[Az-Geocaching] More on abandoned Caches

[WOLFB8]

I have a lot of caches out there and a few that are very close to my home
and some that are a bit out there. To say I could make it to the one 1's
that are close with in 24 hours is even pushing it. Since the only days I
can even consider caching are on my days off.  For example  Tbird was down
for almost a month before I could make it out to it and replace it. and it
is with in .25 miles of my home.  Just the other day a cacher went out to my
Mars cache and saw that the container had been broken. They replaced it with
a new container...way kewl of them...  I have removed item that don't belong
in caches , added item that are need to others..I have found...  If everyone
works together then we have well stocked caches in good container... When I
place a cache in a area that I do not plan on visiting all the time....out
of state  or on the other side of the world I let people know in the cache
text. I have had very good luck with other helping out....I think that if we
stuck to the 24 hour rule we would miss out on a lot of kewl spots to visit

just my 2 cents


----- Original Message -----
From: C. Sullivan <feedle@feedle.net>
To: <listserv@azgeocaching.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] More on abandoned Caches


>
>
> On Thu, 16 May 2002, Baja Fleg wrote:
>
> > The part that says "as often as you can" leaves a huge grey area.  If I
can
> > only return to an area once ever two or so years then two years is as
often
> > as I can.  The 24hour thing is bogus.  Just because one person places a
> > cache doesn't mean you can't help maintain it.  How many times has
someone
> > visited a cache and removed something that shouldn't be there?  Everyone
> > should help maintain the caches that they visit.
>
> Why is this so hard to understand and to deal with?
>
> 1.  Placing a cache that you have no intentions or ability of returning to
> is littering.
> 2.  Placing a cache requires regular maintainance.  It is the cache
> owner's responsibility to provide that maintainance, either personally or
> by proxy (that is, making arrangements to ensure that the cache gets
> visited regularly).  "Regularly" is certainly open for debate, but for the
> vast majority of locations I don't think every couple of months or so is
> out of the question.  You should also visit the cache if nobody has logged
> it in a period of time to ensure it's still there.
> 3.  It is also the cache owner's responsibility to return to the
> cache site regularly to ensure that the cache is not causing a problem or
> impacting the environment regularly.  How can you do this effectively if
> you only go out there once every two years?
> 4.  None of this excludes other people "doing a good deed" and taking care
> of routine cache problems, but it ultimately is the cache owner's
> responsibility.
> 5.  Should somebody complain, it is also the cache owner's responsibility
> to remove the cache.  This is actually a legal requirement: most states
> have rules regarding "abandoned property".  You might want to research
> them.
>
>
> Go back and reread my message.  The 24-hour thing was a rule of thumb, not
> some hard, set in stone requirement.  I believe it is a good one.  It's
> one I plan on following.
>
> For diety's sake.  What's so damned hard about this?  What's so hard to
> understand about "cache owner's responsibility?"
>
> Yes, this is a hobby, and it dosen't mean we have to have our lives
> revolve around this.  But, at the same time, we need to consider the
> impact our hobby has on the world around us.  We need to be responsible,
> especially if we are ever going to gain the respect that we'll need to
> change NPS's (and others) minds about whether or not to permit our
> activity.  Attitudes like yours are exactly why the NPS won't allow caches
> on their land.
>
> I'm sorry, but this hobby needs more QUALITY caches that are regularly
> maintained, not more QUANTITY caches that are hastily placed and poorly
> maintained.  I'd be happier if there were only 20 caches within 100 miles,
> if I knew that ALL of them had a high chance of being there when I got
> there.. than 300 within 50 miles that might have a 25% or less chance of
> actually being there.  Southern California seems to have the
> latter.  Arizona is certainly better, probably because the vast majority
> of cache owners here actually visit their caches regularly.
>
> Which brings me to this question, that nobody seems willing (or able) to
> answer.  How is placing a cache somewhere that you have no plan, desire,
> or ability to get to on short notice different than littering?
>
> -Fedl
>
> _______________________________________________
> Az-Geocaching mailing list
> listserv@azgeocaching.com
> http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
>
> Arizona's Geocaching Resource
> http://www.azgeocaching.com