In some ways I agree with the sentiment Scott has
expressed and in some ways I don't. I can see where
someone would worry about caches going missing with a
large number of new people either trying out the sport
or a large number of land managers looking for any on
public property property.

At the same time, I believe that there are enough
caches that will remain non-MO to satisfy new cachers
for the next couple of weeks. I have no intention on
making Picnic Leftovers a MO cache and we plan on
hiding our fifth AZ cache this weekend, celebrating
our one year caching anniversary (don't ask me when my
wedding anniversary is).

Overall, it's just a personal decision everyone has to
make. I do hope that this is just a temporary
phenominon because, as Scott said, it would be a shame
for new hunters not to be able to find some great
caches.


Eric
TD

--- Scott Wood <wood@myblueheaven.com> wrote:
> I have read a number of messages both here and over
> on the geocaching.com about the press that 
> Arizona geocaching received yesterday, and people 
> turning their caches into member's only caches.
> 
> One of the comments, made by a member of this list,
> over on the forums, stated that the caches were
> made member's only because there were going to 
> be a lot of new people geocaching because of the
> article.  At least that is  how I read the message.
> 
> Am I the only one that thinks this is a bad idea? 
> Don't we want to welcome new geocachers to our
> community?  Making some of the best caches in
Arizona 
> member's only really seems to be as elitist as the
> comments made by those interviewed in the Republic
> article.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com