The site that Mr. Peters says has all the damage is the one in the White Tanks. What is interesting is that site has had only 3 visits. Mr. Peters only know that there is a cache nearby but does not know where it is located. I myself have been to the site and although it is a bit offtrail (approx .1 miles) it is in an area that gets a lot of visitors. I saw no evidence of any archeological site near the cache or on my way to it. Loran (Team Sand Dollar) ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Nicol To: Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 2:06 AM Subject: RE: [Az-Geocaching] Destruction of geological site(s?) > Howdy All, > > First off, I am VERY disturbed by the article in the AZ Republic. I always > seemed to be a newspaper dedicated to keeping us Arizonans informed with the > latest news, etc. I never thought it would become an editorial newpaper. I > felt like I was reading the National Enquirer when I read that article. We > have cancelled our subscription to the AZ Republic. We want to read about > the news, not one persons views and thoughts (on the front page no less). > > I think it is disgusting that the paper would even allow such a report be > written up without more evidence. The article is totally one sided and only > speaks of a couple of people's views. I don't think I have EVER read an > article in a newspaper that literally slammed a certain hobby/sport/subject, > etc like that one did without the facts and evidence to back up such claims. > > I will not go into expressing my views and thoughts on the subject anymore > as it would be very repetitious. I got into and enjoying geocaching for many > of the same reasons most others do- to get outdoors more and enjoy nature > and visit new places, meet new people, and the hobby also provides a great > way for me to 'keep in shape' and provides me plenty of excercise with all > the hiking I have been doing these days. > > Mr. Peters beleives that geocaching is responsible for the damage to the > archaeological site he watches over. He has come to that conclusion because > he has seen an increase in activity around the area since a geocache was > placed there. Therefore, he feels that geocaching is the culprit. It is very > possible the damage was indeed caused since after the cache was hidden > there. I do not in any way beleive that geocachers caused that damage. > However... > > A question to ponder: is it possible that a non-geocacher(s) happened upon > the Geocaching.com web site (there have been articles on geocaching before > in the newspaper and there are plenty of people outside our hobby that know > about it) and saw the listing for that cache (and other caches) and > therefore went out and visited the site? There may have been several new > visitors to that site by way of the web site. Unfortunately, there are > people and will always be people who have nothing better to do than spoil > someone else's fun. Someone will see the geocaching.com web site and find a > cache listed, go out there and remove it or destroy it... just to make it > hard on those trying to find it. Don't think there aren't people out there > like that... there are. (I once had a write up on my business in the Mesa > Tribune and that day and soon after I had several crank calls from kids just > screwing around). I personally fear that this kind of thing will begin to > happen since the article was published. How many caches will suddenly > dissapear in the coming weeks? I can understand why Libby has suddenly made > several of her caches 'members only' caches. I am kinda bummed to hear that > she has done that though, since I am not a dues paying member of > geocaching.com and I cannot go seek out her members only caches. I have > always enjoyed Libby's caches. I for one sure do not want to go hiking up to > the top of some mountain on a 105 degree afternoon only to not be able to > find a cache because someone took it. > > Now, I know there are some who will not agree with me on this: but, the > reasons above are just another good reason to make the Geocaching.com web > site access available to members only. Anyone could bring up the site and > learn more about geocaching, but, only members would be able to read the > pages containing information about caches and the logs. I am not saying that > it should be a 'pay to access' site. I myself am not a dues paying member of > geocaching.com. What I am saying is that maybe the cache pages should be > available ONLY to those who have an 'account'. Much like we already have > now. This may not stop everyone, but, it would be a deterant to those who > don't want to waste their time setting up an account and for those that fear > for putting any personal information on the net. This way, only geocachers > (those active in the hobby) would be viewing details, coordinates, etc about > each cache. This really would not change a thing to all of us who already > log into geocaching.com. However, those looking at the web site for the > first time, would only be able to see the home page and pages that detail > what the hobby is about and how to get involved, etc. They would need an > account to be able to view the cache pages. This isnt THE answer, but, it is > a thought and I think a valid one. > > I would be curious to hear other's thoughts on this. > > Scott > Team Ropingthewind > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx > > _______________________________________________ > Az-Geocaching mailing list > listserv@azgeocaching.com > http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching > > Arizona's Geocaching Resource > http://www.azgeocaching.com >