I have a lot of caches out there and a few that are very close to my home and some that are a bit out there. To say I could make it to the one 1's that are close with in 24 hours is even pushing it. Since the only days I can even consider caching are on my days off. For example Tbird was down for almost a month before I could make it out to it and replace it. and it is with in .25 miles of my home. Just the other day a cacher went out to my Mars cache and saw that the container had been broken. They replaced it with a new container...way kewl of them... I have removed item that don't belong in caches , added item that are need to others..I have found... If everyone works together then we have well stocked caches in good container... When I place a cache in a area that I do not plan on visiting all the time....out of state or on the other side of the world I let people know in the cache text. I have had very good luck with other helping out....I think that if we stuck to the 24 hour rule we would miss out on a lot of kewl spots to visit just my 2 cents ----- Original Message ----- From: C. Sullivan To: Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 7:48 AM Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] More on abandoned Caches > > > On Thu, 16 May 2002, Baja Fleg wrote: > > > The part that says "as often as you can" leaves a huge grey area. If I can > > only return to an area once ever two or so years then two years is as often > > as I can. The 24hour thing is bogus. Just because one person places a > > cache doesn't mean you can't help maintain it. How many times has someone > > visited a cache and removed something that shouldn't be there? Everyone > > should help maintain the caches that they visit. > > Why is this so hard to understand and to deal with? > > 1. Placing a cache that you have no intentions or ability of returning to > is littering. > 2. Placing a cache requires regular maintainance. It is the cache > owner's responsibility to provide that maintainance, either personally or > by proxy (that is, making arrangements to ensure that the cache gets > visited regularly). "Regularly" is certainly open for debate, but for the > vast majority of locations I don't think every couple of months or so is > out of the question. You should also visit the cache if nobody has logged > it in a period of time to ensure it's still there. > 3. It is also the cache owner's responsibility to return to the > cache site regularly to ensure that the cache is not causing a problem or > impacting the environment regularly. How can you do this effectively if > you only go out there once every two years? > 4. None of this excludes other people "doing a good deed" and taking care > of routine cache problems, but it ultimately is the cache owner's > responsibility. > 5. Should somebody complain, it is also the cache owner's responsibility > to remove the cache. This is actually a legal requirement: most states > have rules regarding "abandoned property". You might want to research > them. > > > Go back and reread my message. The 24-hour thing was a rule of thumb, not > some hard, set in stone requirement. I believe it is a good one. It's > one I plan on following. > > For diety's sake. What's so damned hard about this? What's so hard to > understand about "cache owner's responsibility?" > > Yes, this is a hobby, and it dosen't mean we have to have our lives > revolve around this. But, at the same time, we need to consider the > impact our hobby has on the world around us. We need to be responsible, > especially if we are ever going to gain the respect that we'll need to > change NPS's (and others) minds about whether or not to permit our > activity. Attitudes like yours are exactly why the NPS won't allow caches > on their land. > > I'm sorry, but this hobby needs more QUALITY caches that are regularly > maintained, not more QUANTITY caches that are hastily placed and poorly > maintained. I'd be happier if there were only 20 caches within 100 miles, > if I knew that ALL of them had a high chance of being there when I got > there.. than 300 within 50 miles that might have a 25% or less chance of > actually being there. Southern California seems to have the > latter. Arizona is certainly better, probably because the vast majority > of cache owners here actually visit their caches regularly. > > Which brings me to this question, that nobody seems willing (or able) to > answer. How is placing a cache somewhere that you have no plan, desire, > or ability to get to on short notice different than littering? > > -Fedl > > _______________________________________________ > Az-Geocaching mailing list > listserv@azgeocaching.com > http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching > > Arizona's Geocaching Resource > http://www.azgeocaching.com