At 05:28 PM 6/22/2002 -0700, you wrote:

>I can't believe that you have actually gotten those types of responses from
>cache owners.

Sort of surprised me also.

>The first and last one in particular show a distinct
>disregard for what is currently happening in the state.

I think part of the problem might be that some of the cache owners are from 
out of state.


>As I remember, the ability to temporarily disable a cache hasn't been around
>from the start, so it is possible that some cache owners don't know that
>feature is available: that I'll grant. It's also possible that the cache

You are right, it is a somewhat new feature, but the closure of the 
Coronado and other forests have come after it was implemented.  If you go 
and read some of the cache logs, there are notes from the cache owners 
saying that you shouldn't go after the cache because of the closure, but 
they are still listed as active.  I think it is somewhat irresponsible to 
leave a cache active when you KNOW that it is illegal, even if only 
temporarily, to go and find it.  It seems to me like this feature was 
tailor made for this situation.

>owner didn't think of diabling the cache till the threat passes, and some
>cache owners are no longer active and monitoring the situation or their
>caches.

That could be true.  I really wish that there was a way that you could 
adopt a cache if the owner lost interest.


Scott
Team My Blue Heaven
www.myblueheaven.com/geocache