Flame For A No Finder

[Texasair]

Check out this guy's rant about a non-find. So the place has a no dog rule. Big deal. I have been to this cache and the people are very friendly. I've had a couple of no finds and I usually blame it on me having a bad day. Anyone else seen a ranting no find log?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...2d-3e0e44bed525

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...6d-a0c3b23085c3

[+NightPilot]

From reading the log, I'd guess the Madman is about 16 years old. I intend to just ignore it.

[+Sparky-Watts]

Hmmmm....0 finds, too. Coincidence? Probably. That kind of log could get you moderated! I think he's just having a bad day....or life....or some semblance of that. Too little detail to make judgements, but definitely not a good log!

[+sturgeongeneral]

Sorry but it actually made me chuckle. There are poor sports in every aspect of life. He sounds like a real fun guy. Really getting into the enjoyment and flavor of the sport. Hope a couple finds puts him in a better mood!

[+Bob&TheGang]

This person seems to have issues.

 

If you are the owner of this cache, I would just delete the log.

[GeoWorms]

He's also a sock puppet, since he has no finds and only visited the site to join 2 days after the DNF. In his (whoever he is) defence a sign or two would be courteous, but he's certainly got issues.

 

I agree with you that when I log a DNF "The fault lies not in our satellites, but in ourselves."

[+Doc-Dean]

He certainly let the other guy get to him....

I agree that he is probably not an adult.

[+AB4N]

I couldn't resist adding a cache note

[+shunra]

Two few days ago, someone with 0 finds or hidesfailed in his first-ever attempt to do a cache. It was a terrain 5-star cache, and I'm not surprised he didn't get there. It was hidden by nobody less than EraSeek, who has the best hiding spots in the Pacific Northwest. This would-be cacher let out such a rant, and claimed on the basis of hearsay that the place would actually be private property, etc.. As a result EraSeek has archived his cache, which I find very sad.

Check out the Hike to Ika Island cache for details.

[+sturgeongeneral]

Can you post a link please?

[+IV_Warrior]

I think he's referring to this cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

The log isn't about the cache. It's a rant on the No dogs and no signs telling you no dogs.

 

Could he of worded it better? Yeah, but it's no biggie. Now another cacher with a dog will know.

 

If the guy hadn't waylaid him with the "NO FRICKING DOG'S THERE BUCKO" greating he would of had a much nicer day. Oh and did you notice how the inconsistancy annoyed him? I love that part.

[+sturgeongeneral]

Warrior, thank you very much.

[+shunra]

Can you post a link please?

I've been trying to figure out how to do that.... But IV-Warrior was faster - that's the one.

[+Jamie Z]

I would just delete the log.

I wouldn't.

 

Jamie

[+Roadster]

Is this a He or a she? Oh well doesn't matter.

 

The person was way off base for telling others NOT to go there, should have said "don't go there with a dog"

 

The big bad man hurt the fragile little feelings....ahhhhh

 

[Colonel Mustard]

DUH!! Wildlife preserve? Dogs? Just the name wildlife preserve should give you a hint that taking your dog along is not what they had in mind. Big Flag, Sockpuppet

[+sbell111]

I'd definitely would not delete the log. It is a rant about the dog police, not the cache. Come to think of it, even if it was about the cache, I'd leave it alone unless it gave away the hiding location, then I'd probably just encrypt it. I believe that logs should only be deleted if they are false finds or if they use foul language.

 

The poster may or may not be a sockpuppet. Its possible that this was his first cache, however unlikely.

[+sbell111]

DUH!! Wildlife preserve? Dogs? Just the name wildlife preserve should give you a hint that taking your dog along is not what they had in mind. Big Flag, Sockpuppet

It should also be noted, that while his log mentions a wildlife preserve, the description only mentions a nature center. Many public parks that allow dogs have nature centers. The paw print on the sign at the entrance, in combination with the absence of a 'no dogs allowed' sign and the presence of other dogs would certainly lead one to believe that dogs are allowed.

 

This may be a sockpuppet account, but I suspect that the experience was real.

[+T-storm]

Hmmm ... on the original post, yeah this guy needed to have his log under control. He could have said what he did in a less harsh way and still get his point across.

And though some of us might have may the logical leap... hmm... wildlife santuary/nature center... not the best spot for my dog, or at least call ahead to ask... the referenced website has a list of guidelines for visitors that specify all sorts of things not to do, but do not mention dogs/pets at all. By the way, don't bring your child under 4 with you either. Final thought, the offended cacher(?) doesn't mention whether or not his dog was on a leash either. Certainly an unleashed dog would not be a good idea in such a location. You win some, you lose some. The cache owner could do something or not with the log, and though a link was provided to the center's website, but they might also mention any prohibitions that DO exist on the cache listing to help cachers be more location friendly... and possibly less obnoxiously grumpy!

[+sbell111]

You can always count on T-Storm for a reasoned response.

 

I hopped over to the nature center's website. I found the list of guidelines and there was no mention of dogs.

 

Go figure.

Edited January 1, 2004 by sbell111

[+Prime Suspect]

The paw print on the sign at the entrance, in combination with the absence of a 'no dogs allowed' sign and the presence of other dogs would certainly lead one to believe that dogs are allowed.

If you went to their website, you should have noticed that that's not a dog's paw print.

[+sbell111]

I did notice that, but some guy off the street might not necessarily make the distinction.

[+bons]

If someone owns a dog and can't recognise a dog print and can't figure out why someone else might not want a dog in a wildlife preserve....

 

Well, there ain't much you can do about a person like that.

 

"Build something fool proof and nature just builds bigger fools."

[+FarSideX]

It's just a rant from someone who was mad, man.

 

I would leave the post there, censorship is bad, m'k.

[+sbell111]

If someone owns a dog and can't recognise a dog print and can't figure out why someone else might not want a dog in a wildlife preserve....

 

(Off topic stuff)

There are a few issues here.

 

The website in question uses a couple of different paw prints. I have no idea what the one at the actual location looks like.

 

Another group already had a dog at the location. This, in the absence of a written rule against dogs would lend one to believe that they were allowed.

 

Neither the cache description, nor the referenced website identifies this location as a wildlife preserve. It is called a nature center. I've been in several parks that have a nature center. These parks have allowed dogs. Darby the wonder pup had a fun time.

Edited January 1, 2004 by sbell111

[+robert]

The log above that one is just as troublesome:

 

"We dropped a travel bug in but didn't write down the numbers."

 

Gee, thanks.

[+Sparky-Watts]

 

Another group already had a dog at the location. This, in the absence of a written rule against dogs would lend one to believe that they were allowed.

 

I don't know, but I have a hard time believing the guy when he says there were other people there with dogs. I mean, after a rant like that, his credibility is pretty well shot.

[+JMBella]

The log serves no purpose. It's not helpful in any way shape or form. He's telling people NOT to visit the area, which is the same as telling people not to visit the cache. I would add a note to the cache page that says NO DOGS PLEASE and delete his log. Judging by all the other logs this seems like a really nice cache. Then there's this guy's log saying don't waste your time going here. Delete it.

[Colonel Mustard]

DUH!! Wildlife preserve? Dogs? Just the name wildlife preserve should give you a hint that taking your dog along is not what they had in mind. Big Flag, Sockpuppet

It should also be noted, that while his log mentions a wildlife preserve, the description only mentions a nature center. Many public parks that allow dogs have nature centers. The paw print on the sign at the entrance, in combination with the absence of a 'no dogs allowed' sign and the presence of other dogs would certainly lead one to believe that dogs are allowed.

 

This may be a sockpuppet account, but I suspect that the experience was real.

After going back and re-reading everything associated with this, I'm going with my original impression. The guy logged a no-find for 12/22 and only joined up 12/24. If I was a that new and hadn't a find to my credit I'd keep my ranting to myself. The web site doesn't specifically say "No Dogs", but after looking at the type of location it should be pretty clear that it wouldn't be a good idea to take Rover along. Their web site doesn't say no MX dirt bikes or 4x4 trucks, but I'd bet that they're not going to allow that either. It's the responsibility of those who go looking for caches to know what kind of area we are entering, and use a little common sense about what could be required when we get there. If you haven't done any research and you're not going prepared then shame on you, don't rant about it in the cache log.

[+Dave_W6DPS]

I don't know, but I have a hard time believing the guy when he says there were other people there with dogs.  I mean, after a rant like that, his credibility is pretty well shot.

It is a "Nature Center".

 

I know of a nature center near my home that also has areas closed to preserve wildlife, while other areas are open and less restricted.

 

I also wonder if perhaps Madman's dog was on a leash. If his was not and the other other people's was, that may also explain the difference in enforcement.

 

Dogs on leashes may be okay in some parts of the center, but unleashed dogs, or unleashed dogs in designated areas, may not be.

 

Speaking as someone who has missed signs in the past (things like parking requirements and hours of operation), I wonder if there were no signs, or he simply didn't see any signs....

 

Dave_W6DPS

[mufasa1023]

I personally agree with the guy....last time i took "Fufu" to the local nature center I was told it was not appropriate to bring "Fufu" there. Even though everyone else had there dogs there the mean ol man was picking on me Little "Fufu" wasnt hurting anything I mean he was on the cement and all he was doing was sniffing peoples privates, how could that possibley be wrong? I mean there werent even signs saying "No Rhinos"..............