I've read many good posts concerning the removal of caches from the Superstition Wilderness Area in the past few days; too many to quote. So, if I plagiarise anyone, let me offer my apologies beforehand. I would like to add my .02 cents, even if just to support what others have already stated. First off, the _excuse_ that the Ranger District/Forest Service (or whoever the concerned agency is) has reportedly used claiming that they are trying to reduce the creation of new trails is just that-- an excuse. And a poor one at that. Someone wrote (here) that they spoke with an official at the Mesa Ranger office about making some of the caches virtuals and they said that was okay. Sorry, but unless the virtual is for a location right on the trail, or can be seen from the trail, then a cacher would still need to leave the trail to log a virtual find. So, their (the Ranger District's) B.S. excuse just doesn't hold water. And, speaking of "damaging" the environment, for crying out loud, I've seen one group of well-intentioned cub scouts or a single Sherrif's Posse on horseback do more damage to the wilderness in a day that a whole herd of geo-cachers could do in a year. (Do geo-cachers travel in herds? :-) ) The second excuse I've heard is they will confiscate any property left unattended for a specified period of time. I haven't seen an official number yet so I'm not sure how long it is. I've heard from 24 hours to 14 days. (Anyone know the truth?) Anyway, I understand this regulation and have always considered it a "litter" issue. I personally am appalled when I come across not just typical "trash" type litter in the Wilderness Area, but also things like clothing, backpacks and other equipment, unused food items and other items that were obviously abandoned because the person who carried it in was either too lazy to carry it back out or too lazy to stop and pick it up when they (or their pack animal) dropped it. Heck, we once happened upon an entire encampment that had been abandoned on Black Top Mesa. This included large military style canvas tents that were left behind and weeks worth of canned provisions. The stuff was strewn about over an area of several hundred yards, either by natural forces or the critters who make their home there. The stuff had obviously been there for some time but they weren't the kind of thing you would miss when you were packing up to leave camp and head back to civilization. At any rate, I support the removal of abandoned property, if it is causing a problem to the environment or is an eyesore. I don't think a cache hidden off-trail, out of site could be considered either. For a Ranger to make a concerted effort to track something down that, if he hadn't been instructed by his/her superiors, he wouldn't even have known existed. That's sort of like your homeowner's association telling you you can't paint the _interior_ of your house a certain color. Of course, they never would have known what color the interior of your house was if your nosy neighbor hadn't reported it. Again, I think the confiscation of abandoned property rule, as the Ranger District has applied it to caches, is pure hogwash. A couple of people have alluded to the fact that the Rangers will allow caches, as long as they have some control over it. This is what it all boils down to, IMHO-- CONTROL!! As is typical with any gov't agency charged with overseeing _anything_ on behalf of the public, if they don't have an iron fisted control over it, then they ain't happy. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don't want to sound like an anarchist or a conspiracy nut, and I don't want to start on a rant... so I'll just quit this line of discussion as it stands. I've seen posted here several times that the Rangers "may" allow caches, but only with prior consent; in the same breath they state that there is currently no procedure in place for doing so. I've also read that they have no official policy on geocaching. If that's true, then they have no legal pretext to stop the placement of caches in the lands under their jurisdiction. They can only remove caches when they search them out and find them. This prompts, in my mind, a few possible avenues of attack for the geocaching community. 1) Stop placing caches on _PUBLIC_ lands, sit back and wait for a few representatives to educate and hash it out with the bureaucrats, which will drag on for years, and in the end will inevitably result in further restrictions on our beloved sport/hobby/obsession. Any descendant of virtually any tribe of American Indians will probably tell you, "Yeah! That's the way to do it. We were pascifists and look what it did for our people!" 2) Flood the Wilderness with 'out of the way' caches faster than the Rangers can track them down. In the end, they might just give up and let us have our fun as long as we don't do any "real" damage. Again (using the analogy of the American Indian, in the interest of parity) ask any descendant of any of the "warring" tribes and they'll probably tell you, "Yeah! That's the way to do it! We fought back and look what it did for our people!" 3) Continue hiding caches in the Wilderness but don't post the coordinates directly. Use posted coordinates that are _outside_ the Wilderness with prerequisite cache legs that lead you to the final destination or puzzles whose solutions lead you to the final destination inside the "sacred ground." Perhaps this will lead to an "out of sight,out of mind" policy. Look what it did for the American Eskimo! As for the Ranger District's sudden interest (or disinterest) in caches placed in lands under their jurisdiction, there's no doubt in my mind that it all started because of either the previous bad press we've received or a small number of complaints received from well-intentioned but mis-informed (ie. nosy busybody) citizens. Some higher up official has picked on the scent and is using it as a political stepping stone because he/she feels he/she is doing the general public a favor (at the same time garnering future votes or political appointment.) I can't understand why the Ranger District isn't begging us to place caches on their/our lands. After all, for every herd (see paragraph 2) of geocachers that enters the Wilderness at one of the popular entrances, a minimum of $4 in parking fees will be generated. In a time where the state legislature is considering slashing budgets all over the place, you'd think they'd be happy for every penny they can get. But then again, I could be wrong. Fuggit. Who wants pie? -- Sprocket (with apologies to Dennis Miller.)