Ethical Logging Question

[+carleenp]

So, here is a philosophical "do you log as a find?" question. It may be a pretty nit-picky one at that, but something for you all to ponder!

 

There is a series of tree caches here. Two say that if you don't want to climb the tree for the cache a found can be logged if a pic is taken with the tree. One is silent on that and I suspect it does not involve climbing.

 

I went out today fully planning/intending to climb the trees. At the first, snow and ice on the branches stopped me, but I took a pic and logged a find (for now). The second was too tall for me to get up and I took a pic and logged a find (for now). The third, which was the one silent about logging with a pic, I just plain could not find and I logged a DNF.

 

So, I technically met the rules on them, but should the fact that I went with the INTENTION to climb beforehand make a difference? I posed the question to the owner in my logs and said I would change to a note if they asked.

 

I'm posting here because it is just one of those weird nit-picky things that I tend to get philosophical about. Going without intent to climb is clearly OK to log with a pic. Technically I think the pages say if you "don't feel like climbing" without specifying when you decide that. Does going with intent beforehand matter? should it? Just an ethical/philosophical question of the day for you all!

 

The caches are: Here, here, and here.

[+Webfoot]

Leave it, since you met the letter of the law so to speak, but go back when the snow and ice are gone and climb the trees.

[+JMBella]

I think the fact that you posted this question is the the answer. I think it's fine in general to log a find as per the direction of the cache owner. The only real question is: Is it OK with you? In other words, You went there with the intent to climb the tree. Although it's fine that you decided not to, I don't think you'll be satisfied until you do. Sound about right?

[uperdooper]

what if you aren't able to climb the tree. i have trouble with stairs, let alone trees. some cachers are handicapped, and some are older. i think a pic should be ok then.

[+carleenp]

Although it's fine that you decided not to, I don't think you'll be satisfied until you do. Sound about right?

 

Yeah, I think that is it. Those technically OK finds, but no climbs, have been bugging me. I think I might leave the found logs for now and go back when the snow melts and then change them to notes if I don't actually sign the logs.

 

Edit:

what if you aren't able to climb the tree. i have trouble with stairs, let alone trees. some cachers are handicapped, and some are older. i think a pic should be ok then.

 

The rules are clear that a pic is OK. My issue was that I had full intent to climb before I even set out and then didn't.

Edited February 15, 2004 by carleenp

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

So, I technically met the rules on them, but should the fact that I went with the INTENTION to climb beforehand make a difference? I posed the question to the owner in my logs and said I would change to a note if they asked.

 

I wouldn't feel guilty about logging them. I don't think intent to climb should change the fact that you still stayed within the parameters required to log the caches.

[+rooboy]

Carleenp, are you a lawyer? I really only ever hear lawyers discussing the letter of the law versus the intent of the law.

 

Ciao

RooBoy

[uperdooper]

The rules are clear that a pic is OK. My issue was that I had full intent to climb before I even set out and then didn't.

hey! stuff happens. i did a cache that was supposed to by 20 feet up in a tree. i didn't know that until i talked to my brother who had found it a few days before. when i found it it was 3 feet off the ground on a branch because the wind knocked it down. i still logged it as a find. it wasn't my fault the difficulty was less than it should have been.

[+rusty_tlc]

There is another thread about logging a missing cache as a found. I e-mailed a cache owner last summer about a cache I thought was missing. I described in exacting detail the location I thought the cache should have been. I really just wanted to know if I was being stupid or if the cache was actually missing. Since I mentioned the shape of the stone that had covered the cache the owner agreed that the cache was missing and insisted that I log it as found since I located the exact spot the cache had been located. And I did.

 

Now I'm wondering if I should have, kind of like your position. What I plan to do is return this summer and sign the log. Which sounds like what you have in mind. The real question is, do we change the current logs to a note until then?

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Carleenp: if you followed what the hider said, the caches should count as found- you did them right. If YOU don't feel right about it, then by all means go back when you can. Remember tho, your initial intent was to FIND the cache, and secondarily to do so by climbing, but you DID 'find the cache' to the standard of the owner.

 

Rusty_tlc: The same thing I said above applies to you, BUT: I too would return and sign the log. This same thing happened to me when we first started finding caches, in my situation tho the hider never replaced the cache and was already planning on archiving it, so I never did get to sign the log, but I did keep the find.

[+briansnat]

If the owner says its OK to log it with a pic, then great. Whether you intended to climb the tree or not is immaterial. You fulfilled the cache owners requirement for logging a find.

 

On the other hand, tree caches are often placed specifically to make the cache more difficult to reach, and there is no "out clause". In those cases logging a find would not be appropriate.

 

You made the right call in each case.

Edited February 15, 2004 by briansnat

[+RichardMoore]

Carleenp, are you a lawyer? I really only ever hear lawyers discussing the letter of the law versus the intent of the law.

 

Ciao

RooBoy

Rooboy, check her profile. She IS a lawyer.

 

Carleen, it's a game. You followed the rules. You won the prize. The fact that you intended to make it more difficult (ie, climb the tree when you didn't have to) is irrelevant.

Besides, we don't want you risking life and limb (pun intended) just to add one more cache to your list.

And, if this is the biggest concern you have in your life I'll gladly give you some of my problems.

 

RichardMoore

[+ADKcachers]

As a long time tree-climber, I think Carleen really rocks!

[+Spoo]

I am not sure that I agree that this was a 'find'. Where would you draw the line? I recently had a DNF. I could have taken pix of some prominent objects in the cache area to prove I was there, but I DID NOT actually find the cache.

 

I made the search with the INTENT to find the cache. I climbed a steep slippery snow covered slope. My GPSr said I was there. But in fact, I did not find a cache, open it, or sign a log.

 

I would not feel comfortable claiming a find without actually putting my hands on it.

 

Of course, this is just my opinion, and I could be wrong.

[+Geo Ho]

My thought on this is that if you pose a question such is then you most likely know the answer, at least, as it applies to you.

 

My opinion is that if you logged the find according to the guidelines put forth by the cache owner then you are good to go.

 

So, there it is . . . my convoluted opinion, such as it is. If you can gleen anything from it . . . kudos to you!

 

 

Happy caching and stuff!

[+RichardMoore]

I am not sure that I agree that this was a 'find'. Where would you draw the line? I recently had a DNF. I could have taken pix of some prominent objects in the cache area to prove I was there, but I DID NOT actually find the cache.

 

I made the search with the INTENT to find the cache. I climbed a steep slippery snow covered slope. My GPSr said I was there. But in fact, I did not find a cache, open it, or sign a log.

 

I would not feel comfortable claiming a find without actually putting my hands on it.

 

Of course, this is just my opinion, and I could be wrong.

There is a major difference in that, in the case of CarleenP's cache the owner gave the finders the option of using a picture of the tree as proof. If the picture had been the wrong tree I'm sure the owner would have deleted her find. It would compare to using a photo as proof of finding a virtual cache.

 

Not that it makes any difference, but just out of curiousity, was the cache visible from the ground? Did the picture of the tree include the cache?

 

Once again, the owner of the cache is content with the picture and that's what counts.

 

RichardMoore