Stump removal

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:30 am

If you ever want a stump removed just say there is a cache in it. Sad to see this distruction all in the name of caching.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=30a18df8-3e96-4f0f-bebd-d681171db376

Check out Dan's photos.
TE

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:22 am

That is said I can’t believe how far some people will go to get a smiley. I know I have looked into stumps and pieces have broken off but not like that. I agree that cachers who purposely destroy an area just for a find is wrong. I think 90% of cachers are environmentally sound they care about the environment and want to protect it. They also cache no trace to first save the environment but also not to leave clues for others to make the find special for them. This is my personal opinion this is my belief and how I think most cachers are. Don’t hold it against me and I won’t hold it against you we all play the way we want.

Scout

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:13 pm

Are rotten stumps endangered now or am I missing something?
I agree that destroying a cache site isn't right, but it's still just a stump.

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:30 pm

Wow, yes it is only a stump but why destroy it for a cache let nature take its course. And if this was on private property that would be worng too. but again my opinion take it or leave it.

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:08 pm

Wow? Wow what? Read the second line of my post.

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:56 pm

No problem with destroying a stump in general but one on private property in the name of geocaching does not represent the sport very well.
TE

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:15 pm

Agreed. If you have to destroy something to find a cache, whether it's a stump or a rock wall, you're either looking in the wrong place, searching too hard, or the cache is gone. Give it up, post a DNF and go find another one.

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:02 pm

I see sights like this all to often! The majority of the blame goes to the searcher, yet I have also witnessed the role that the cache owner has in this destruction. How is that? I've seen far to many cache owners ignore DNF after DNF without checking their cache out or responding on the site to multiple DNF's.

Eventually these caches get archived and yet I'm aware of four that I have found that were still in place long after they were archived (I have the habit of loading caches on my GPS unit far in advance and often don't check their status when I search months latter.). When the owner fails to check out their cache and correct the coordinates, do maintenance to make sure it's still in the original spot, cachers following afterwards unfortunately become aggressive in their search. It's unacceptable but don't place all the blame on the searcher.

I think every individual out there with over 50 finds has come across a hide that was off coordinate wise, in a hiding area that made no sense, or a dozen other reasons that make it difficult to find which were not part of the original set-up.

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:51 pm

Northwoods Tom wrote:

Eventually these caches get archived and yet I'm aware of four that I have found that were still in place long after they were archived

Pardon for the 'off-topic' remark here, but these sound like great examples of what the WGA Rescue Missions were created to eliminate......to go out and pick up the 'geo-trash' and/or verify the area as cleared.

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:13 pm

huffinpuffin2 wrote:

Pardon for the 'off-topic' remark here, but these sound like great examples of what the WGA Rescue Missions were created to eliminate......to go out and pick up the 'geo-trash' and/or verify the area as cleared.

You would think so, yet none that I have found ever made the list. I find them after they have been archived, notify the owner and if I receive no response, check on them after usually a several month period if I'm in the area. If they are still there, it becomes trash to remove without the rescue points. The first I disposed of had been out there for almost 3 years before I came along. Maybe I should update unfound caches on my GPS unit more often but then I would miss all the geojunk clean-up.

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:15 pm

Quote:

none that I have found ever made the list.

guessing this would be because the CO archived and never made the effort to go retrieve the cache.
CR missions tend to be initiated by NA or NM logs alerting our reviewers that there is an issue with a cache.

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:42 am

I have stayed on the sidelines on this one but now I thought would respond.....

Even though stump hides are very popular, one must be careful on hiding a cache there as well as finding a stump cache. For example, we need to watch out for any signs of nature. Some fuzzy critters will use these stumps for protection and even build nests in some of the stumps.

I know this sounds like I am being a wild flower with this post, but I need to post on the side of conservation. Destroying a stump, rather it be on public or private property is not right. I feel that should not be done. However, I am not saying you can or cannot hide or look for a cache in stumps.

What I am saying is that we need to be careful as cachers not to disturb the environment.

This is my 2 cents worth.....

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:45 pm

Thoughts on the last two observations.

Lab Rat is correct for "most" of the geojunk left in the woods. Cache in most cases was archived by the owner. It might be time to include archived caches in the cache rescue. Until then, it might time to check out owner archived caches that used an ammo can and build my supply on the cheap.

Cache No Trace brings to light for me the element of long placed caches and how the wear and tear by searchers causes damage by seekers. How many times have you been able to walk right to a cache because of the worn path? In the 800 some caches I've sought, I only can remember 1 indvdual who relocated a cache because of the wear and tear that becomes apparent after a period of time. Should there be a time period on caches?

And no one yet has mentioned the responsbility of the cache owner yet as I expressed in a previous post.

"When the owner fails to check out their cache and correct the coordinates, do maintenance to make sure it's still in the original spot, cachers following afterwards unfortunately become aggressive in their search. It's unacceptable but don't place all the blame on the searcher."