Cache site vandalism

pprass · Post by **pprass** » 19 June 06 1:25 pm

On a few occasions we have had to return to a cache location after being first on the scene and have been very saddened to see the condition of the area after just a handful of cachers have been through since our visit. Vegetation is destroyed, unsuspecting rotting logs are completely pulled apart, rocks are overturned and not replaced, hollows are dug out and leaf litter not replaced - in general it looks as though a demolition team has been through. Some of this destructive action is encouraged by the thoughtless positioning of the cache in the first instance (e.g. caches in the middle of garden beds in public parks

), however generally there should be no reason for wrecking the flora which in some cases is quite delicate. We try to carefully prod and poke around sensitive areas and nearly always return logs, rocks and leaf litter in exactly the same way as we found it. Also by leaving the scene as we found it, means that there are no extra clues for future cachers, which could ruin their adventure. Another gripe is dismantling decoys that the cache owner has placed. Once the spot is checked, why not rebuild the decoy so that the next cacher can have the same Ã‚â€œfunÃ‚â€

Geodes · Post by **Geodes** » 19 June 06 1:44 pm

Hear, hear

I've never liked 'em in garden beds, and always feel guilty when I set foot in one (but, like most cachers, not guilty enough to actually stop me doing it

).
If a garden bed is the only reasonable place for the cache, the hider should try to make it reachable from the edge, and state this in the cache description.

Team Pathfinder · Post by **Team Pathfinder** » 19 June 06 1:56 pm

Agreed totally. It has been a passionate issue of mine since the sport gained momentum.

Just to refresh peoples minds - dont forget that when placing a cache in the end of a hollow log (especially up a tree) you could be displacing a bird from its nesting site. With all the trees being cleared for housing etc there is becoming more pressure on the few left so do think before you place.

maccamob · Post by **maccamob** » 19 June 06 3:34 pm

We agree too. It is difficult not to cause some slight disturbance when searching, but we do try to keep it to a minimum and to restore the site once we have finished. We also try to foresee the impact of future visitors on the area when we place a new cache and select a site to minimise damage. The risk of having parks officially placed off limits for caching is high. It happened in the US a long time ago, and has happened in NSW. As the number of new cachers grows, that risk grows too.

Bunya · Post by **Bunya** » 19 June 06 5:28 pm

I donÃ‚â€™t want to get off topic, but the original posting seems to be a mixture of concerns about placement of caches and how finders re-hide them.

I certainly agree with the approach of thinking about the impact on the environment of people searching for my caches, though this can be very hard to judge at times. 
When it was pointed out to me by a finder that one of my caches was poorly placed from this point of view, I archived it.


IÃ‚â€™m often surprised at how little effort some finders make to re-hide the cache properly, even to the extent of leaving camouflage leaves, sticks etc. in a pile alongside(!) the cache when they leave. 

I know geocaching is a family sport, but I once discovered a cache in a sorry state (hide wrecked, box not shut) and then a found log appeared saying the geocacher had let his young kiddies find and re-hide it by themselves. 
Parental supervision required, I think. 

Adopting the Ã‚â€œdo unto othersÃ‚â€

GIN51E · Post by **GIN51E** » 19 June 06 7:13 pm

Bunya wrote: I try to re-hide caches I find better than (or at least as well as) they were hidden when I found them.

This really gives me the sh*ts

if i hide a cache i expect to return and find it hidden in exactly the same way as i left it, my caches aren't often hidden hard as the whole point is to take the cacher to the area and i don't want them to walk away with a DNF and when i place a cache in a way that it is easy to find i often don't include a hint. now if someone comes along and hides it even better than i did that will increase the chances of another cacher walking away with a DNF

its actually very simply, place it exactly as you found it, no better or worse. than everyone will be happy.

unlike one cache of mine where the First to find decided they would hide it a little better. which means when they found it the cache was exactly as i left it, if i wanted it to be hidden better i would have done so myself.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx ... 2309b86d16

Bunya · Post by **Bunya** » 19 June 06 7:39 pm

GIN51E wrote:
Bunya wrote: I try to re-hide caches I find better than (or at least as well as) they were hidden when I found them. 
This really gives me the sh*ts

I'm sorry if it gives you the shots, but surely the situation is more complicated. 
Experience tells me that assuming that every finder between the placer and me has put it back exactly the same way simply isn't true. 
If I am the FTF

sure I'll put it back exactly as I find it. 
If I'm not I think it is best to assume that at least one finder has hidden it worse than they found it.

So I'm just trying to even things up

Geodes · Post by **Geodes** » 19 June 06 7:40 pm

GIN51E wrote: its actually very simply, place it exactly as you found it, no better or worse. than everyone will be happy.

I agree - unless the hide has obviously been disturbed (by muggles, animals [same thing?] or whatever), in which case it should be properly hidden and the details communicated to the owner.

C.O.D · Post by **C.O.D** » 19 June 06 8:33 pm

This really gives me the sh*ts

if i hide a cache i expect to return and find it hidden in exactly the same way as i left it, my caches aren't often hidden hard as the whole point is to take the cacher to the area and i don't want them to walk away with a DNF and when i place a cache in a way that it is easy to find i often don't include a hint. now if someone comes along and hides it even better than i did that will increase the chances of another cacher walking away with a DNF

I'm hearing you GIN51E http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx ... f392779a93

And after this I thought it was ironic to read this http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... 78257540e3

Map Monkey · Post by **Map Monkey** » 19 June 06 8:59 pm

For all concerned, can we not start mentioning names and caches, either directly or indirectly, especially considering they are not here to defend any actions. Let's keep it civilised

I would have thought a nice email by the owner to the cacher may go someway to solving the situation.

Hey pprass, what do you mean by decoys?

I would imagine a newbie may not know the difference and somehow disturb the "decoy" by returning it to the environment......or are we talking artificial decoys

mm

GIN51E · Post by **GIN51E** » 19 June 06 9:20 pm

map monkey wrote:I would have thought a nice email by the owner to the cacher may go someway to solving the situation.

That didn't work

simply think before you hide a cache, don't stick it in with thick vegitation otherwise it will get damaged, if you find a cache then simply put it back exactly as you found it. the only time you can hide it better 'not by moving it but by placing more objects on top of it' is if its in the wide open and there is a great chance of a muggle seeing it.

Post by **caughtatwork** » 19 June 06 9:20 pm

I'm guessing unnatural piles of rocks (and stuff).
The hider makes little rock cairns to suck you in.
You pull them down before you find the cache.
You don't rebuild them.
The next hider doesn't get the enjoyment of pulling the UPR's down and rebuilding them.

It's all part of the fun you know.

I'm generally guilt free of "vandalism" (that's probably a harsh word as it's not done with the intent to destroy). I will attempt to rebuild UPR or UPS as well as push back any mulch or such stuff as I move away.

I generally know where a cache isn't, because the mulch is still away from the logs, etc from previous hunters.

What I am guilt of is wandering around in circles, first here, then there and the more tramping I do, the flatter the grasses get. On particularly evil hides (eg haystacks), the grass is so flattened only time and a decent rain will restore it.

I attempted to find one last weekend. A small stand of trees to the end of a park. The area had been torn apart before I got there, but the additional damage I contributed to did not make me a happy cacher. Most of it was foot damage. Traipsing around looking to see what else I could see from various angles and searching through all the grasses to see what was underneath them. I called two people for help to try and avoid more destruction, but both implied it was simply in the grasses and I had to look. Memory wasn't able to help narrow down the search.

There's not much that can be done to alleviate foot traffic and I try to use pre-existing tracks if I can, but I agree with the sentiment in the OP that you shouldn't destroy the place looking for a plastic box without a decent attempt at reparation before you leave.

You (generic you) spent a lot of time pulling things apart, take a few moments and put it back before you leave. It's not hard if you recover as you go.

Cached · Post by **Cached** » 19 June 06 9:32 pm

I agree - unless the hide has obviously been disturbed (by muggles, animals [same thing?] or whatever), in which case it should be properly hidden and the details communicated to the owner.

So, how do we determine if it was left that way on purpose or not?

Was it originally hidden how I found it? Did animals remove the coverage? Has the cammo chipped off and it's more visible now and so needs more coverage over it? Did muggles find it accidentally? (and if they did, shouldn't it be covered more?)

The only real way is to leave a photograph of how you want the cache hidden inside the cache itself.

I'd hate to leave a cache I really thought needed a bit more cover exposed (as found) and then read that it got muggled days later.

Bunya · Post by **Bunya** » 19 June 06 9:42 pm

C.O.D wrote:
This really gives me the sh*ts

if i hide a cache i expect to return and find it hidden in exactly the same way as i left it, my caches aren't often hidden hard as the whole point is to take the cacher to the area and i don't want them to walk away with a DNF and when i place a cache in a way that it is easy to find i often don't include a hint. now if someone comes along and hides it even better than i did that will increase the chances of another cacher walking away with a DNF
I'm hearing you GIN51E http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx ... f392779a93

And after this I thought it was ironic to read this http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... 78257540e3

As the one who GIN51E was responding to I donÃ‚â€™t see why C.O.D. is attacking someone else for actually MOVING a cache. This is something I would NEVER do, even if my GPSr shows GZ is 10m away. This is a case for where you say something in the log or email the placer.
I was talking about how caches are rehidden, by which I mean, how you cover them when you put them back exactly where you found them.
My attitude is based on the following: 
I am in a position to check on a few of my caches quite often and in one case do so nearly every time it has been found. Out of every 10 finds I would say that 2 finders re-hide (that is, cover) it as found, 5 do an OK job, 2 do a poor job and 1 does a #@&* job. On each visit I always cover it up as I would like done by the next finder.
On the assumption that these statistics are not far from average, I feel my approach of covering up caches at least as well as, if not better than, I found them is perfectly reasonable, even responsible.

pprass · Post by **pprass** » 19 June 06 9:56 pm

map monkey wrote:Hey pprass, what do you mean by decoys?

As C@W nicely summarised - a decoy could be a pile of rocks or a few branches leaning against a log which would normally indicate a cache hide. Designed to give the cache finder a bit more of a challenge - rather than "Oh there it is in that tree hollow"

BTW - the point of my comment was not about how a cache is replaced once found, but rather the rough manner in which some cachers seem to be adopting in finding a cache. In 4WD clubs there is a term that is used quite often - "Tread Lightly".