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