Cache Owner

[+Sydney Sidekicks]

It is GREAT that cachers place, monitor, and are responsible for caches. But I question a practice I have seen (limited, but seen) where the cache owner, after seeing a 'find' log entry where a travel bug was placed, then removed the bug, logged the removal, and moved the bug onward toward its annointed goal. Seems OK, according to the rules, right?

 

But let me ask you a question. When you are looking for caches, with all other cache aspects being equal, are you not attracted to ones containing travel bugs? If your answer is 'yes', then the removal of a bug by the owner, even though the owner has the lofty goal of moving the bug on, seems unethical. An innocent cacher sees the cache has a bug and ventures forth to rescue the bug only to find that the cache owner have already taken the bug (for a worthy cause, but, taken none the less). So how does that cacher feel? If it was me, I would feel robbed. The owner knew where the cache was and did not even have to "find" it.

 

I believe that owners should fulfill the responsibilities of OWNERSHIP (cache is still there, dry, intact, hidden well, contents are appropriate...), not FINDERSHIP. Owners should not engage in any FINDER activities such as removing valued contents or travel bugs. The exception to this rule might be if the cache contains a travel bug AND has not been found for an extended period of time.

 

Personally, I would never dream of removing a travel bug from a cache I placed unless the cache clearly was stale (not found for a long time).

 

So what do you think?

[+Renegade Knight]

Six of one half dozen of another.

[+PandyBat]

They are only doing it for the stats. Crappy way of doing it too. I wouldn't do this on a cache of mine either. It does seem unfair to up your stats using a cache you own by logging all the TBs that come through it, since you already know where the cache is. No work involved.

[+cache_us_if_you_can]

I wouldn't activly go "find" a TB in one of my caches. If there happend to be one in there while I was out checking on my caches I might grab it, but I might not. I don't grab every TB I come across.

[Leoness]

I have taken TBs from my own caches and moved them on but not as a matter of course. I have only done it when the TBs in my cache have been "stuck" there for a couple of months. Naturally, my own caches are near to where I live and I can pop out to them if the need arises.

 

I have also placed others' TBs in my caches if, by doing so, it furthers the goal of the TB.

 

Owners of TBs ultimately want their TB to move from cache to cache and achieve their goal. They're not bothered WHO moves them, as long as they move!

[CoyoteRed]

Your example of the owner "finding" the TB is no different than a previous finder "finding" the cache. Both know where it is.

 

The innocent cacher could just as easily be "robbed" of finding the TB if another non-previous/non-owner cacher grabs it first.

 

I would have never thought of grabbing a bug just to increase my numbers. In fact, I was blissfully unaware of the number of TBs we've picked until this thought occured to me. (54 at the time of this writing, if you're curious.) I don't recall a single time we've gone out of our way to visit a cache--previously found, unfound, or owned--to retrieve a TB.

 

As long as the count for TBs is the number of TBs found and not the number of logs on TBs, the person moving the TB is not logging additional finds on previously found caches, a cache owner is not logging finds on his own cache, this person is not intentionally going against the wishes of the bug owner, and this person is not hoarding the TBs grabbed then I don't see a problem with it.

 

In short, you can visit a previously found cache, or one of your own caches, to retrieve a TB in order to move it along to its goals. There is nothing unethical about it.

 

In fact, as mentioned above, it is good form to visit your own cache to move a languishing TB if it has a specicified goal to move as much as possible.

[+briansnat]

I disagree. If you go to a cache specifically to get a TB, the possibility always exists that it will be gone. Whether its the owner, or another geocacher, it doesn't matter.

 

TB's are sort of a game within a game. If the cache owner can help one of my TBs towards its goal, I'd rather he went and grabbed it than another geocacher who may sit on it for 2 months, or send it 200 miles in the wrong direction.

 

As a cache owner, I control what is in the cache. If I find my cache stuffed, I'll remove a few items. If there is one large item that takes up a lot of room, I'll often take that out and trade in something smaller.

 

Finally, I don't see TBs as being much of an incentive to go after a cache anymore. Yeah, a few years ago when they weren't so common, but now they are everywhere and caches with TB's often sit unfound for weeks and months. I think is rare someone targets a cache specifically to get a TB, unless its a special TB (for instance one that has the coordinates for another cache).

Edited May 25, 2004 by briansnat

[+Mopar]

Please, no offense,but 3 posts in 2 years, and 2 of them are today about making more rules? Why?

Edited May 25, 2004 by Mopar

[+Planet]

Doesn't matter one way or the other. What if some other cacher beat the cacher who headed out to grab the bug to it? It's no big deal. Don't sweat the small stuff.

[+flask]

sure. go grab a bug if it takes your fancy. don't keep it, though. i'm given to understand that it's bad form to have a permanent collection.

 

i'd like to correct one little thing: not all bug owners want the bugs to move, move, move. i, for instance just want to see where mine go. if that means they sit for a while, it means they sit for a while. i'm good with it.

[+The Commissar!]

I would specifically seek a travel bugged cache before another if I were on or going on vacation. I don't see a problem with an owner grabbing a bug in his/her cache if they are planning on moving it but to just grab one to score more finds...yawn

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Please, no offense,but 3 posts in 2 years, and 2 of them are today about making more rules? Why?

Some people live for rules. As long as the rules are their rules.

 

Speaking as a TB owner I'd love an owner to move my bug along. Wouldn't matter to me in the least. Get it going.

[+bons]

I always prefer to err on the side of a travel bug traveling.

[+wimseyguy]

I would rather see my bug moved along too; doesn't matter to me who or how it happens. I will try to visit a cache with a TB if it isn't too much of a detour off the planned route of the day. I'm not likely to revisit a found cache just to grab a TB.

As the owner of a TB Hotel cache I do have plenty of opportunuty to buff my numbers by simply grabbing and redropping every bug that visits, but that would be lame. I will visit it before travelling if there are any residents I can help along. I also drop plenty of bugs in it to keep the occupancy level profitable too.

[+Sydney Sidekicks]

One response suggested this (and another I made) posting was about making more rules. If rules was the seemingly main purpose of the post, I apologize for misstating the purpose. The postings were intended to open a dialog, get people to think about some things that perhaps had not been overtly discussed, and help me understand this thing called geocaching and the people who participate. And indeed the postings achieved their goal, as is evidenced by the wide range of responses. We don't all think alike and for me it was good to see the range of responses. Your postings have helped me to see through a variety of viewpoints.