Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
This picture is a wee bit smaller and doesn’t take up the whole page width…
@G*Force wrote:
The new $10 base membership required of everyone, starting July 1, is a good thing because all cachers should contribute to the sport. But, hiking the premium membership to $75, also on July 1, seems a bit extreme.
Bu naq ol gur jnl, v fubyq pbapyhqr ol fnlvat ncevy sbbyfNice. But I heard that it’s $75 if only for one year or $150 if you lock in with a three-year subscription. Since today is April 1, that gives us three months to decide. 😉
Ncevy Sbbyf
Atta boy Cory, welcome to the 4 digits club!
As one who has never had the pleasure of extracting a tick (I’ve only had to brush them off my clothes), what is the best method for tick removal?
Welcome!
Congrats and welcome to the 366 club! Now you can go get the 365-day challenge in Minneapolis: A CACHE A DAY … FOR 365 DAYS? GC1AG09. Unless, of course, if someone decides to plant a challenge like that here in Wisconsin. 🙂
Great topic!
Our first was a guardrail cache in Wauwatosa where we live, found with a smartphone. It’s still active. We were hooked from day one. Within about a week we bought a Garmin Dakota20 GPSr and went caching the next week in Oregon to find the location of the original cache that started it all. After the first week we started posting pictures with our cache logs; we now have over 3,000 pictures in our gallery. Our original post was one of our shortest:
“My very first find, very cool! I hope to find lots more and figure out all these links and symbols (I’m a newbie)! Thanks!!”
You should probably be able to figure out which one yourself. Just look at the names and dates on the log sheet and compare them to the online logs. All will likely be similar since they’re in the same park, but perhaps they’ll have slight differences, making only one the obvious choice.
We spent quite a bit of time this weekend scouting out places to hide caches, and along the way somehow managed to find 11 and have a Shamrock shake! I wonder if there’s some correlation between Shamrock shakes and geocaching?
@Muggle B wrote:
nah, won’t effect me one bit. 🙂
Nice. Since I was recently schooled in the art of GPS-less caching by MuggleB himself, I found only one today, without the direct aid of a GPS. I guess this was a good day for it. It was a cache that is purposely not at the given coordinates, and it states so in the cache description. Just had to look for geobeacons.
@beezers958 wrote:
Gee Hacks, I got that cache without standing in any water! Then again, my butt got dirty from the contortions I had to go through…
You got lucky! Somebody moved it farther out towards the center of the bridge. The only way to retrieve it was to wade out into the water. We’re not complaining though – that’s what we liked about it, and gave it a favorite point! 😀
Just exactly how waterproof do you want your boots to be? I have a great pair of Vasque hiking boots that I got at REI. They’re Gor-Tex lined and “waterproof.” The reason I put quotation marks on the word “waterproof” is because they’re “mostly” waterproof. I can walk through mud and puddles and they’ll still keep my feet dry all day. They’re breatheable and feel comfortable in summer AND winter. But you should apply a waterproofing conditioner from time to time (annually?) to keep waterproof hiking boots fairly waterproof. However, they’re not totally, 100% waterproof in every situation. Any Gortex-lined boot that is breatheable and laces up might actually allow your feet to get a bit wet if you’re wading through 4″ standing water in a marsh or walking through a stream. That’s why I have two different pairs. The other pair is a cheaper 19″ high rubber boot that goes almost up to my knees, and is truly 100% waterproof. With the hiking and caching we do, we need to use them a lot. Just this past week we walked through a marsh with 4″ deep water and wore our rubber boots, no issues. And a few days before that we found a cache under a bridge that required us to stand in a stream that was about 10″ deep.So both types are nice.
You can pick up cheap rubber boots for as little as $15, but they’re only good (in my opinion) for short hikes and not that comfortable. The lined decent rubbery boots 100% waterproof knee-high boots will run $75-$150, but again I’d only use those for marshy-type conditions where I know I’ll be wading through water. The best boots I can recommend are the type that almost everyone here described: Gor-Tex lined hiking boots that are comfortable in both hot and cold conditions. Just don’t expect them to stay watertight while you’re standing still in a creek or submerged in a swamp. But do expect them to keep your feet comfortable and dry in snow, puddles, mud, and rain.
Bill we thought the same thing when we had it, and tried to post a nice picture of it with a marshy background to honor that exceptional TB.
We have a new “Z” on the boards. Welcome!
-
AuthorPosts
