Jim Scotti wrote:

>As another one of those who probably enjioys placing caches more than finding
>them, I agree with Trisha.  I certainly don't advocate every cacher placing a
>cache, just so that they can say they did, but someone who has found 200
>caches ought not to be just getting around to hiding their very first one.  
>There are actually 6 teams with more than 100 Arizona caches who have not
>hidden a single cache.  But I don't really care if they hide any or not,
>that's up to the individual team.  Some like the hunt more than the hide!
>
>I also don't think people should hide caches just to hide caches.  
>Originality is important - we don't need just another ammo can or altoids tin
>cache just for the sake of there being another cache.  I've been trying to
>think of different ways of hiding caches and I'd like to think that every one
>of my hides has been in an interesting place or has presented the cacher with
>at least a little bit of a challenge.
>
>Since I have hidden 26 caches (23 are still active), with a ratio of 20:1, I
>guess I better go out and find more than 400 caches before I go hide my next
>one, and since I wanted to hide one on Monday, I guess I should get off the
>computer!
>
Actually, you read that wrong.  The ORIGIONAL ratio was 20:1, the 
current ratio as it stands today is 64.8:1, so you are good for caches 
hidden till you reach 1685 cache, but by the time you reach that number, 
the ratio will be much higher. :)  I'm guessing you are good till well 
over 2000 caches in reality

Brian Cluff
Team Snaptek