[Putterizer]

The trail cam is his, and he has admitted to it being camo’d better than the cache. He admitted it was his on the Coulee Cachers facebook page. He has not disclaimed why he has it placed there though.

[Putterizer]

@WStemple wrote:

Maybe this is an attempt to further protect the ammo can from muggles.

@bartrod wrote:

Like some of us who have lost ammo cans to thieves, maybe the CO has too and would like to find out who the culprits are.

The container is not an ammo can. It is listed as a small, and you can tell by the logs that it is not an ammo can.

[Putterizer]

There certainly is something to worry about here, check out this video: http://www.nbc.com/news-sports/today-show/no-childs-play-bottle-bombs-are-dangerous-pranks/

[Putterizer]

Very well said!

[Putterizer]

@zuma wrote:

It also might help to be as specific about caches that are the problem, and avoid attacking the cache owner. For example, when you mention finding a listerine breath mint container with a wet log with coords 40 feet off, that makes the point better than a “No VTS” logo on your profile page.

I did not include any examples in my last post. I figured by calling out certain caches and posting the GC numbers of problematic ones it would be considered a personal attack against the cache owner.

[Putterizer]

Todd-

I wouldn’t let this one thread stop you from caching in our area. There are still plenty of great caches to find in our area. You will just need to do a little filtering.

[Putterizer]

I completely agree with TheBalks and kc9gbo.

The things that they mentioned are the things that people in this area have been ignoring and/or putting up with for 2 years. No one has said anything about it until now apparently.

The final straw for me was when you finally admitted to moving your caches around. I know for a fact also that you did not have permission to hide that cache on the Fire Departments sign. I even ignored the fact and let it go until you brought up the moving of the cache deal on that sign. That is finally when I decided to take the action that I did and report it to Groundspeak.

I also agree with the previous posters about the quality of the caches and logs. I don’t believe the ideal cache container is a listerine breath strip box with some paper scraps of post it notes in there that get wet after the first rain.

I believe alot of the people that replied to this intitial post may not be aware of how questionable some of your hides are/were as far as being located on private property or in places they should not have been, the quality of the cache containers and/or the logs, soft coords, a multi with no coords in stage 1 container at all as well as the final being 400′ from another cache.

I will say that you did have some very nice hides out there in the earlier stages of your hiding career. But it seems like in about the last year and a half it was more about quantity than quality. We’d all rather have quality caches over multiple questionable caches

I an guessing that before there were some replies here you might think that I am the only one that had these issues with your caches and singling you out. That is not the case. Since you left the Coulee Region Cacher group on Facebook last week, there have been multiple people that have posted the same opinions as myself.

Like Paul, I would encourage you to rejoin the group and catch up on more of this areas local finders. Anyone else here is also to join the FB group. It is located here: Coulee Region Cachers

[Putterizer]

No coords changed and not just a vertical move. But the move would be within the accuracy of a GPS unit.

Also, the CO is not posting that he moved the cache or has it listed in the description. He moved it on his own as an “experiment”.

[Putterizer]

The thing is though, as far as any of use know, no PAF was used to find this cache.

[Putterizer]

These are all by the same hider, just different screen names.

http://coord.info/GC3DQC6
http://coord.info/GC3BZB5
http://coord.info/GC3BG5A

[Putterizer]

We have been looking for answers from the CO and people have e-mailed him to explain himself, but he has chosen to not reply.

I think he has 2 issues with this particular one, but this is just a best guess since we cant get confirmation.

Issue 1 is he likes to place hard caches and doesn’t like people giving out hints or using phone a friends. So after the FTF, he went and moved the cache from what he said in the log. He did this as an “experiment” to see how many people give out hints.

Issue 2 is that someone placed a replacement log for him. From what I understand, he placed two “containers”. One had a log in a baggie behind it and another didn’t. So he had a decoy per se. The decoy was not listed or marked as a decoy in any way. One finder thought this was the cache and then placed a log there thinking that they were doing the CO a favor by replacing a missing log sheet. He then got offended when someone added a log sheet because they didnt sign the correct one, however, the decoy was not marked as previously stated.

Also, as a point of reference, in case you folks from out of town don’t know it, the cache I referred to in the earlier post was placed under a different name of a hider in the area that uses at least 3 different names to place caches.

[Putterizer]

We have a 10th Anniversary event listed in the LaCrosse Area. Cone and join us!!!

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=d464cc34-e167-4a04-be0f-9bb41528846c

[Putterizer]

Thanks for the recommendation Gwyn. I had fun creating it and I now wish I had thrown another spin in on it but didn’t think of it until after it was published.

[Author]

Posts