[Az-Geocaching] Bass Ackwards Cache

[WOLFB8]

wow I have talked to harp about the cache .... and maysome day try for it I
hope if I am ever lucky enough to be in the area....and from our
conversation it is not somewere ...that a ranger is is going to find it...or
anyone that is not looking for it


----- Original Message -----
From: C. Sullivan <feedle@feedle.net>
To: <listserv@azgeocaching.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Bass Ackwards Cache


>
>
> On Wed, 15 May 2002, Scott Nicol wrote:
>
> > Some sad news as I awake this morning to read my emails. Above is the
email
> > from Hap McDaniel in response to my email to him about the Bass Ackwards
> > Cache. You know, the cache that is over 530 days old without a find!
That is
> > the official news from the cache owners mouth.
>
> When I posted my off the cuff comment about it being the longest cache
> without a find, I half expected somebody to figure out that there might be
> a reason (like, for example, it's not there.. or is in a difficult to
> access location).
>
> > Am I the first geocacher to actually inquire to the cache owner about
this
> > cache?
>
> Probably.  I didn't, because I had no way of actually going out and
> finding it should the owner come back and say "yep, it's still
> there."  Secondly, I assume that any cache that is not archived or marked
> unavailable is still there (see rant below).
>
> > I wonder why no one else ever even inquired about this cache to the
cache
> > owner? I wonder why it was never archived? It appears the cache owner
works
>
> The short answer to those two questions is: because if the cache is not
> marked as "unavailable" or archived, one assumes that the cache is still
> there and available.. and the cache maintainer is supposed to be regularly
> visiting their cache to ensure that it is still there and in one piece.
>
> <rant>
>
> This is rapidly becoming a personal pet peeve of mine.  I'm currently
> visiting Colorado, and a significant number of the caches in the Denver
> area are in various states of "missing", with no update from the cache
> maintainer.  Worse: there are a few that contain "notes" from the cache
> maintainer that the cache is indeed not there, yet the are not marked
> "unavailable".
>
> But the biggest issue is this "unmaintained" cache thing.  There are a
> number of caches out there that have no active maintainer.  On a recent
> trip to Bakersfield, there were no fewer than three caches (2/3 of the
> caches in the area) that apparently have been abandoned by their owner and
> not maintained.  One of the abandoned caches in question was placed by a
> group of schoolteachers!
>
> I don't blame the NPS for their policy.  It's one thing to place a cache
> in a location that you can frequently visit: that's not
> "abandoning" it.  But people often times place caches in locations that
> they are visiting, or that they may never get to again.  This is just
> wrong.  The NPS is charged with protecting the integrity of the sites
> they control.. the don't want to have to clean up the mess that our hobby
> can infrequently generate.
>
> A Geocacher in California I had the pleasure of having coffee with after
> meeting them at a remote cache site said that people should use a "24-hour
> rule" when placing caches.  If you cannot be at the cache site in 24
> hours after somebody posts a "can't find" log OR after recieving notice
> from somebody to remove your cache, you shouldn't place it.  I think it's
> a good rule: if you place a cache someplace in Utah and you're retired (or
> work at home) so there's nothing stopping you from driving up to Utah and
> retriving it on short notice, okay.  If you can't be where you've placed
> the cache the next day, you probably shouldn't place it.  If there's no
> way you could take a day off work to truck up there and get it, it
> probably shouldn't be placed.
>
> Unmaintained Geocaches are just more litter on the side of the road.
>
> > A question to ponder: if a cache is found at least once every 24 hours,
does
> > that make it not abandoned property? If I remember from a past post on
the
> > list here, someone said the NP does not allow caches because they
consider
> > it abandoned property and property cannot remained unattended for more
than
> > 24 hours (or something like that). SO, if someone places a cache on NP
land
> > that is pretty easily accessible and close to a city (like Saguaro NP in
> > Tucson), as long as there was a daily found log on that cache, would the
NP
> > service be in the wrong to remove it (for at least as long as it remains
> > found on a daily basis)? This probably isnt realistic though. But, just
> > pondering a question. There might just be a loophole here!
>
> Urban caches in Arizona often go weeks without a log, even when the are
> easy to find and off major highways.  For example, my own Wednesday Equals
> Geeks cache hasn't been logged in a week, and as of three days ago it was
> still there.  And it's in an area with lots of other caches, easily
> accessible from a freeway.
>
> I think even in Grand Canyon National Park a geocache would be hard
> pressed to catch a log each day.. even if it had a huge neon sign with an
> arrow pointing to the container.  The sad fact of the matter is, there
> just aren't enough Geocachers out there.  I mean.. consider that AZ is a
> hotbed of Geocaching activity.  There are, what.. like maybe 100-200
> active cachers here?  Out of how many million live in this state?  And a
> few of those "Active AZ Cachers" probably include people like Lost
> Yankee.. snowbirds that are just here for a little while.
>
> The last, more important observation I have is.. do we WANT a
> loophole?  Wouldn't it be better for us to build our hobby to the point
> that we can demonstrate to the NPS the benefits of a Geocache?  Wouldn't
> it be cool if after a large segment of the population gets interested in
> this hobby that the NPS actually places a few officially maintained caches
> in appropriate locations?  This would benefit us a lot more than
> potentiall pissing off the very people that we need to be on our side by
> arguing and nitpicking at their policy.
>
> -Fedl
>
> _______________________________________________
> Az-Geocaching mailing list
> listserv@azgeocaching.com
> http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
>
> Arizona's Geocaching Resource
> http://www.azgeocaching.com