[Az-Geocaching] Destruction of geological site(s?)

[loran @cox]

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 <arizcowboy@hotmail.com>
To: <listserv@azgeocaching.com>
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
>