quote:

---

Originally posted by Mtn-man:

...the area around the first clue was already beaten down pretty good by people looking...

Not only are there time concerns, but I think the environmental concerns may be a bigger issue.

---

These quotes were from the "multi caches listed as regular" thread but they brought to mind another type of problem cache that I've encountered several times and I'd like to get some feedback to see if others share my opinion.

Most everyone knows that caches aren't supposed to be buried in the ground, in fact the official GGA Guidelines and Requirements spell this out in no uncertain terms. There are several reasons for this "rule" but the main one (IMO) is this: a GPSR's accuracy is only 5~15 meters and since a buried cache container isn't visible, folks will be "digging" all over the place to find it, causing severe environmental damage in the process. Well, I've never been on a cache hunt where a shovel was required, but many of the ones I have visited were buried all the same. What I'm talking about is caches placed in stump holes or other cavities and then completely covered with leaves or pinestraw without any aboveground clue to their whereabouts. Almost every time I've visited a cache hidden like this, everything within a 20 to 40 foot radius was basically trampled and picked to death. My latest encounter with a stumphole cache occured a few weeks ago. It was listed with a high difficulty rating and from reading the cache page, the owner seemed rather pleased with himself for being so "clever", however it was simply placed in a hole and totally covered with leaf and pine litter (no additional hint was given). Everyone that visited before me wrote of the long arduous search they went through and several had made multiple trips to find it. Less than 20 visits had been logged but the area around the container looked like it had been bombed. It was obvious from the "sign" that people had been digging through leaves, rolling over logs & rocks, and moving everything in sight as they stomped around in a fruitless attempt to locate it. My own search (over an hour) came to an end only when my walking-stick finally struck it's lid. By that time it had ceased to be fun and I just wanted to get it over with so I could go home.

I understand the desire to create something above and beyond the old clichéd ammo box placed behind a tree but I don't think this is an appropriate solution at all.

What do ya'll think?

I'll have to agree. While it certainly is forbidden to dig a hole to bury a cache, it appears that mentioning that the cache is "agressively hidden" could cause undo stress on the landscape. After all, when you know the cache is in the area and you've exhausted all the logical hiding places, the next choice is to start turning over logs and rocks, isn't it? I have not encountered any "bomb-scapes" like you mention, but I can see it my mind's eye. It's an ugly picture.

I've just walked away rather then tear up the place. I've seen bark ripped off of trees and bird nests disturbed as well as the other desecrations mentioned above. Doesn't make sense, really.

I am also known as one who will hide a cache in a stump/stump hole. My hides are obvious, though. The coords will take you to a place and, tada, a stump/stump hole. I've never seen any damage around them and if I did, I'd move it and post new coords.

IMHO, cache maintenance is extremely important. The cache owner needs to check on his/her caches on a regular basis. As a cache owner I have a responsibility to cachers and the place the cache is hidden.

See ya on the hunt!

As for my 2 cents. I like to hunt aggressively hidden caches. Some of my favorite finds have taken more than one trip or several hours to find.

I believe that this is one of the reasons for the rating system of 1 to 5. I don't hunt many 1 or 2's. I hate just walking up and spotting the cache. Some of my personal favorite's have been one's like EZ2C and Not 2EZ, Palo Duro, Invisible cache, Latitude and Longitude, Meow-Meow-Meow and many other's that are very,very hard to find.

Some of the best caches for me have been stump holes, great camo jobs, under all sort of stuff. I always approach with the idea, now where would I hide something in this area if it were me. Allot of times that's were it is.

Geocaching has level's to meet everyone's taste. EZ for NeoGeo's to very hard for been there done that kind of cachers. That's what makes this sport so much fun.

I never blame the placer, It is up top me as a Geocacher to know what I am in for and there are some that I could not find, but again that's not the placer's fault but my limitations.

On the rating system a 4 states it could take you a good part of the day to find.

Now for me the one's that I don't like to hunt are one's that I have to solve math,riddles, ciphers etc. I have found many of those but some I just don't bother with. That is way there is vanilla and Chocolate something to suit everone's taste.

Then of couse there is Neopolitan for those that can not make up there minds.

Cheers

quote:

---

Geocaching has level's to meet everyone's taste.

---

That's true, and after a while most of us migrate towards the level or type of cache that interests us.

I can sure see mudbug's point though. I've hidden caches that I had to move after the landscape became cratered and I've found other's caches that were in a similar locale. I've also found caches that were obviously buried with a shovel, though never one that required a shovel to find. Both the buried caches were very early caches and one was on the cache owner's property.

I sort of see where all this might lead though:
Early buried caches resulted in a backlash against the sport that lead to the current rules against buried caches. If caches placed in stump holes lead to similar problems then the restrictions placed on us can be similar too.

I'm not proposing that we stop putting caches in stump holes, but that the cache owners be very sensitive to the land around the cache being overly disturbed. If the land is looking cratered and/or if there are obvious social trails to the cache something needs to be done. That something would probably best be to move the cache a hundred feet or so to give the land a chance to "heal".

Maybe the "aggressively hidden" caches should be confined to those that wouldn't get a lot of traffic: put them way out in the boonies or have a puzzle or preliminary stages that scare off the newer geocachers. That way those caches that require a lot of prodding to find would be visited by a low number of prodders.

~erik~

I think if a cache is hidden so well that we as finders will damage the surroundings (fauna and flora or the general natural environment, or physical buildings or structures, trying to find it, it is hidden too "aggressively."

If the cache owner wants the cache to be hard to find, he should use devices like longer hikes, clever clues, multi, puzzles, etc. I think two of the best -- that are tough -- are Erik's CACHE @ REI @ MOG and YellowJacket's "Treasure and Scavenger Hunts...." Both were tough, but didn't beg for harm.

Thanks for all the input.

quote:

---

Originally posted by trez003
Some of the best caches for me have been stump holes...under all sort of stuff.

I never blame the placer

---

From reading your post, I think maybe you missed my point, I wasn't complaining because I thought the cache was hidden too aggressively. My "observation" was this: when faced with a container hidden under an unbroken carpet of forest floor, the only way to go about locating it is to disturb (destroy) that unbroken carpet... As far as blaming the placer, I wouldn't blame someone for requiring me to go through a detailed search but I've handed out plenty of blame for those that showed a disregard for or ignorance of environmental concerns.

quote:

---

Originally posted by trailerman
I think if a cache is hidden so well that we as finders will damage the surroundings (fauna and flora or the general natural environment...trying to find it, it is hidden too "aggressively."

---

Amen brother, Amen.

I think some cachers hide the caches in stump holes and places like that because they don't want them too easily stolen/plundered. Out in the remote wooded areas, it is not as necessary to conceal caches. You can just "plop" them down and not even cover/conceal them and it could take a couple of years for someone to find them. Usually, it would be a hunter.
However, in the parks around the Atlanta metro, they are busy and some people go off trail or get curious if they spot cachers off trail.

Now back to my subject line: Better Hints.
I think the best way to reduce alot of trampling in a cache area is to give good hints.
I recently gave more info on one of my caches to help the cacher know they are in the right spot. There was a large vine going up to a tree and the base was right at the cache (hidden in a stump hole). This will get them to the right stump hole.

Like Erik mentioned, he has moved caches to reduce the effects....but I searched for one cache right after the move. I searched four seperate times (with 2 other people twice) and beat up the area pretty bad. At least it was a 100 foot radius I tore up. There wasn't really alot of damage.
Not sure of why I had so much trouble on it. It was in a dead stump, but not aggressively hidden.
I would have had a hard time giving a better clue on that one and I think I am the only cacher spending more than 5 mins on it.

Actually, I think the most critical damage is not done due to the method of hiding, but the timing of things. New caches can generate alot of people in a short time and this doesn't give the area time to heal.
I have found a handful of caches without even searching. Just looked at the ground and saw nothing but dirt with surrounding areas covered by pinestraw or leaves.
I usually try to kick/toss some leaves from the surronding area to conceal the area a little and help the healing.

Kenneth

This thread is giving me some thoughts about my cache, "Harrison Hideaway". I know that in the area around the cache, there is a distinct social trail developing, and I am getting concerned that perhaps a move of the cache is in order. There are a couple of other promising spots in the area, and I know that recently the cache has been getting left out in the open. So I'm going to check with the more experienced cache hiders: should I re-hide the cache and move it a couple hundred feet?

quote:

---

I usually try to kick/toss some leaves from the surronding area to conceal the area a little and help the healing.

---

I learned some tricks on hiding old trails from doing trail location work at Elachee Nature Center. There we "moved" several trails that were becoming eroded. We obviously first created new trails, but then tossed tree limbs, dragged vines, etc., to disquise the original trail so people would follow the new one w/o giving it a second thought. I've tried to do the same with a little 8 foot social trail to my "Sobriety Test" cache. I tossed a bunch of debris on the social trail so that a normal person would approach it from a new angle. Hopefully it works!

I've found that just tossing leaves on the dirt to hide the trail is only a temporary cure. You have to do something to get people to take a different route. In most cases that means moving the cache.

~erik~

I too noticed the damage done by frustrated geocachers, when they have a difficult time finding the cache. I am guilty of placing a cache in a stump hole at the original Doggie Day out. I placed it in a stump hole that was level with the ground and near the base of another tree. It was not an obvious stump hole (which is why I liked it). I used 2 gps's and had someone test the coords. I even left the tag slightly visible so it would be seen. The hints weren't that great, but if you could use a compass it could be found. I returned 2 weeks after placing it and I was horrified. Every stump within 100 feet had been dug out so it looked like a freakin' minefield. Just because you don't use a shovel doesn't mean it's not digging. Hiking sticks and the whatnot should be used to test for caches not scoop out the leaves and tree innerds so you can see better. When a stick (hiking or not) hits the cache it makes a distinctive sound. Ammo cans are more distinct than tupperware, but the sounds are a sure sign. I would periodically go in to fill holes and brush over the tramped area with leaves. I eventually moved the cache to better spot where it wouldn’t have to be covered, though people seem to feel it needs to be. It always amazed me just how we talk the talk about Leave No Trace, but don’t walk the walk.

Maybe the answer is more considerate cache-hunters. Beating up an area to find a cache is plain counter-productive. You don’t dig to hide, you don’t dig to find. It’s that easy. If you have to dig out a stump to find a cache, then it should be reported as a violation of the guidelines.

I actually like the stump hole as a hiding place, just not the damage that results because of cache-hunters.

Maybe it’s time for another visit from the Leave No Trace people. Not all the cachers in Georgia will see it but at least those who do will learn some more considerate caching techniques.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ~erik~:
Maybe the "aggressively hidden" caches should be confined to those that wouldn't get a lot of traffic: put them way out in the boonies or have a puzzle or preliminary stages that scare off the newer geocachers.
~erik~

---

I am not sure about using puzzles this way. When I solve a puzzle to get the coordinates, finding the cache proves I solved the puzzle. If the cache is aggressively hidden then the hunter doesn't know if they can't find it due to a mistake in solving the puzzle or that they solved it correctly but just haven't found it. This could cause a hunter to do damage to area the cache isn't even in.

Of the puzzle cache. The only way to be sure you have the right coords is to email the cache owner to confirm before searching. But The obvious email pitfalls seem to apply here. Some would rather search and destroy then wait a couple days for the response. I usually email for confirmation. If I don't hear from the cache owner, I reach out to the community for assistance. I check the logs to see who has completed the cache and ask them to confirm the coords. Trez, erik and Trailerman have all helped a time or two. If neither way helps, I leave it. I may read the logs after while. Sometime there are hints in the logs that confirm my coords(location) and off I go to check. Sometimes it's there, sometimes it's not.

But I see your point Allen. Some cachers have to have the instant gratification of rampaging an area just to know they have searched for the cache (whether it's there or not) than wait a day or two for an email.

I never plan on asking the hider/owner of a puzzle cache if my answer is correct. I want them to know I solved it when my log shows up. The only times I have verified my answer is when I get an answer that leads me to a bad spot for a cache. It turned out there was a mistake in the puzzle, which can also cause problems.

But I like to think after I have hunted a cache, no matter the type or how the cache is hidden, that the area doesn't any obvious signs that I have been there.

What my parents told me rings true here to...

"Always leave a place better than you found it."

I think we can safely add...

"If you can't do that, make it look like you've never been there!"

To me, making people hack up the ground, foliage, etc. in search of a cache isn't clever at all, and it really is sad to see that done.

Lake Busbee is like that. The hints say it's in a hole ... when I arrived months ago to hunt it, I found dozens of holes, all of which looked as though they'd been reamed out a lot and then left in passing. The ground had been pretty much stripped bare in most areas near the coordinates. I logged a no-find, mainly because of darkness but also because I didnt' want to make the situation worse.

There are a lot of ways to hide something in plain sight, without encouraging latrine-digging, that truly are clever ... I've seen some real head-slappers.

Scott

--
Scott Johnson (ScottJ)

I just realized I didn’t really answer mudbug65’s question. Do I see a problem with "burying" caches in stump holes?

I have very mixed emotions about this. As a cache hunter, I don't see a problem, I guess this could be because the 7th cache I ever found was well hidden in a stump hole, so this isn't a new technique. And I found it without cratering the area around it. As a cache hider I have never buried a cache in a stump hole. But I have seen areas around aggressively hidden caches that look bad. So the question is what can we as hunters and hiders do to reduce this problem. In remote caches the concern of a non-geocacher finding a cache normally isn’t a reason to aggressively hide a cache. Even on a popular trail all you have to do is go off trail for about 100 feet or out of sight of the trail and place the cache.

So what can we as hiders to do to at least reduce that chance that cache hunters that damage the area around an aggressively hidden cache? I can think of the following:

1. Write in the description for hunters "Hunters to not damage the area".
   
2. Don’t aggressively hide caches.
   
3. Place them in areas which can take that type of search.
   
4. Move them very often.
   
5. Try to reduce the number of hunters by making the search location hard to get to, by long hikes.
   
6. Try to reduce the number of hunters by making the search location hard to get to, by requiring a puzzle to be solved for the coordinates.
   

I don't think 1 will work. I think 6 could actually cause worse problems by hunters going to the wrong spot.

Of the remaining ones, which is best? I don’t know, but maybe they could be used separately or together to reduce the problem.

I believe that all the things Allen listed are viable actions we can take as hiders. I also believe that a hider can only give options to those hunting. If a cache - Hunter chooses to blaze into the cache site hellbent on finding a cache with no regard to the environment, there is no option you can give them to minimize the damage. We as Cache-Hunters need to be more aware of what effects our actions have on the environment.

I must say, in my earlier days of caching, I did "cheat the switchback" a time or two. But after sitting through a presentation by the Leave no Trace guy (I think his name was Jim), I learned what damage could result from just trying to save a few steps. I DO NOT do that any longer.

I carry a hiking stick to check stump holes, I don't dig or ream them out. I may tromp down the leaves while in my search, so I will shuffle my feet to raise and "fluff" the leaves to not leave to mashed. I try not to break low lying branches to make things easier for me. I do however hack away a briars that are hanging around. I do that cause 1.)I hate them, they hurt. 2.)The next hunter may not be as "choosey" about what they hack down.
Now, I know that is just me, but those were things I learned after I started caching from

• other more experienced cachers/hikers - such as bent_twigs and Black Knight
• The Leave no Trace presentations
• Discussions held on the boards

.

I am not one to rush off to a cache just as it's posted, I don't have that luxury anymore. So by the time I get there the area is pretty downtrodden. It is usually pretty obvious where the cache is, so the fun of the search is pretty much gone for me.
Where cache hiders need to be conscious of the damage possibilites to the environment, The cache hunters must be more aware of what effect their actions have on the environment as well and do whatever it takes to minimize them.

BTW: Who the heck is that bent_twigs guy? That should be a trivia question for the newbies.

its time to invite the "leave no trace" guys to another meeting?

Since I believe I suggested it earlier in a previous post

quote:

---

Maybe it’s time for another visit from the Leave No Trace people. Not all the cachers in Georgia will see it but at least those who do will learn some more considerate caching techniques.

---

You know what they say about like minds