[gerlfren]

Sorry if this is old news. And sorry to be the bearer of some bad. I was made aware of this individual's blog today....

http://protectsensitiveecosystems.blogspot...p;max-results=4

[hydnsek]

So many ways this is wrong...and I chair the WSGA Parks Committee, so I do care about how we treat our surroundings.

Hope Groundspeak is handling this.

This post has been edited by hydnsek: 01 May 2010 - 12:14 AM

[Knight2000]

That's sick. Apparently they feel they can do whatever they want. Wait. They can.

What is more disturbing is that these caches aren't maintained. I can see why you would want to chuck them if they were filled with garbage.

Put some H1N1 in that cache... Now I am sick. I can't really see that much could be done unless the authorities got involved. They do have a good point about protecting the area from us destructive cachers.

[jholly]

hydnsek, on Apr 30 2010, 09:30 PM, said:

So many ways this is wrong...and I chair the WSGA Parks Committee.

Hope Groundspeak is handling this.

Not quite sure how Groundspeak would handle this since this eco-nazi does not seem to be a geocacher but rather a geodestroyer. They also have a vendetta against letterboxes.

[hydnsek]

jholly, on Apr 30 2010, 09:54 PM, said:

hydnsek, on Apr 30 2010, 09:30 PM, said:

So many ways this is wrong...and I chair the WSGA Parks Committee.

Hope Groundspeak is handling this.

Not quite sure how Groundspeak would handle this since this eco-nazi does not seem to be a geocacher but rather a geodestroyer. They also have a vendetta against letterboxes.

Groundspeak can ban the player account, since they must have one to gather the geocache coords and intel they mention in their blog.

[jholly]

hydnsek, on Apr 30 2010, 10:53 PM, said:

jholly, on Apr 30 2010, 09:54 PM, said:

hydnsek, on Apr 30 2010, 09:30 PM, said:

So many ways this is wrong...and I chair the WSGA Parks Committee.

Hope Groundspeak is handling this.

Not quite sure how Groundspeak would handle this since this eco-nazi does not seem to be a geocacher but rather a geodestroyer. They also have a vendetta against letterboxes.

Groundspeak can ban the player account, since they must have one to gather the geocache coords and intel they mention in their blog.

I take back my touche. Forest Defender is a non-existent user. This person seems to be cleaver enough to also invent non-existent user names for the caches they destroy. So we are back to what is Groundspeak going to do? One first needs to find out what user account is being used to disable it. Maybe all caches in State and County parks need to be PMO so at least if this wacko has to pony up the $30 bucks and then an audit log might track them down.

This post has been edited by jholly: 30 April 2010 - 10:18 PM

[B+L]

jholly, on Apr 30 2010, 10:56 PM, said:

I take back my touche. Forest Defender is a non-existent user. This person seems to be cleaver enough to also invent non-existent user names for the caches they destroy.

We've been to some of these caches. The user names are real enough. Some of them are letterboxers.

The presence of the stump in their banner picture is kind of interesting. It seems the Forest Defender was
rather late arriving.

It is pointless to speculate about what motivates this person. They were kind enough to provide some
excellent clues to their identity. Someone with access to the right tools could track them down pretty
easily.

The way they post details about some of the hiders is really creepy. Much creepier than stealing some
caches would be by itself.

[WeightMan]

One of the things we have found out about people like this is the crave the attention threads like this promote. One of the best things we can do is not discuss it in the forums.

[Lizzy]

WeightMan, on May 1 2010, 04:13 AM, said:

One of the things we have found out about people like this is the crave the attention threads like this promote. One of the best things we can do is not discuss it in the forums.

You are correct. But, since it is being discussed here now... Apparently their need for attention outweighs their "motive", hence the blog with pictures. Makes their motive suspect. He/she is proud of themselves and is using this to boost their self-esteem/self-worth. If this was truly being done with pure intentions, their blog would not name caches/post so many pictures. It would simply state - "this is my mission - here is one example, please make it yours too". It is either a couple, or a lady, or a man with rather long fingernails - eww (per one picture).

If the motives were pure/sincere, this person would approach the land managers/cachers directly with his/her issues. Apparently they are new to the sport, else they would know how well cachers cooperate to correct problems. Their extreme dislike for dogs would probably make them easy to identify - I would not be surprised if they are vocal locally about leash law violations in the parks there.

[NWC!]

The funniest part for me is that the removal of these caches is going cause that much more damage to some of these areas. Some people will just not give up on finding a cache sometimes. I understand the guys point, but this obviously doesn't seem like the best solution.

[Allanon]

Also being discussed over here: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...p;#entry4317312

[Lightning Jeff]

If law enforcement was interested in treating this as theft (as in the recent New York situation), it should be quite trivial to track this person down. As someone else pointed out in the other thread, state park caches are placed with explicit permission of the park, which implies that the state itself views them not as trash or abandoned property, but as personal property allowed to be left temporarily on state land - and thus, I would think, susceptible to being stolen, and the thief susceptible to prosecution as such.

Heck, someone with standing (i.e., one of the victims of the theft) could even sue the person as a "John Doe," and then subpoena a couple of companies to get the information needed to fill in the "defendant" line on the lawsuit. Easy and fun!

[quadmommy]

Nice to see the first one I read on his blog is one of mine. What a jerk. Now, someone had placed a letterbox in the same spot as my cache. I will go there today and replace it in a better spot. Please still come and enjoy the view. There may be trash, but not from the goecachers. It's the fishermen who come here during the salmon fishing time and make the mess.

Gosh, I didn't think I'd get so mad. I'm a nice person and my caches aren't junk. Jerk!

[jholly]

quadmommy, on May 2 2010, 11:10 AM, said:

Nice to see the first one I read on his blog is one of mine. What a jerk. Now, someone had placed a letterbox in the same spot as my cache. I will go there today and replace it in a better spot. Please still come and enjoy the view. There may be trash, but not from the goecachers. It's the fishermen who come here during the salmon fishing time and make the mess.

Gosh, I didn't think I'd get so mad. I'm a nice person and my caches aren't junk. Jerk!

Sorry to hear that. I hope someone can find out who this eco-nazi is and set her straight.

[C_B_W]

I would just like to add a word of caution to my fellow cachers. Please be careful when out there, this person sounds unstable at best, and I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if there were an altercation on the horizon. He/She/It doesn't seem to have the firmest grasp on reality, and often people who act out so over-zealously, often can be quite dangerous if confronted in person.

[Hrethgir]

C_B_W, on May 2 2010, 03:23 PM, said:

I would just like to add a word of caution to my fellow cachers. Please be careful when out there, this person sounds unstable at best, and I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if there were an altercation on the horizon. He/She/It doesn't seem to have the firmest grasp on reality, and often people who act out so over-zealously, often can be quite dangerous if confronted in person.

This is true. But if they start it and I have to defend myself, I will. I'm not going to look for them or actively do anything to run across their path, of course, but seems that they like to trash caches that are in the areas I most like going to.

[ADTCacheur]

If you want to defeat her, start a "destroy the psycho" mega event

[WeightMan]

ADTCacheur, on May 2 2010, 04:55 PM, said:

If you want to defeat her, start a "destroy the psycho" mega event

In my opinion this is exactly the wrong thing to do. To defeat this person, ignore her. The longer this thread runs, the more this person is fed what they want.

[hydnsek]

quadmommy, on May 2 2010, 11:10 AM, said:

Nice to see the first one I read on his blog is one of mine. What a jerk. Now, someone had placed a letterbox in the same spot as my cache. I will go there today and replace it in a better spot. Please still come and enjoy the view. There may be trash, but not from the goecachers. It's the fishermen who come here during the salmon fishing time and make the mess.

Gosh, I didn't think I'd get so mad. I'm a nice person and my caches aren't junk. Jerk!

Quadmommy, you should follow Lightnin' Jeff's advice and file a police report and get the authorities involved. As a victim, you have legal standing, and the geocaching community would support you. Maybe Jeff would be willing to represent you if need be. FYI, I talked to Bryan (Groundspeak co-founder and legal counsel) today, and there's little they can do directly, but they could support a geocacher who's been affected. And yes, it would likely be pretty easy to ferret this person out, once you have a legal complaint. My 2 cents.

[Lightning Jeff]

hydnsek, on May 2 2010, 10:46 PM, said:

Maybe Jeff would be willing to represent you if need be.

Gee, thanks Abby! I get myself in enough trouble as it is.

In all seriousness though, I agree - see if you can get law enforcement interested. Park Rangers are law enforcement officers, I believe, so if you have a ranger who has a particular fondness for caching - or, better yet, a particular distaste for theft and (false) vigilantism occurring in his or her park - that might be a very good starting point. I probably have no other valuable insight to offer, but PM me if you think I can help further.

This post has been edited by Lightning Jeff: 03 May 2010 - 10:40 AM

[NicElliott]

for every 1 cache "Forrest Defender" temporarly disables ill be putting 2 more up and fixing the one if it ever happens to me... did i mention there are over 1 million geocaches in forrests with fungi and "unleashed" animals that don't do what have you.....lol

[TJdamon]

Quote

I would just like to add a word of caution to my fellow cachers. Please be careful when out there, this person sounds unstable at best, and I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if there were an altercation on the horizon. He/She/It doesn't seem to have the firmest grasp on reality, and often people who act out so over-zealously, often can be quite dangerous if confronted in person.

Like Hrethgir said, Bring it on wacko!!!

It sounds like some one has been eating or smoking too many of the mushrooms they photograph.

This post has been edited by TJdamon: 06 May 2010 - 05:22 PM

[ThePetersTrio]

So is there any plan out there to drive this person crazy by placing a slew of caches around the ones that were taken? I thought that was the best idea - fight fire with fire, right?

I suddenly became aware of this when I was beginning to load caches into a bookmark I'm creating for our post GW8/Washington vacation. I really wanted to spend more time up around Deception Pass and I noticed this "defender" had gotten to some of the caches around there.

I can't help in hiding them - but I'd love to help look for them and strengthen the presence of geocaching in his/her honor....giving him/her full credit in my cache logs naturally!

[DannyCaffeine]

Sounds like an eco terrorist to me.

[Bluesman63]

If this nut was hanging out in my area I would set up a trail camera at one of my caches and try and get a picture of him/her. For those who are not familiar with game cams:
Google Trail Cam Search
Some pics from a trail cam near where I live:
Blue Creek Cougar Pics

[Kryptic]

Having seen first hand the sadness this situation has caused so many wonderful people, this topic just wouldn't leave my mind. I started to write a reply for it here and quickly found I had much to much for a quick forum post.

Please read: Geocaching Has A Dark Side: Anti-Caching

[CacheDefender]

Kryptic, on May 13 2010, 09:05 AM, said:

Having seen first hand the sadness this situation has caused so many wonderful people, this topic just wouldn't leave my mind. I started to write a reply for it here and quickly found I had much to much for a quick forum post.

Please read: Geocaching Has A Dark Side: Anti-Caching

Unfortunately the Forest Defender is the lowest, most despicable form of a cache maggot. She proclaims that she removes the caches, but in the case of the MinterCreek Bay (GCV7DE) cache she merely removed the cover and threw it on the ground. Everything else was left in place. So instead of "cleaning up" the environment she made a mess in the environment. Does not sound like someone that is defending eco-sensitive areas to me.

[PZ Dude]

Blues man you and I are thinking the same way. Trail cam all the way! i have been wanting to do something like that. Cache the cacher so to speak. Of course you would have to find a nice juicy "eco sensitive" spot to draw out the person. Then make it a real nano in the woods so a lot of digging around would have to be done. Then wait until this nut job shows up and digs before reviling there is a camera. Of course full permission at the sight would be given and the nut job would not bother to check that out. I have a reclaimed rock quarry out here in Ohio that would be perfect if this ego cacher was around here.

[Bluesman63]

PZ Dude, on May 13 2010, 08:37 PM, said:

Blues man you and I are thinking the same way. Trail cam all the way! i have been wanting to do something like that. Cache the cacher so to speak. Of course you would have to find a nice juicy "eco sensitive" spot to draw out the person. Then make it a real nano in the woods so a lot of digging around would have to be done. Then wait until this nut job shows up and digs before reviling there is a camera. Of course full permission at the sight would be given and the nut job would not bother to check that out. I have a reclaimed rock quarry out here in Ohio that would be perfect if this ego cacher was around here.

Shouldn't be to hard. Looking at the pics I would say he/she has a thing for mushrooms.

[TotemLake]

PZ Dude, on May 13 2010, 08:37 PM, said:

Blues man you and I are thinking the same way. Trail cam all the way! i have been wanting to do something like that. Cache the cacher so to speak. Of course you would have to find a nice juicy "eco sensitive" spot to draw out the person. Then make it a real nano in the woods so a lot of digging around would have to be done. Then wait until this nut job shows up and digs before reviling there is a camera. Of course full permission at the sight would be given and the nut job would not bother to check that out. I have a reclaimed rock quarry out here in Ohio that would be perfect if this ego cacher was around here.

This is clearly not thinking your strategy out all the way. You would have gone the distance to prove their point. This cache idea would turn into more of a black eye for Geocaching than for the self-acclaimed defender. The PR fallout would be ugly for geocachers.

This post has been edited by TotemLake: 14 May 2010 - 02:07 PM

[Bluesman63]

TotemLake, on May 14 2010, 03:06 PM, said:

PZ Dude, on May 13 2010, 08:37 PM, said:

Blues man you and I are thinking the same way. Trail cam all the way! i have been wanting to do something like that. Cache the cacher so to speak. Of course you would have to find a nice juicy "eco sensitive" spot to draw out the person. Then make it a real nano in the woods so a lot of digging around would have to be done. Then wait until this nut job shows up and digs before reviling there is a camera. Of course full permission at the sight would be given and the nut job would not bother to check that out. I have a reclaimed rock quarry out here in Ohio that would be perfect if this ego cacher was around here.

This is clearly not thinking your strategy out all the way. You would have gone the distance to prove their point. This cache idea would turn into more of a black eye for Geocaching than for the self-acclaimed defender. The PR fallout would be ugly for geocachers.

No black eye if it's on my property (which I have 4 hidden on). Turn any pics over to the local sheriff's department and have them cited for trespassing and theft. That's how we handle things on this side of the mountains.

[TotemLake]

Bluesman63, on May 14 2010, 10:37 PM, said:

TotemLake, on May 14 2010, 03:06 PM, said:

PZ Dude, on May 13 2010, 08:37 PM, said:

Blues man you and I are thinking the same way. Trail cam all the way! i have been wanting to do something like that. Cache the cacher so to speak. Of course you would have to find a nice juicy "eco sensitive" spot to draw out the person. Then make it a real nano in the woods so a lot of digging around would have to be done. Then wait until this nut job shows up and digs before reviling there is a camera. Of course full permission at the sight would be given and the nut job would not bother to check that out. I have a reclaimed rock quarry out here in Ohio that would be perfect if this ego cacher was around here.

This is clearly not thinking your strategy out all the way. You would have gone the distance to prove their point. This cache idea would turn into more of a black eye for Geocaching than for the self-acclaimed defender. The PR fallout would be ugly for geocachers.

No black eye if it's on my property (which I have 4 hidden on). Turn any pics over to the local sheriff's department and have them cited for trespassing and theft. That's how we handle things on this side of the mountains.

Re-read the text that is bolded. Private property or not; it is clearly not the right direction to go in and I don't care which side of the mountains you're on.

This post has been edited by TotemLake: 15 May 2010 - 03:41 PM

[Bluesman63]

TotemLake, on May 15 2010, 04:40 PM, said:

Bluesman63, on May 14 2010, 10:37 PM, said:

TotemLake, on May 14 2010, 03:06 PM, said:

PZ Dude, on May 13 2010, 08:37 PM, said:

Blues man you and I are thinking the same way. Trail cam all the way! i have been wanting to do something like that. Cache the cacher so to speak. Of course you would have to find a nice juicy "eco sensitive" spot to draw out the person. Then make it a real nano in the woods so a lot of digging around would have to be done. Then wait until this nut job shows up and digs before reviling there is a camera. Of course full permission at the sight would be given and the nut job would not bother to check that out. I have a reclaimed rock quarry out here in Ohio that would be perfect if this ego cacher was around here.

This is clearly not thinking your strategy out all the way. You would have gone the distance to prove their point. This cache idea would turn into more of a black eye for Geocaching than for the self-acclaimed defender. The PR fallout would be ugly for geocachers.

No black eye if it's on my property (which I have 4 hidden on). Turn any pics over to the local sheriff's department and have them cited for trespassing and theft. That's how we handle things on this side of the mountains.

Re-read the text that is bolded. Private property or not; it is clearly not the right direction to go in and I don't care which side of the mountains you're on.

No need to dumb it down, I did not post that. I don't bury micros in the woods. So what would you do, just let the eco nuts have there way and keep on destroying the caches we placed (with permission) and hope maybe they will stop someday? It will never happen. Got to nip it in the bud. If I catch somebody on MY property stealing personal property (even if it's an ammo can) I will have them prosecuted and I don't care if it produces a black eye within the eco nut community. You will not be able to please them no matter what you do.

[TotemLake]

Bluesman63, on May 15 2010, 07:04 PM, said:

TotemLake, on May 15 2010, 04:40 PM, said:

Bluesman63, on May 14 2010, 10:37 PM, said:

TotemLake, on May 14 2010, 03:06 PM, said:

PZ Dude, on May 13 2010, 08:37 PM, said:

Blues man you and I are thinking the same way. Trail cam all the way! i have been wanting to do something like that. Cache the cacher so to speak. Of course you would have to find a nice juicy "eco sensitive" spot to draw out the person. Then make it a real nano in the woods so a lot of digging around would have to be done. Then wait until this nut job shows up and digs before reviling there is a camera. Of course full permission at the sight would be given and the nut job would not bother to check that out. I have a reclaimed rock quarry out here in Ohio that would be perfect if this ego cacher was around here.

This is clearly not thinking your strategy out all the way. You would have gone the distance to prove their point. This cache idea would turn into more of a black eye for Geocaching than for the self-acclaimed defender. The PR fallout would be ugly for geocachers.

No black eye if it's on my property (which I have 4 hidden on). Turn any pics over to the local sheriff's department and have them cited for trespassing and theft. That's how we handle things on this side of the mountains.

Re-read the text that is bolded. Private property or not; it is clearly not the right direction to go in and I don't care which side of the mountains you're on.

No need to dumb it down, I did not post that. I don't bury micros in the woods. So what would you do, just let the eco nuts have there way and keep on destroying the caches we placed (with permission) and hope maybe they will stop someday? It will never happen. Got to nip it in the bud. If I catch somebody on MY property stealing personal property (even if it's an ammo can) I will have them prosecuted and I don't care if it produces a black eye within the eco nut community. You will not be able to please them no matter what you do.

Ease off and read the post. I didn't dumb it down and I didn't declare you posted it. You did reply to my post though, and your reply was out of context to my post. Thus my clarification. Herein lies the problem with hot heads.

[Bluesman63]

TotemLake, on May 16 2010, 04:17 PM, said:

Bluesman63, on May 15 2010, 07:04 PM, said:

TotemLake, on May 15 2010, 04:40 PM, said:

Bluesman63, on May 14 2010, 10:37 PM, said:

TotemLake, on May 14 2010, 03:06 PM, said:

PZ Dude, on May 13 2010, 08:37 PM, said:

Blues man you and I are thinking the same way. Trail cam all the way! i have been wanting to do something like that. Cache the cacher so to speak. Of course you would have to find a nice juicy "eco sensitive" spot to draw out the person. Then make it a real nano in the woods so a lot of digging around would have to be done. Then wait until this nut job shows up and digs before reviling there is a camera. Of course full permission at the sight would be given and the nut job would not bother to check that out. I have a reclaimed rock quarry out here in Ohio that would be perfect if this ego cacher was around here.

This is clearly not thinking your strategy out all the way. You would have gone the distance to prove their point. This cache idea would turn into more of a black eye for Geocaching than for the self-acclaimed defender. The PR fallout would be ugly for geocachers.

No black eye if it's on my property (which I have 4 hidden on). Turn any pics over to the local sheriff's department and have them cited for trespassing and theft. That's how we handle things on this side of the mountains.

Re-read the text that is bolded. Private property or not; it is clearly not the right direction to go in and I don't care which side of the mountains you're on.

No need to dumb it down, I did not post that. I don't bury micros in the woods. So what would you do, just let the eco nuts have there way and keep on destroying the caches we placed (with permission) and hope maybe they will stop someday? It will never happen. Got to nip it in the bud. If I catch somebody on MY property stealing personal property (even if it's an ammo can) I will have them prosecuted and I don't care if it produces a black eye within the eco nut community. You will not be able to please them no matter what you do.

Ease off and read the post. I didn't dumb it down and I didn't declare you posted it. You did reply to my post though, and your reply was out of context to my post. Thus my clarification. Herein lies the problem with hot heads.

So what would you do? I'm open to any ideas.

[bittsen]

Bluesman63, on May 16 2010, 04:50 PM, said:

So what would you do? I'm open to any ideas.

What happens in the forest, stays in the forest.


Adding to add that I have fantasies of what I would do to someone who I caught breaking into my house. I won't share the wonderful details but, suffice to say, there would be very little civilization involved.

[TotemLake]

Bluesman63, on May 16 2010, 04:50 PM, said:

So what would you do? I'm open to any ideas.

Geocachers in general like to preach the good land manager song. Practice it. Choose areas with low impact value. Take the wind out of the attacker's sails. Don't place a cache in an eco sensitive area.

If your cache is in the arena of attack, make it a PMO. It makes it easier to track who the interested parties are and a common denominator can be discerned from the logs.

In cases of publicly owned land, make sure you have the land manager's permission and have it posted permission has been provided. LIkewise private property. Post it is private property and hidden with permission. This creates ownership of the cache (as not abandoned) and validated use of the land.

Don't put too much value into the cache. It gets expensive to keep replacing them. Minimize the losses.

And most of all, let this thread die. The attention is enough to keep the yahoo at it. This isn't the first, second or third time this has happened. They all get bored and move on; but only when they don't raise the hackles and draw threads like this.

This post has been edited by TotemLake: 16 May 2010 - 06:25 PM

[Bluesman63]

TotemLake, on May 16 2010, 07:22 PM, said:

Bluesman63, on May 16 2010, 04:50 PM, said:

So what would you do? I'm open to any ideas.

Geocachers in general like to preach the good land manager song. Practice it. Choose areas with low impact value. Take the wind out of the attacker's sails. Don't place a cache in an eco sensitive area.

If your cache is in the arena of attack, make it a PMO. It makes it easier to track who the interested parties are and a common denominator can be discerned from the logs.

In cases of publicly owned land, make sure you have the land manager's permission and have it posted permission has been provided. LIkewise private property. Post it is private property and hidden with permission. This creates ownership of the cache (as not abandoned) and validated use of the land.

Don't put too much value into the cache. It gets expensive to keep replacing them. Minimize the losses.

And most of all, let this thread die. The attention is enough to keep the yahoo at it. This isn't the first, second or third time this has happened. They all get bored and move on; but only when they don't raise the hackles and draw threads like this.

I agree and do so while hiding and seeking a cache. There has been a few times where I have walked away because I did not feel comfortable with the location. As far as the caches on my property go, I state in the listing that this is property that I own and is a livestock area so make sure to keep the entry gate at the parking area closed. So far no problems. I still like the trail cam idea and will use it if I start having problems with theft or vandalism. Hopefully I won't have to.

[DudleyGrunt]

Heard about this on Podcacher today. If this person were working with the appropriate land managers / owners, then I don't really think we could complain. However, I see no evidence of this on her blog - only an imaginary conversation with a park ranger.

I wonder if she's even considered whether these caches just might have the approval of of those actually responsible for the land. I would recommend that people placing cachers in "her forests", be sure to get approval and make the owners / managers aware of FD's activities. If they are granting permission, then they may join in trying to put a stop to her activities.

In central Maryland, we've had an issue with a "cache maggot" (as we call him) stealing caches and using various geocaching.com accounts to log his activities. Through the Maryland Geocaching Society, we've been able to enlist the support of the Maryland Municipal League and the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission in trying to combat our thief when it comes to caches on their properties.

Members of the Military Association of GeoCaching (MAGC) have worked closely with the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Center on historic Kent Island, MD to place caches at CBEC to increase visitations and develop a group of people who are willing to come out a couple times a year to provide free manpower to help improve the area though CITO events. I know they would not be happy with "Forest Defender" if she were to "liberate" CBEC of geocaches.

Of course, typical of this kind of person, there is not way to contact them or even leave comments on her blog.

[The Bad Cop]

Since I am from the Northwest, this hits me where I live. There are many holes in Forest Defender's line of thinking. For the most part, geocachers help the environment, not damage.

I have decided to postpone this month's topic on Caching in the NorthWest, to discuss this issue in more detail. If you would like, call in to 253.693.TFTC and let your voice be heard. You can text to 253.693.TFTC or email feedback@cachingnw.com. Please include your geocaching name in any messages.
Please be respectable and polite. Harsh words and a combative attitude will not win someone over.

I will play all acceptable messages on the podcast. Come on NorthWesterners! Let your voice be heard!

[CacheDefender]

The Bad Cop, on May 17 2010, 01:13 PM, said:

Since I am from the Northwest, this hits me where I live. There are many holes in Forest Defender's line of thinking. For the most part, geocachers help the environment, not damage.

I have decided to postpone this month's topic on Caching in the NorthWest, to discuss this issue in more detail. If you would like, call in to 253.693.TFTC and let your voice be heard. You can text to 253.693.TFTC or email feedback@cachingnw.com. Please include your geocaching name in any messages.
Please be respectable and polite. Harsh words and a combative attitude will not win someone over.

I will play all acceptable messages on the podcast. Come on NorthWesterners! Let your voice be heard!

Great! More attention and publicity that this cache maggot loves. Keep your mouth shut and your caches maintained and she will get tired and go find something else to do.

[WeightMan]

CacheDefender, on May 17 2010, 01:29 PM, said:

The Bad Cop, on May 17 2010, 01:13 PM, said:

Since I am from the Northwest, this hits me where I live. There are many holes in Forest Defender's line of thinking. For the most part, geocachers help the environment, not damage.

I have decided to postpone this month's topic on Caching in the NorthWest, to discuss this issue in more detail. If you would like, call in to 253.693.TFTC and let your voice be heard. You can text to 253.693.TFTC or email feedback@cachingnw.com. Please include your geocaching name in any messages.
Please be respectable and polite. Harsh words and a combative attitude will not win someone over.

I will play all acceptable messages on the podcast. Come on NorthWesterners! Let your voice be heard!

Great! More attention and publicity that this cache maggot loves. Keep your mouth shut and your caches maintained and she will get tired and go find something else to do.

Amen. This has happened many times before and soon after people stop discussing it, they give up because they are not getting the publicity they crave.

[DudleyGrunt]

I disagree with that philosophy, though I admit that I brought this person to TBC's attention and suggested they be discussed on the next Caching in the NorthWest podcast. This person seems to have her own agenda, apart from attention. She seems to be a "true believer" eco-nut.

Our maggot in Maryland seemed (hopefully, he seems done) to be a bit more after the attention, though who knows what really motivated him.

We tried to work with Groundspeak to deal with our thief, but they were unable / unwilling to really do anything. Eventually, we were able to work with both the Maryland Municipal League and the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, at least in regard to caches on their lands.

I don't think the caching community needs to cower to these people like helpless sheep.

[CacheDefender]

DudleyGrunt, on May 17 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

I disagree with that philosophy, though I admit that I brought this person to TBC's attention and suggested they be discussed on the next Caching in the NorthWest podcast. This person seems to have her own agenda, apart from attention. She seems to be a "true believer" eco-nut.

Our maggot in Maryland seemed (hopefully, he seems done) to be a bit more after the attention, though who knows what really motivated him.

We tried to work with Groundspeak to deal with our thief, but they were unable / unwilling to really do anything. Eventually, we were able to work with both the Maryland Municipal League and the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, at least in regard to caches on their lands.

I don't think the caching community needs to cower to these people like helpless sheep.

Sorry to pop your balloon, this person is nothing more than the lowest form of cache maggot. I know for a fact that one cache she supposedly "cleansed" was left as thrash in the "sensitive environment". Hardly a true believer eco-nut.

I said nothing about cowering like helpless sheep. Keeping the publicity down and replacing the trashed caches is the quickest way to deal with these maggots. Once they find out they are not going to win they move on to something else.

Unless you can catch this person in the act, get positive identification there is not much to act on. It took, what, nine years, to catch the maggot in New York.

And I might point out that all caches on Washington state grounds are there by specific permission of the ranger, signed permit and all.

Lest not talk about this maggot any more.

[TotemLake]

DudleyGrunt, on May 17 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

I disagree with that philosophy, though I admit that I brought this person to TBC's attention and suggested they be discussed on the next Caching in the NorthWest podcast. This person seems to have her own agenda, apart from attention. She seems to be a "true believer" eco-nut.

Our maggot in Maryland seemed (hopefully, he seems done) to be a bit more after the attention, though who knows what really motivated him.

We tried to work with Groundspeak to deal with our thief, but they were unable / unwilling to really do anything. Eventually, we were able to work with both the Maryland Municipal League and the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, at least in regard to caches on their lands.

I don't think the caching community needs to cower to these people like helpless sheep.

Thank you for your opinion. We've dealt with these in the past and know how to deal with them now without beoming militant about it. The philosophy has a historical success rate. Now... Please quit fanning the flames.

[bittsen]

The key is to keep the whole topic on the down-low. That way when the cache maggot disappears there is plausible deniability.



***I am not advocating violence. Just sayin'

[Kryptic]

CacheDefender, on May 13 2010, 02:32 PM, said:

Kryptic, on May 13 2010, 09:05 AM, said:

Having seen first hand the sadness this situation has caused so many wonderful people, this topic just wouldn't leave my mind. I started to write a reply for it here and quickly found I had much to much for a quick forum post.

Please read: Geocaching Has A Dark Side: Anti-Caching

Unfortunately the Forest Defender is the lowest, most despicable form of a cache maggot. She proclaims that she removes the caches, but in the case of the MinterCreek Bay (GCV7DE) cache she merely removed the cover and threw it on the ground. Everything else was left in place. So instead of "cleaning up" the environment she made a mess in the environment. Does not sound like someone that is defending eco-sensitive areas to me.

Nope. Doesn't sound like it to me either; for a variety of reasons.

[DudleyGrunt]

Kryptic - great article. Thanks.

* * *
By calling her a "true believer", I simply meant to say that she seemed more motivated by a deranged sense of mission. I am definitely not saying she's actually improving the state of the forest by her actions. While she may be the "lowest form of cache maggot", I just think she has a different motivation than our attention - unless you think the whole "Forest Defender" thing is a complete ruse that she doesn't even believe.

Neither do I think we need to be "militant" about it, but assuming these caches have proper permission, I think that the CO's should organize and work with the land owners / managers. If some caches do not have proper permission, they need to start getting it.

It would probably also be a good idea to explicitly state on the cache pages the details about who permission was granted by. Both as a message to forest Defender and for the benefit of future cachers seeking the cache or considering placing caches in the area.

As far as her leaving the cache contents strewn around the area, that's a bit surprising, but then again, she may well be more interested in the accolades of her fellow eco-nuts who read her blog than in affecting actual change. Who knows how a sick mind works, though?

As far as catching her in the act, there are ways to increase the likelihood of that, as well.

All in all, I think it is better to shed light on the darkness than to turn your back to it.

[ThePetersTrio]

Just out of curiosity - has it struck again lately? The first post of this thread was the end of April. Are caches still being destroyed?

[ozzy3779]

Allanon, on May 1 2010, 08:52 AM, said:

Also being discussed over here: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...p;#entry4317312

If there going to through away the caches they need to conntact somone at Groundspeak not just distroying caches