 

Everything you do in life...will impact someone,for better or for worse.

Link to comment

quote:
MUCH more important to me is the issue of the note. Can someone please explain to me how a sheet of paper intentionally left in place of the cache is any better then the cache itself? In the strictest sense, the ranger also abandoned property (his notebook paper) at the cache site. Also, his paper is clearly litter, which is against park rules, and likely to be blown away from the cache site.

 

I'm with Mopar with this. He's the 3rd smartest person on this website!

 

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. -Barry Goldwater

Link to comment

Well, first of all...JMO....if the rules had been followed this wouldn't have happened. Maybe?? Permission, the person that gave the permission & the hiders contact info inside the cache would have solved a lot of the problem.

And IF the F&WS did take the contents, why aren't these caches achieved? Something looks fishey to me. No punt intended.

rocker51

 

[This message was edited by ron50eli on March 09, 2003 at 04:06 PM.]

Link to comment

I didn't start this thread with the intention of discussing the topic of "cache police". I only posted on the page to remove the "found it" logs after kindly asking the poster to change them to notes or "couldn't find it" logs. After he declined I posted that they should be removed, since the cache owner can't edit the logs and make them notes, and I don't feel they are finds. I left it at that. I'm not asking any more of either the cache owner or the person who logged the finds to change the logs, I respectfully disagree with the way they were logged, but it's their prerogative to change them if they wish.

 

Please leave this thread to the discussion of whether you consider these to be valid finds. I won't respond to any more posts accusing me of being "cache police" or a stickler, since that was not my intent in starting this discussion.

 

Thanks,

EelSid

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by EelSid:

 

Please leave this thread to the discussion of whether you consider these to be valid finds. I won't respond to any more posts accusing me of being "cache police" or a stickler, since that was not my intent in starting this discussion.

 

Thanks,

EelSid


 

If your not the cache owner...or the "Cache Police" Why do you care about who logs a find? Why did you post a note on the cache pages asking that the finds be removed? icon_rolleyes.gif

 

Your a petty individual that is more worried about someone posting more numbers than you. Who says that?? I do.

 

El Diablo

 

Everything you do in life...will impact someone,for better or for worse.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by EelSid:

When someone goes to a cache site, and instead of finding the cache, finds a note from the park ranger stating "It is illegal to abandon property on a National Wildlife Refuge" does this count as a find? Note the following four caches:


 

Geocaches are not abandoned property. And yes if I found a dadgum note where the cache was that says "The cache was here, it was counted as abandoned property and now we have confiscated it" I'd count that as a find. Just as I'd count the plundered remains of a cache as a find because I did find what there was to find.

 

Wherever you go there you are.

Link to comment

On a side note we did have a ranger post notes to collect caches from a wildlife refuge. After I emailed him stating that without contact info we could not tell him from a random crack pot, he promptly gave out that information and also a letter about the policy and why they had decided to not allow geocaches.

 

Fair enough. While I don't like the decision, they were willing to talk and were nice about it. That goes a long ways in my book.

 

Wherever you go there you are.

Link to comment

After mulling it over I would agree that asking to remove the logs was a little harsh. I changed my log so that it is just asking to edit the logs to notes or "couldn't find it" logs.

 

I also agree that if I find the plundered remains of a cache, that counts as a find. I've done it a couple times myself. I still disagree though that finding a note where a cache was is technically a find, since there is no part of what makes up a "geocache" at the site, just something in its place. If someone removes a geocache and builds a house in its place, and I find the house, does that count as a find? I'm sure the ranger wouldn't see it as a find, considering he/she is the one that took the cache specifically so people would stop finding it!

Link to comment

Thats like young boys bragging about getting "lucky" when all they got was a girls phone number!

Littering by the Ranger...maybe, but I'd rather find his note on a tree than wonder if the cache was still there...assuming he or she's gonna remove it after I log the cache page that it's gone.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by EelSid:

After mulling it over I would agree that asking to remove the logs was a little harsh. I changed my log so that it is just asking to edit the logs to notes or "couldn't find it" logs.


What gives you the right to demand that they do anything?

 

It seems after all, that YOU DO think that you're the Cache Police.

 

Just because you use the word please in your log note doesn't make it OK for you to make these demands.

 

quote:
And then EelSid wrote:

I also agree that if I find the plundered remains of a cache, that counts as a find. I've done it a couple times myself. I still disagree though that finding a note where a cache was is technically a find, since there is no part of what makes up a "geocache" at the site, just something in its place.


 

Now it appears that you think that you're a Cache Judge as well.

 

If the cache is not at the indicated location, and someone finds a McD toy where the cache should be it can be logged as a find?!! At least the note verifies that the person was at the right location. Personally, I wouldn't log a find for either of these scenarios. But that's just me. If it's important for you to log a McD toy then that's OK with me. I'll still sleep fine.

 

quote:
Then EelSid continued with:

If someone removes a geocache and builds a house in its place, and I find the house, does that count as a find? I'm sure the ranger wouldn't see it as a find, considering he/she is the one that took the cache specifically so people would stop finding it!


This is just dumb.

 

It's pretty obvious that you're in a ridiculously petty struggle to get your count up and are resorting to scrutinizing others in your area who have more finds than you.

 

Think about it for a moment -- don't you realize that this entire topic that you've started is just a little bit silly? No one is going to win a new car or an all expenses paid trip to Hawaii for finding the most caches. Heck, you don't even get a certificate to hang on your wall.

 

The real reward is that you get to different locations that you may not otherwise have visited. And if you're lucky, you might just enjoy the scenery.

 

Time to give it a rest. There are more important things to worry about.

Link to comment

If I arrive at the cache location only to find a note explaining that it has been removed, I will log it as a find. The cache isn't the key, the key is getting to the location is it not? If I found my way to that spot then it's a find. Now if the ranger stopped me at the gate and I didn't continue to the location then no, it's not a find.

 

____________________________________________________________

 

00hoofline.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by DeerChaser & Poni:

The cache isn't the key, the key is getting to the location is it not? If I found my way to that spot then it's a find.


I'd say that the key is getting to the spot AND finding the cache. After all, we call this geocaching.

 

On every occasion (there's 3 times so far) I found the spot but didn't find the container, I logged 'didn't find it'. Because I didn't find it! If/when I come back to the spot and finally find the container, I will log the cache again with 'found it' smiley without deleting the DNF. It's as simple as that

 

- All you need is a sick mind and a healthy body. -

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Divine:

I'd say that the key is getting to the spot AND finding the cache. After all, we call this geo_caching_.

 

On every occasion (there's 3 times so far) I found the spot but didn't find the container, I logged 'didn't find it'. Because I _didn't find it_! If/when I come back to the spot and finally find the container, I will log the cache again with 'found it'


Well, I'd say getting to the spot and not finding a cache that IS there is a little different than getting to the spot and FINDING a note stating the cache has been removed by someone. I still probably wouldn't log it as a find....but that's just me sitting here at my computer, if I has spent time in the woods searching for a cache and end up finding a note, I may feel differently....

 

I'm lost. I've gone to find myself. If I should happen to get back before I return, please ask me to wait.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by IV_Warrior:

Well, I'd say getting to the spot and not finding a cache that IS there is a little different than getting to the spot and FINDING a note stating the cache has been removed by someone. I still probably wouldn't log it as a find....but that's just me sitting here at my computer, if I has spent time in the woods searching for a cache and end up finding a note, I may feel differently....


Ok, point taken, it IS different. Still, whether at a computer or not, I wouldn't log a find even if there was Jeremy Irish waiting for me at the site telling that the cash is removed.

 

Getting to the spot and logging it as a find smells like virtual to me: it's enough only to reach the coordinates (and prove it) in order to log a find. And yes, I know that it too is a little different from finding a note of a missing container from the spot.icon_razz.gif

 

- All you need is a sick mind and a healthy body. -

Link to comment

I have to agree with EelCid. I don't think it's proper to log a find if you didn't find it. At least the cacher should have asked the cache owner for permission to log the find if he found a ranger's note. Then if the owner says no, log a no-find. If the owner says yes, then log the find.

 

But that's JMO.

 

quote:
Originally posted by EelSid:

When someone goes to a cache site, and instead of finding the cache, finds a note from the park ranger stating "It is illegal to abandon property on a National Wildlife Refuge" does this count as a find? Note the following four caches:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=45827

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=17594

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=15611

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=15614

 

I've been discussing this with the person who logged these as finds and he is saying that because he finds caches all the time that are just a log and a pencil this should be one too, since there is a "log" there (meaning the note from the ranger).

 

But since there is no pencil, nor container (other than the plastic bag) nor did he even sign the "log", how can this be a find? Not to mention that by his logic then anytime a cacher finds a piece of paper near where they think a cache is supposed to be they can sign it and log the find. "Gee you know at first I thought it was just litter, I mean it really looked like a page from the Target ad, but since it must be where the cache should be I signed it and posted a find!"

 

I'm not trying to be a stickler about it, I could really care less whether he deletes his logs, I'm just wondering where others stand on this type of situation.


Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by EelSid:

When someone goes to a cache site, and instead of finding the cache, finds a note from the park ranger stating "It is illegal to abandon property on a National Wildlife Refuge" does this count as a find?


 

I think it's funny that the log you posted from your find talked a lot about how a lot of people are slobs around there, referring to the apparently enormous amount of litter in the area. You should go back and see if the "Ranger" picked up all the abandoned trash.

 

There has been a rash of geocachers who have taken it upon themselves to become the geo police, removing seemingly illegal caches without any form of due process.

 

Since this letter was only signed "USFWS", perhaps the owner should go talk to the rangers.

 

As for logging it as a find, I came across a similar situation last year. Someone actually found a landmark about 100 yards away from the cache, said it had to be the right spot (though I know from being there a few weeks prior it wasn't there), he left a trinket out in the open (litter), and logged it on geocaching.com as a find. That was blatantly wrong. In another cache nearby, a cacher was scared to look for a cache just off of someone's property, 'cause previous finders were trampling in the back of a STATE TROOPERS back yard. They wrote about the 'gun toter' and this cacher didn't want to encounter the trigger happy neighbor. We deleted the log. He claimed to log it again but never signed the log book. We just let him do his own thing 'cause the cache had to be archived soon thereafter. Otherwise, I'd have deleted that one, too. BUT, since in this case, the actual location was found, I wouldn't get my feelings hurt if it were my cache and they logged it as a find. Especially since there was evidence that the finders got to the location (photos), it's not any different than logging a virtual cache.

 

Check out this old thread: "Cheaters"

 

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

burnout.gif Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

Link to comment

Egads, what a debate.

 

So if you find the nothing there was to find that's not a find. (Did that logged a skunk)

 

But if you find the cache and not the logbook that's a find (Did that logged a find)

 

And if you find the logbook but not the cache that's not a find? (Did that logged a find)

 

If you found a note saying that cache is gone and that's all there is to find, it's not a find? (Never did that, but I'd claim a find)

 

If Jerimy Irish was there directly saying "The cache is gone but you found the spot" I'd take that as verification and log the fine (Event cache?)

 

So what's to stop you hard core guys from sauntering over to the rangers office and logging a find in the cache itself after finding the note? Or worse (gasp) just heading over to the office and logging all 4 0r 5 caches directly without finding where they were?

 

Talk about splitting hairs.

 

If I owned the cache though I'd delete the note requesting the other logs be deleted.

 

And yes I'd let someone who found a note at my cache site claim the find, but no I'd not let the ones who found it at the office claim the find.

 

Wherever you go there you are.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by DeerChaser & Poni:

If I arrive at the cache location only to find a note explaining that it has been removed, I will log it as a find. The cache isn't the key, the key is getting to the location is it not? If I found my way to that spot then it's a find.

 


 

Ummmm, no. That would be a virtual cache which these were not. It's like people that see a cache up in a tree, decide they can't go up to get it and log a find because they "found" the cache.

 

Finding the cache and finding where it WAS are two different things. If not, everyone needs make sure their ammo cans leave nice impressions in the dirt so everyone can still log a find when they find they spot it used to be after it gets stolen.

 

smiles_63.gif ---Real men cache in shorts.

Link to comment

Just a point of clarification:

 

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

 

If I owned the cache though I'd delete the note requesting the other logs be deleted.

 


 

I changed that log yesterday so it is just asking the person who placed the log to edit it and make it a note (I've already spoken with him, he thinks it's a find, we agreed to disagree, end of discussion.) I don't want to delete the post because it is a "cache should be archived" post, and if the cache is not allowed in the park, it really should be archived. The cache owner can delete logs, but not edit them and turn them to notes.

 

A general point of clarification (not related to any specific post):

 

My purpose in starting this thread was just to point out something that jumped out at me and to use that example to start a discussion on what people think a valid find is. If you don't think it's worth discussing, then fine no one is requiring you to join the discussion. This is an open forum, anyone is free to contribute per the rules outlined by the admins, but all I ask is that you keep it on topic and civil. Please don't assume you know something about myself or any other user and start name calling and making accusations.

 

Thanks,

EelSid

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by EelSid:

Just a point of clarification:

 

I changed that log yesterday so it is just asking the person who placed the log to edit it and make it a note (I've already spoken with him, he thinks it's a find, we agreed to disagree, end of discussion.) I don't want to delete the post because it is a "cache should be archived" post, and if the cache is not allowed in the park, it really should be archived. The cache owner can delete logs, but not edit them and turn them to notes.


I agree -- the cache should be archived since: 1) it was placed in a location that is not allowed and, 2) it's obviously not there anymore. I don't think that anyone will argue this.

 

There are however, much kinder and gentler ways to get your point across without coming across in such a forceful nazi-like (read Cache Police) manner.

 

quote:
EelSid continued with:

A general point of clarification (not related to any specific post):

 

My purpose in starting this thread was just to point out something that jumped out at me and to use that example to start a discussion on what people think a valid find is. If you don't think it's worth discussing, then fine no one is requiring you to join the discussion. This is an open forum, anyone is free to contribute per the rules outlined by the admins, but all I ask is that you keep it on topic and civil. Please don't assume you know something about myself or any other user and start name calling and making accusations.

 

Thanks,

EelSid


People have been giving you an opinion of how they feel -- overall, from the responses, it would seem that most people aren't too concerned if it's logged as a find (although a few think it shouldn't be logged and that's OK). The negative reaction that you've received is due to your own confrontational attitude. If you're going to play with the bull's horns...

 

Seems to me that the only lack of civility here is the forceful manner in which you decided to start this thread and the demanding tone of your post to the cache page. If I can offer you a suggestion (and it's only a suggestion, feel free to ignore it if you wish), it would be that you not come across as the final authority of what should and shouldn't be logged as a find (and yes, you did do this by demanding that the log be deleted or changed). It's not for you to decide.

 

Re-read your post to the cache page -- how would you react if someone demanded that you delete or change your found log for one of the caches that you say you found plundered? I'll bet you'd take exception to it. If you've been following these forums for a while you will know that there are many who are of the mind that you shouldn't count a plundered cache as a find. Are they all wrong? We could discuss it if you like.

 

I reiterate:

 

It's just a game.

 

There is no prize for the most finds.

 

There are more important things to worry about.

 

Enjoy yourself, have fun, and enjoy the scenery.

Link to comment

I just wonder why the ranger left a note...I worked at a state park in Michigan, and if I was removing something that was "trash" I certanly wouldnt leave some more trash in its place...If I left a note, I would leave my contact info at least, so the owner could find me. These caches could have been taken by anyone, and just signed that way.

 

I personally wouldnt have logged it as a find, but thats just me. I have 2 caches that I have a no find, and one I knew where it was due to already finding it, and going back to it to drop a travel bug off at...found the hole in the snow that it was buried in...but no cache. The second had a find logged the day before I was there, and unless its invisible, I didnt find that one either. i just contacted the cache owner to find out more info about the cache site. icon_cool.gif

Link to comment

OK, I know I'm gonna get flamed for this suggestion, but staple log sheets to the back of the ranger's note and keep the cache active. It will be a log only cache and because the ranger placed it, obviously it's been approved.

 

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. -Barry Goldwater

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Planet:

 

A ranger would probably have contacted the hider or GC.com admins. A ranger would not have left more litter out there.

 


 

I'm not so sure ! We have a park ranger around here who acts like the wildlife refuge he is in charge of is his private kingdom.

 

I once observed him in action. He read the riot act to two teenage boys who he spotted above the blacktop bike trail. He yelled at them and made them climb down a VERY steep slope through the protected flora.(they skidded and slid down part of the way) so he could chastize them for being off of the trail. He explained to them how they were destroying the delicate plants and such and spoiling the area for others.

 

Thing is I know the area very well and there are several dirt path trails which wander around above the bike trail. In many places these paths nearly disappear even to the sharpest eye and there are many none trails which look more like the real trail than the actual trail. The boys were on one of those non-trail portions that looks like the real thing.

 

$1000 Bill geocaching is living in a 30 foot circle

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

OK, I know I'm gonna get flamed for this suggestion, but staple log sheets to the back of the ranger's note and keep the cache active. It will be a log only cache and because the ranger placed it, obviously it's been approved.


 

Be sure to use a couple strong screws to keep the baggie in place on the tree. icon_smile.gif

 

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

burnout.gif Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

Link to comment

Yes I think that the person who found the note should log the cache, but the cache should be archived. The person/persons who have placed the cache know what has happened and the cached should have been pulled.

 

I think it is much like a plundered cache, and I choose to give the benifit of the doubt on the authentisity of the note. I might even be generouse and let anyone who found it THAT day log it, but the caches need to be archived.

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...