[Az-Geocaching] Please consider the container you hide

[Steven Stringham]

I did that cache. I never did sign the log though, I claimed a find. 
Yes, this one gave me the willies. It was near the start of my caching 
adventures, but as you can see from my logs, I thought it was a bad 
cache at the time. Then, later when someone actually pulled it out, the 
fact that a pocketknife was in the cache made it that more stupid.

Mind you, that cache didn't last long as a cacher. One wonders why?

Yes, caches need thought when placed. Next to a jail under the guards 
noses with a pocketknife in the cache - bad idea. Stealth? Even worse.

Steven Stringham
StringCachers
(I finally have broken 600 Arizona finds - Yeah! After 2 1/2 years of 
caching).

Brian Casteel wrote:

> The cache in question was:
>  
> http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=74695e39-25a0-4efd-b2f4-76ffbf44940a 
>
>  
> The 'needs archive' log was nice by comparison, but I thought I was 
> pretty blunt about it on the listserv..perhaps not.
>  
> Brian
> Team A.I.
>  
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Joe Brekke <mailto:joenveng at comcast.net>
>     *To:* listserv at azgeocaching.com <mailto:listserv at azgeocaching.com>
>     *Sent:* Sunday, July 10, 2005 4:37 PM
>     *Subject:* Re: [Az-Geocaching] Please consider the container you hide
>
>     Wasn't there one in the Phoenix area that was in front of a jail
>     or detention center or something at one time?  I remember seeing
>     it and after reading the logs decided not to even attempt it.  I
>     don't remember what the name of it was.
>      
>     Again, it just comes down to the judgement of each individual
>     cacher.  Just because there is a cache listed doesn't mean you
>     have to find it.  As Scott says if you feel that it is too risky,
>     skip it.
>
>     It's been done, Scott. Check out GCGA7A or, more specifically, my
>     log of
>      [URL=http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=0b4ccb77-b494-432f-aed9-2c42520abd7a]02/28/04[/URL]. 
>     Of course, this cache has been archived but it was around for
>     almost a year and quite literally right under the nose of the
>     authorities.  I agree with you though on the over-abundance of
>     "stealthy" urban micros.  Many times I have passed over caches
>     because I felt they were too "risky", at least at the time.
>
>     -- Sprocket
>
>     P.S. I know the above cache is OOS, so that's probably why you've
>     never seen it before. ;-)
>
>