Jump to content

Vertically Challenged!


Team Friesen

Recommended Posts

I suspect I know the answer to this, but here goes --

 

I am a little short woman, and while I am a stalwart hiker I am not in any shape to climb trees. If I'm at the point where I can see and identify a hanging bison tube, but I just cannot reach it to sign the log, can I claim it as found? I suspect not, but thought it worth while to ask. Even as a newbie, I can see that height is going to be an issue when my team member is not along :P.

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment

I suspect I know the answer to this, but here goes --

 

I am a little short woman, and while I am a stalwart hiker I am not in any shape to climb trees. If I'm at the point where I can see and identify a hanging bison tube, but I just cannot reach it to sign the log, can I claim it as found? I suspect not, but thought it worth while to ask. Even as a newbie, I can see that height is going to be an issue when my team member is not along :P.

 

Thoughts?

Yes and no.

Yes you could.

- But if the CO was paying attention and kept track, then no.

Sign the log.

Link to comment

FWIW, I know others who are short who carry folding "grabber tools" in their geocaching kits.

 

Good idea, but all the "bison tube hanging on a branch" caches that I've come across are attached such that the cap stays affixed to the tree and the tube must be unscrewed in place to get it. Kind of difficult to do with a grabber.

 

Personally, while I agree "more or less" with the "must sign the log to claim the find" philosophy, I think there should be exceptions. If the container can't be opened by design, i.e., a combination lock or puzzle to be solved, that's one thing, but if the container can't be opened for some unintended reason (rusted shut, for example), I'd assume the CO would be OK with me claiming the find because it was not part of his "challenge". That's just my take on it.

 

Likewise, if the cache is 30 feet up the tree, then climbing the tree was obviously meant to be part of the challenge....so no sig, no smiley. However, if the cache is just a little out of reach because one is "vertically challenged", or even in a wheelchair, perhaps, well, if it were my cache I'd probably let the log stand.

Link to comment

Likewise, if the cache is 30 feet up the tree, then climbing the tree was obviously meant to be part of the challenge....so no sig, no smiley. However, if the cache is just a little out of reach because one is "vertically challenged", or even in a wheelchair, perhaps, well, if it were my cache I'd probably let the log stand.

 

You could always ask the CO how they feel about it. Recently I found a cache in a tree just out of my reach on a busy corner. I asked the CO if they'd rather I just claim the Find or come back carrying a 3 step ladder "which would be not at all inconspicuous." They said to log the Find. Later, I noticed that they moved the cache just enough so I could reach it, and also changed the type of hide from zip-tied to the tree branch to just hooked over it. At that point I did sign the log and then changed the date of my Found it log.

Link to comment

FWIW, I know others who are short who carry folding "grabber tools" in their geocaching kits.

 

Good idea, but all the "bison tube hanging on a branch" caches that I've come across are attached such that the cap stays affixed to the tree and the tube must be unscrewed in place to get it. Kind of difficult to do with a grabber.

 

Personally, while I agree "more or less" with the "must sign the log to claim the find" philosophy, I think there should be exceptions. If the container can't be opened by design, i.e., a combination lock or puzzle to be solved, that's one thing, but if the container can't be opened for some unintended reason (rusted shut, for example), I'd assume the CO would be OK with me claiming the find because it was not part of his "challenge". That's just my take on it.

 

Likewise, if the cache is 30 feet up the tree, then climbing the tree was obviously meant to be part of the challenge....so no sig, no smiley. However, if the cache is just a little out of reach because one is "vertically challenged", or even in a wheelchair, perhaps, well, if it were my cache I'd probably let the log stand.

 

Thanks, Chief. One of the ones I'm referring to was listed as a 1 for terrain, so I don't think it was a challenge, it's just that I was too short. I appreciate your kind response.

Link to comment

FWIW, I know others who are short who carry folding "grabber tools" in their geocaching kits.

 

Good idea, but all the "bison tube hanging on a branch" caches that I've come across are attached such that the cap stays affixed to the tree and the tube must be unscrewed in place to get it. Kind of difficult to do with a grabber.

 

Personally, while I agree "more or less" with the "must sign the log to claim the find" philosophy, I think there should be exceptions. If the container can't be opened by design, i.e., a combination lock or puzzle to be solved, that's one thing, but if the container can't be opened for some unintended reason (rusted shut, for example), I'd assume the CO would be OK with me claiming the find because it was not part of his "challenge". That's just my take on it.

 

Likewise, if the cache is 30 feet up the tree, then climbing the tree was obviously meant to be part of the challenge....so no sig, no smiley. However, if the cache is just a little out of reach because one is "vertically challenged", or even in a wheelchair, perhaps, well, if it were my cache I'd probably let the log stand.

 

Thanks, Chief. One of the ones I'm referring to was listed as a 1 for terrain, so I don't think it was a challenge, it's just that I was too short. I appreciate your kind response.

 

As usual, the Chief is correct.....I would log it if I were you. A hanging bison with terrain rating of 1 1/2 was meant to be reached by folks standing on the ground. I'm a little under 6 foot and myself and other CO's tend to forget that a lot of folks can't reach that one we merely reached over our head to hide.Also a 2 1/2 terr may indicate the long walk and short bushwhack to that same bison and again I would say log it. If a cache is hidden where you clearly must climb to get it then that was the intent and I won't log those high in a tree I choose not to climb. What you could do is like we do.....carry a camera and take a picture.

On a side note,I rarely sign the physical log on Nano's....between arthritis in the fingers and damaging the log its better if I don't...I may take a picture or write its location on my daily log......of course ,legally , my log could be deleted but frankly on a Nano there is no way in the world anyone knows who signed the log.

I can't imagine a CO deleting a Found log because he ( including me )thoughtlessly put the cache out of the reach of intended finders.

Link to comment

I try to bring an assistant.

Yes, some tough caches are easier for a team and the very toughest often require more than one person. So tackle the others alone & bring a co-cacher to get the caches you can't do on your own.

 

By the way, ladders are surprisingly not conspicuous sometimes! Act natural and relaxed and people won't look twice. Use judgment - and have a backup story if needed (doing a nature study of insects in oak trees, etc.).

Edited by wmpastor
Link to comment

On one tree-bison I found, the lower branches of the tree had been pruned back recently, making the ascent MUCH more difficult than originally intended. In such a case, the CO ought to either bump up the terrain rating or just accept the fact that there will be those folks who claim a find based only on SEEING the cache. Not that they ought to be able to do that, but it certainly makes it more likely that there will be folks who do.

Link to comment

Tried a tree climbing cache. About 15' up. Got as far as I felt safe (I am a large dolphin). Got my fin on the bottom of the cache, but could not unscrew it. I was not climbing any further. And I have long arms! (You try buying shirts with 36" sleeves!) DNF. Unable to access the log to sign.

On the other fin, my caching partner is a short bear. And will frequently log: "Discriminates against short bears". But I have retrieved it, and our signatures are in the log. And, yes, he can get his paws into places where my fins will not fit. (I'd love to see the security photos of me carrying him on my shoulders on a street in New York.) (Did not help finding the cache...)

But, if neither of us can retrieve the cache, and sign the log. (Or sign a replacement log if the original log is missing), then it IS a DNF.

Link to comment

I agree with the site's rules that you cannot log the find if you didn't sign the log.

 

On the other hand, I wouldn't call this a DNF. You found the container, but were unable to sign the log.

 

I'd just write a note to that effect. If everyone under 6'2" writes the same kind of note (polite, thanks for the cache, but it's too high), then maybe they'll reconsider the placement.

 

The main thing is that the cache should have brought you to a nice place. The find number is not as important as the place.

Link to comment

I agree with the site's rules that you cannot log the find if you didn't sign the log.

 

 

Actually you can " legally " log a find as long as you find the cache container. Signing the log would give you a valid argument to have your find reinstated should the CO delete it for some reason ( such as you didn't sign the log :rolleyes: )

Link to comment

If I don't sign the logbook I don't mark this cache as found. No exceptions. This is a game so there should be clear rules. If there appear more and more exclusions than the game simply becomes less interesting.

 

I've ran into caches on trees many times. Some of them I couldn't reach. I just say to me: "OK, it was great that I managed to get to this nice place and enjoy views. Time to go". Nothing bad happened. No reason to question whether I can log this cache as found or not.

Link to comment
1412590642[/url]' post='5435373']

If I don't sign the logbook I don't mark this cache as found. No exceptions.

 

I think that hard and fast rule is why so many people leave 'temporary' logs in junk caches. I might log an out of reach cache if I can see it, the terrain is rated low and there's nothing in the description about a required climb.

Link to comment

What are "temporary logs in junk caches"?

 

I'm guessing that means finding a cache with a leaky or broken container with a log that has turned to mush, then adding a dry piece of paper with ones signature on it, so that it can be counted as a find. There are probably some caches that would be better off just being archived but some are worth trying to keep alive. I found a traditional near the top of Poas volcano in Costa Rica that was quite wet inside (hey, it was in a rain forest) with a log that was pretty much unsignable. I had a plastic baggie and a empty log sheet that I signed and put into the cache. There have been about 6 finders since I found it that have been able to find it and sign the log.

Link to comment

I agree with the site's rules that you cannot log the find if you didn't sign the log.

 

On the other hand, I wouldn't call this a DNF. You found the container, but were unable to sign the log.

 

I'd just write a note to that effect. If everyone under 6'2" writes the same kind of note (polite, thanks for the cache, but it's too high), then maybe they'll reconsider the placement.

 

The main thing is that the cache should have brought you to a nice place. The find number is not as important as the place.

I respect Dolphin's approach. I also don't log a find unless i've signed the log. Seeing the container isn't good enough.

 

Many cachers want a challenge. Should that be taken away by CO's "reconsidering placement"?

 

I like moderate difficulty tree caches (requires climbing but not ropes). There are very few nearby. I went to one, and imagine my disappointment when I saw that cache migration had taken the cache down to near-ground level.

 

I knew with 100% certainty that migration had happened, due to the t-rating, description, logs, and photos of finders.

 

I corrected the problem by placing it much higher, as the CO intended, and noting that in my log. And I got the exhilarating climb that I specifically came for, not a "dumbed-down" experience with only a meaningless smiley to show for it.

Link to comment

Thank you NYPaddleCacher for your explanation. I've met such geocaches too. I don't understand how they relate to "vertically challenged" caches though.

 

My point is to make things simple, not hard-and-fast as is was suggested above. My attitude comes from understanding that a smiley isn't a reward, it's just a statement of fact. In addition, this simple approach make the game easier to me. If I start thinking of various exclusions like "it was too slippery and too dangerous to climb and grab the container but since I saw it I think I could..." then soon it will be a game of exclusions.

Link to comment

What are "temporary logs in junk caches"?

 

Example below.

 

It was not possible to log into the mushy moldy cache, so the finder left a "temporary" log. The hard and fast rule that it's not a find unless you log the physical cache, means you must leave a log in a junk cache if you want to claim the find.

 

But it's possible that for some that agree with that hard and fast rule, means they do not claim the find, they do not leave a logsheet, they log an NM or NA. But in my experience, that doesn't happen.

39ab8c37-71f3-4a71-877b-3ceaa377cec6.jpg

 

Link to comment

Thank you NYPaddleCacher for your explanation. I've met such geocaches too. I don't understand how they relate to "vertically challenged" caches though.

 

My point being that can't-sign-don't-claim-a-find is a very restrictive rule and unfair to shorter people especially when the cache was not intended to exclude shorter people, just an oversight by a tall CO. On principle it sounds like a noble rule but I think it has it's problems that extends to junk caches.

Link to comment
1412597181[/url]' post='5435413']
1412595124[/url]' post='5435405']

What are "temporary logs in junk caches"?

 

I'm guessing that means finding a cache with a leaky or broken container with a log that has turned to mush, then adding a dry piece of paper with ones signature on it, so that it can be counted as a find. There are probably some caches that would be better off just being archived but some are worth trying to keep alive. I found a traditional near the top of Poas volcano in Costa Rica that was quite wet inside (hey, it was in a rain forest) with a log that was pretty much unsignable. I had a plastic baggie and a empty log sheet that I signed and put into the cache. There have been about 6 finders since I found it that have been able to find it and sign the log.

 

Depends on how you view the pastime. If finding the cache, in whatever shape including a moldy mess is still a fun find then I see how leaving a log in a moldy wet abandoned cache is fun for the finder who left a new logsheet. But to the people who come after there may be some, like me who would rather have had it disabled by the reviewer so I don't waste time visiting and handling junk. For me a fun geocaching experience includes all aspects of the game, not just the ability to log my name on a sheet of paper.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

Thank you NYPaddleCacher for your explanation. I've met such geocaches too. I don't understand how they relate to "vertically challenged" caches though.

 

My point being that can't-sign-don't-claim-a-find is a very restrictive rule and unfair to shorter people especially when the cache was not intended to exclude shorter people, just an oversight by a tall CO. On principle it sounds like a noble rule but I think it has it's problems that extends to junk caches.

 

I don't think it's an oversight. I think it's fair. Not everyone to find and get every single cache. Furthermore, I'll place a cache so high it can only get one find a year. You go through your childhood having every single person call you lurch or jolly green giant, and tell me you don't want to make a cache named "How's the weather up there?" with a hint of "I don't know, you tell me"

 

That being said, I like geocaching because its a good excuse to get outside and get a bit more fit. The regular cache of "between pine trees" or "in a stump" got old fast, I want a challenge. I want to start rock climbing, kayaking and everything in between while geocaching and placing caches. Just find someone who's fit enough to go with you. Geocaching is better in pairs anyway.

Link to comment

Thanks, Chief. One of the ones I'm referring to was listed as a 1 for terrain, so I don't think it was a challenge, it's just that I was too short. I appreciate your kind response.

I'd be concerned about the terrain 1 rating then. Iirc aren't they supposed to be doable by a disabled cacher in a wheelchair? If it's too high up then there's an argument that it's not T1.

 

I'd certainly write a note to that effect.

Link to comment

Still cannot understand why you call this "hard and fast". Maybe a language issue :)

 

For me a fun geocaching experience includes all aspects of the game, not just the ability to log my name on a sheet of paper.

 

I agree. Smiley is not that important either. It's just a matter of fact. If it was a reward for my efforts, a compensation of my wasted time, a matter of fairness or whatever, then I should agree that every other person may have his/her understanding of being rewarded, about situations when it's fair or unfair to log caches as found when it was "not exactly what happened", and so on, and the common simple understanding of a "Found it" phrase would be lost.

 

I think I got your point with the "junk cache" (the photo published above). You mean that folks obsessed with what you call "hard and fast" idea prefer to leave paper in a cracked leaking container because this is the only way for them to say "yes, I followed all rules and found the cache!" However I see no troubles for such person to publish a NM or even NA log either. I suppose that such cachers probably do this even more often because they're so focused on rules :) Maybe not.

 

As for abandoned geocaches I believe it's the very big and different problem and it would be unfair towards the lady to spoil this very thread with this theme.

 

So, my example on the topic. Once there was a geocache I visited with my wife. It took us about 2.5-3 hours to walk there from the train stop through woods and sands and finally we approached the place. T=4. Hint was too vague to understand. Something resembling the cache container was about 8 meters high on a pine. Neither cache description nor any attribute suggested I should climb. Though the way looked not so difficult and it was not raining I suspected that I was too fat and awkward and could break some branches on my climb up and falling down. "Nevermind, - I said, - let's go". My wife was enthusiastic however and persuaded me to let her climb the evil pine. She's much smaller and made it easily. We had no car and had to walk 2 hours through the the dark forest to the nearest highway just to find we were late for the last bus and had to hitchike for an hour more. At the hostel I logged the cache as found. However I would not be upset if I didn't because it was just a statement of fact.

Link to comment

Thanks, Chief. One of the ones I'm referring to was listed as a 1 for terrain, so I don't think it was a challenge, it's just that I was too short. I appreciate your kind response.

I'd be concerned about the terrain 1 rating then. Iirc aren't they supposed to be doable by a disabled cacher in a wheelchair? If it's too high up then there's an argument that it's not T1.

 

I'd certainly write a note to that effect.

 

Correct....the vast majority of hanging micro's are rated 1-1.5 T......they were intended by the CO to be reached by folks standing on the ground, no climbing or equipment needed. Problem is a short reach for a tall person is out of reach for a short one. If your short and can't reach one of these just mark it as found, you found it....you could also log a NM so the cache can be lowered or the terrain raised.

Link to comment

 

Correct....the vast majority of hanging micro's are rated 1-1.5 T......they were intended by the CO to be reached by folks standing on the ground, no climbing or equipment needed. Problem is a short reach for a tall person is out of reach for a short one. If your short and can't reach one of these just mark it as found, you found it....you could also log a NM so the cache can be lowered or the terrain raised.

 

T1 should be in reach for disabled person, T1.5 in the reach of kids. T2 should be in reach of typical adult, but without jumping, or standing on some objects that are not provided (so if you need to stand on the kerbstone, it's OK, but if you need a chair or a bicycle, it's not).

 

Ladder is controversial, some people argue it should always be T4.5 or T5, since it requires heavy equipment (too heavy to carry along in rucksack), and I strongly agree with that. Those are the difficulties that I know I can't handle during hike.

Link to comment

to the OP: when I was caching with Eagle Eyes and Scout (before they grew up and discovered girls and cars) they would play totem pole to get the caches just a bit out of reach. No matter how vertically challenged you are, there will always be a few "just out of reach". The TOTTs are part of the challenge Several times I have made the find because a previous seeker abandoned an improvised tool in a revealing spot.

Edited by ras_oscar
Link to comment

Correct....the vast majority of hanging micro's are rated 1-1.5 T......they were intended by the CO to be reached by folks standing on the ground, no climbing or equipment needed. Problem is a short reach for a tall person is out of reach for a short one. If your short and can't reach one of these just mark it as found, you found it....you could also log a NM so the cache can be lowered or the terrain raised.

 

T1 should be in reach for disabled person, T1.5 in the reach of kids. T2 should be in reach of typical adult, but without jumping, or standing on some objects that are not provided (so if you need to stand on the kerbstone, it's OK, but if you need a chair or a bicycle, it's not).

 

Ladder is controversial, some people argue it should always be T4.5 or T5, since it requires heavy equipment (too heavy to carry along in rucksack), and I strongly agree with that. Those are the difficulties that I know I can't handle during hike.

 

Huh? This is the first time I've seen age of the finder as a criteria for determining the terrain rating. T1 is certainly indicative of a cache that is accessible via a disabled person, but I always thought that all other terrain ratings were based on the effort required by an "average" geocacher.

 

 

Link to comment

Correct....the vast majority of hanging micro's are rated 1-1.5 T......they were intended by the CO to be reached by folks standing on the ground, no climbing or equipment needed. Problem is a short reach for a tall person is out of reach for a short one. If your short and can't reach one of these just mark it as found, you found it....you could also log a NM so the cache can be lowered or the terrain raised.

 

T1 should be in reach for disabled person, T1.5 in the reach of kids. T2 should be in reach of typical adult, but without jumping, or standing on some objects that are not provided (so if you need to stand on the kerbstone, it's OK, but if you need a chair or a bicycle, it's not).

 

Ladder is controversial, some people argue it should always be T4.5 or T5, since it requires heavy equipment (too heavy to carry along in rucksack), and I strongly agree with that. Those are the difficulties that I know I can't handle during hike.

 

Huh? This is the first time I've seen age of the finder as a criteria for determining the terrain rating. T1 is certainly indicative of a cache that is accessible via a disabled person, but I always thought that all other terrain ratings were based on the effort required by an "average" geocacher.

 

 

In Canada (where I live) the average height of women is 5'3.4" [source: Disabled World]

 

Since there are many women who cache, and many women who cache alone, the average height of a woman would be the fair thing to take into consideration. If the cache requires a lone average adult female to bring a tool (some kind of grabber or ladder) to get at the cache it should be appropriately rated and the description should include information about the height issue.

Link to comment

Correct....the vast majority of hanging micro's are rated 1-1.5 T......they were intended by the CO to be reached by folks standing on the ground, no climbing or equipment needed. Problem is a short reach for a tall person is out of reach for a short one. If your short and can't reach one of these just mark it as found, you found it....you could also log a NM so the cache can be lowered or the terrain raised.

 

T1 should be in reach for disabled person, T1.5 in the reach of kids. T2 should be in reach of typical adult, but without jumping, or standing on some objects that are not provided (so if you need to stand on the kerbstone, it's OK, but if you need a chair or a bicycle, it's not).

 

Ladder is controversial, some people argue it should always be T4.5 or T5, since it requires heavy equipment (too heavy to carry along in rucksack), and I strongly agree with that. Those are the difficulties that I know I can't handle during hike.

 

Huh? This is the first time I've seen age of the finder as a criteria for determining the terrain rating. T1 is certainly indicative of a cache that is accessible via a disabled person, but I always thought that all other terrain ratings were based on the effort required by an "average" geocacher.

 

 

In Canada (where I live) the average height of women is 5'3.4" [source: Disabled World]

 

Since there are many women who cache, and many women who cache alone, the average height of a woman would be the fair thing to take into consideration. If the cache requires a lone average adult female to bring a tool (some kind of grabber or ladder) to get at the cache it should be appropriately rated and the description should include information about the height issue.

 

I agree......I , for one , will start placing 1 1/2 T hanging micro's about nose high ( about 5' 6" ).

Link to comment

I suspect I know the answer to this, but here goes --

 

I am a little short woman, and while I am a stalwart hiker I am not in any shape to climb trees. If I'm at the point where I can see and identify a hanging bison tube, but I just cannot reach it to sign the log, can I claim it as found? I suspect not, but thought it worth while to ask. Even as a newbie, I can see that height is going to be an issue when my team member is not along :P.

 

Thoughts?

 

No way, not on my caches. But if you never admit it openly I wouldn't be the wiser.

Link to comment

I suspect I know the answer to this, but here goes --

 

I am a little short woman, and while I am a stalwart hiker I am not in any shape to climb trees. If I'm at the point where I can see and identify a hanging bison tube, but I just cannot reach it to sign the log, can I claim it as found? I suspect not, but thought it worth while to ask. Even as a newbie, I can see that height is going to be an issue when my team member is not along :P.

 

Thoughts?

 

I'm a member of the Short Women Club, too. I just carry a ladder or bring someone who's more of a daredevil than me. :D :D :D

Link to comment

FWIW, I know others who are short who carry folding "grabber tools" in their geocaching kits.

 

Good idea, but all the "bison tube hanging on a branch" caches that I've come across are attached such that the cap stays affixed to the tree and the tube must be unscrewed in place to get it. Kind of difficult to do with a grabber.

 

Personally, while I agree "more or less" with the "must sign the log to claim the find" philosophy, I think there should be exceptions. If the container can't be opened by design, i.e., a combination lock or puzzle to be solved, that's one thing, but if the container can't be opened for some unintended reason (rusted shut, for example), I'd assume the CO would be OK with me claiming the find because it was not part of his "challenge". That's just my take on it.

 

Likewise, if the cache is 30 feet up the tree, then climbing the tree was obviously meant to be part of the challenge....so no sig, no smiley. However, if the cache is just a little out of reach because one is "vertically challenged", or even in a wheelchair, perhaps, well, if it were my cache I'd probably let the log stand.

I don't think you are allowed to be this reasonable on the geocaching forums. You better take a stand on one extream or the other. Especialy with Puritan month comming up!

Link to comment

FWIW, I know others who are short who carry folding "grabber tools" in their geocaching kits.

 

Good idea, but all the "bison tube hanging on a branch" caches that I've come across are attached such that the cap stays affixed to the tree and the tube must be unscrewed in place to get it. Kind of difficult to do with a grabber.

 

Personally, while I agree "more or less" with the "must sign the log to claim the find" philosophy, I think there should be exceptions. If the container can't be opened by design, i.e., a combination lock or puzzle to be solved, that's one thing, but if the container can't be opened for some unintended reason (rusted shut, for example), I'd assume the CO would be OK with me claiming the find because it was not part of his "challenge". That's just my take on it.

 

Likewise, if the cache is 30 feet up the tree, then climbing the tree was obviously meant to be part of the challenge....so no sig, no smiley. However, if the cache is just a little out of reach because one is "vertically challenged", or even in a wheelchair, perhaps, well, if it were my cache I'd probably let the log stand.

I don't think you are allowed to be this reasonable on the geocaching forums. You better take a stand on one extream or the other. Especialy with Puritan month comming up!

 

Never thought I'd be considered vertically challenge! I'm 6'2" with 36" sleeves! Found a nano on a sigh post that was just barely within my reach! (Of course, I could have gotten a stick and knocked it down...)

Link to comment

I am vertically challenged. I just came across a cache that I could not reach. Luckily I was resourceful and looked around until I found something that would assist me in getting it, which I did. Personally I feel like in a case where a CO placed a container up high (maybe because they are tall and simply didn't think about short cachers), and a cacher has put in the WORK to find the cache and put reasonable EFFORT in reaching the cache, then they should be allowed to log it. It isn't the finder's fault if something was placed out of reach unless the cache description said something to the effect of "the cache being only for taller people". I do have a few helpful tools but do not always carry them with me every time. I will look for area objects that might help me reach a cache too. I would have no problem if someone found a cache but was too short to reach it if that person logged it. Put in the work, get the find. My opinion only. And isn't climbing trees to get a cache against the "do no harm" rule?? Are there caches where you have a to climb a tree?

Link to comment
And isn't climbing trees to get a cache against the "do no harm" rule?? Are there caches where you have a to climb a tree?
Since when does climbing a tree harm anything?

 

And yes, there are caches where seekers need to climb trees (or find some alternative approach for retrieving and replacing the cache).

Link to comment

I grew up climbing trees and many of us have. But that was kinda "back in the day" before people thought about their impact on the environment. Climbing a tree once or twice might not hurt but regular climbing on limbs will wear down, scar and damage bark (same as leaving a "geotrail" on the ground). When that happens, it opens the door to admit disease pathogens, damaging insects and fungus into the tree. The very purpose of fungi is to decompose. So when spores of tree-decomposers get in...that is what will happen. Case in point: you've seen fallen trees, hollow logs and tree hollows, right? FUNGUS and insects that got inside caused that. Bark keeps all the bad stuff out of the tree...it's the armor! And that's not counting accidently snapping limbs and branches. So yes, climbing wear and tear on a tree can kill it. It's a fact. I thought that was recognized and therefore outlawed by the "do no harm" rule. :shocked: If you can't dig a hole, it seems odd you can damage a tree. I know you can't put a nail in a tree...same reason, intro of pathogens causing damage. Personally I think it would be fun to climb a tree for a cache but it's a bad idea (if you like living trees).

Link to comment

I am vertically challenged. I just came across a cache that I could not reach. Luckily I was resourceful and looked around until I found something that would assist me in getting it, which I did. Personally I feel like in a case where a CO placed a container up high (maybe because they are tall and simply didn't think about short cachers), and a cacher has put in the WORK to find the cache and put reasonable EFFORT in reaching the cache, then they should be allowed to log it. It isn't the finder's fault if something was placed out of reach unless the cache description said something to the effect of "the cache being only for taller people". I do have a few helpful tools but do not always carry them with me every time. I will look for area objects that might help me reach a cache too. I would have no problem if someone found a cache but was too short to reach it if that person logged it. Put in the work, get the find. My opinion only. And isn't climbing trees to get a cache against the "do no harm" rule?? Are there caches where you have a to climb a tree?

Sure.

We've done a few. They're listed by the D/T.

There's no effort/work put into, "I see it, but can't reach"...

Edited by cerberus1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...