View Full Version : Fitz Cache Revisited



Haffy
09-11-2006, 06:15 PM
I see that the Fitz cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=4866d860-d475-4be1-addb-8d9be7853f42&log=y&decrypt=
was archived recently and I know this was a hot topic so-to-speak for a while in here and maybe things could have been done differently. I just would like to know if we as a group could have done things to have made a difference from the very beginning. Not having ever been to the cache I can only reference what others experienced while looking for this particular cache. I did have a very strong view about it and even went so far as to emailing the owner at one point and asking if they could write a note as to what did indeed go on at the location but they never did write anything. I am sorry that it ended up missing regardless of the circumstances and I hope it wasn't stolen by some other cacher who had an agenda against the owner. I agree with Kacky (which doesn't happen often ;) ) and was hoping that the MDOT would have stood up and done something to counter the activities that happened there but I guess there wasn't enough evidence to warrant the complete shutdown of the area. In the future do you think that as a group we could have done things differently or is this just the way things are nowadays? What is your opinion? Please keep on topic. Thanks Haffy

hollora
09-11-2006, 06:56 PM
Hope this isn't to long Haffy - it is probably appropriate to revisit. This cache is certainly NOT (yes I was yelling) one I want visitors to Maine to remember us by with what they might/may view. It is NOT where I want my friends to visit. The cache container itself was ok - the little trail ok too. It is not that which was not in good taste. It was the general overall area and activity!

The issues lie with the terrain and debris which appears to be a playground for ( ). I will let those who have viewed it fill in the blanks. Haffy asked what could we have done differently - I am not sure much aside from sponsoring (with the blessing of DOT) a huge, like Major, CITO event at that rest area. That could not have cleaned up the initial issues (cars in the lot all the time - certainly not picnicers or travelors or the "crusiin") but it would have cleaned up the very offensive eye sore of the "chair", et al.

Am not even sure a CITO would have resolved the issue that this was not a kid friendly or perhaps even all round cacher friendly area. Last Sunday, when I went by at nearly 4PM there were 8 empty cars in that area. What were they doing? Certainly not picnicing, as there were no people at tables or bbqs!

What could we have done different - I believe nothing! Should we have done anything? Yes, I believe every Geocacher is under an obligation to express their honest feelings about the safetly and description of a cache. We all view things through different eyes, have different skills and proficiencies = therefore, to keep one another safe we need to share honestly.

Just my opinion but for one I am glad that Fitz is gone unless we were as a large group going to work hard to save one cache probably inappropriately placed anyway. We would have had to engage DOT, State Reps, do major CITO (which would have been a long term problem), perhaps address enforcement with Law Enforcement and get lots of other support.

Let's remember - this rest area is within the geographic confines of Ellsworth Town lines. Someone made the decision to have the one on Rt. 1A (Bar Harbor Rd) closed - for the same types of activity Fitz is not appropriate - hello, why hasn't this one been closed? Anyone who is a "local" knows this location's reputation.

Best we just let it go! Protect our own and families - report honestly!

dí76
09-11-2006, 08:51 PM
I reported that the cache needed maintenece and then again that it needed to be archived. Gps fun did his part as we all did. I dont think that they where active cachers i think at the point that it got to it was more of a power struggle than anything. I think we did everything possible. It started out as nice and then progressed to the end result. I say bless who ever took that cache and now it is gone. Good riddens and thank heavens that it is gone. I wish it would have been different but i think the owner was being pig headed. And risking the well being of others to boot.:(

Francis Family
09-11-2006, 10:57 PM
Will try to be brief but I am long winded like my mother [;)] Mom, Hollora, and I found this cache on June 10...being new to caching I did not feel the need to elaborate in my log beyond the fact we found it. On the day I suggested we go try this cache, I did so only looking at the rating of the cache...somewhat easy, kid friendly, etc. Mom showed me the logs and being younger and very open minded I said "come on how bad can it be"...honestly it was bad and not a place I would have been happy to have my 13 year old step daughter with me. For that, I emailed the owner to express my differing opinion of their cache page description marking this cache as kid friendly and requested that this portion of the cache page be updated...received no response and I see nothing was changed on the page. I believe that many people emailed the owner about this cache as well as indicated problems with the area in their logs...I don't know what could have been done differently as it appears to me people approached this from many angles and the cache owners just chose to be unresponsive?!?!

attroll
09-12-2006, 02:13 AM
I think this topic has been beaten to death already.

brdad
09-12-2006, 05:51 AM
I agree with Rick.
But I will say I think things could have been done differently. Sure, the cache is gone and people are happy, but the situation still exists there. :(
It seems all those emails did was upset another cacher. I'm not sure what the best answer was, but this didn't work.
Think it over, but lets move on...

dí76
09-12-2006, 07:09 AM
This is one of those oppurtunities where maybe we need to discuss the situation. We did the right thing. We started with nice emails and the logs did start out on the right track. It was when we where completely ignored or even had our logs deleted that things might have got a bit forward.

I dont feel that we have "beat this up" I think we achieved what we tried to do. The cache is gone end of story. :D If you want to discuss what to do next time if something like this arises then we should do that. If you dont want to be part of the conversation then dont read it :) . I am interested in knowing what we could have done differently.

I thought that we tried about everything. THis was one of those touchy subjects that will come up again somewhere down the line.

It is a nice area. NIce forest. A cache will more than likely be put back in time. And further more Fitz may choose to do so themselves.:eek:

Haffy
09-12-2006, 09:16 AM
Thanks Dave I feel the same way. Somethings just can't be put to rest Rick and I think that this was one of them regardless of what you feel. If every topic was put to rest because of one person's feelings then where would all the important contributions from all of our world leaders be without a democratic society? Think about that.

brdad
09-12-2006, 04:12 PM
Ok, so lets use an existing cache to see what can be done. How about Little Falls Cache (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=412936) (GCWMFE) by Sudonim (http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.asp?A=198654) (2/2)? I'd be more fearfull of being shot there than visiting the Fitz Cache. Should we all email Andy and tell him it should be archived? Post numerous notes to the cache page? Contact gc.com and alert them? Go steal the cache?

Many caches have their dangers. Some from natural surroundings, some from animals, some from people. Sometimes they are more dangerous to certian groups, like age, sex, and race. It is nice when the description alerts cachers to those dangers.

Assuming the cache is placed within gc.com guidelines, if a cache appears to have dangers not posted on the cache page, it seems a polite email to the owner would be the first step. I don't see where it does any good to send multiple emails. They got the message in the first email, if they think the issue needs to be addressed they will do so.

If that does not work and you still feel strongly that people should be warned, then it makes sense to email a gc.com volunteer. If they argree and take action, by a cache log, note to the owner, or other means, IMO that is about all that can and should be done as far as the cache is concerned.

Other than that, adressing the real issue seems to be the best route to go. What good is getting the cache archived do? It prevents a few cachers monthly from visiting the area. It doesn't stop the danger there, and it doesn't stop non-cachers from unknowiningly accessing the area, either.

I don't expect the DOT to jump on any of these issues. I imagine the get contacted daily about these and other issues. But they should be informed. And, the more they are informed the more likely they may do somethign about it. In the case of the Fitz cache, these people hang out there because no one else does. If you can turn that around, that would be the best action.

firefighterjake
09-12-2006, 04:27 PM
Ok, so lets use an existing cache to see what can be done. How about Little Falls Cache (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=412936) (GCWMFE) by Sudonim (http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.asp?A=198654) (2/2)? I'd be more fearfull of being shot there than visiting the Fitz Cache. Should we all email Andy and tell him it should be archived? Post numerous notes to the cache page? Contact gc.com and alert them? Go steal the cache?

Many caches have their dangers. Some from natural surroundings, some from animals, some from people. Sometimes they are more dangerous to certian groups, like age, sex, and race. It is nice when the description alerts cachers to those dangers.

Assuming the cache is placed within gc.com guidelines, if a cache appears to have dangers not posted on the cache page, it seems a polite email to the owner would be the first step. I don't see where it does any good to send multiple emails. They got the message in the first email, if they think the issue needs to be addressed they will do so.

If that does not work and you still feel strongly that people should be warned, then it makes sense to email a gc.com volunteer. If they argree and take action, by a cache log, note to the owner, or other means, IMO that is about all that can and should be done as far as the cache is concerned.

Other than that, adressing the real issue seems to be the best route to go. What good is getting the cache archived do? It prevents a few cachers monthly from visiting the area. It doesn't stop the danger there, and it doesn't stop non-cachers from unknowiningly accessing the area, either.

I don't expect the DOT to jump on any of these issues. I imagine the get contacted daily about these and other issues. But they should be informed. And, the more they are informed the more likely they may do somethign about it. In the case of the Fitz cache, these people hang out there because no one else does. If you can turn that around, that would be the best action.

Well stated.

Playing the devil's advocate here for a minute as well . . . my e-mail filters often send gc.com e-mail to my "trash" without me reading them . . . in fact I've now fallen into the habit of checking my in box and trash can for any unread and wanted e-mail. I suppose it's possible, some gc-ers who receive an e-mail message and do not respond right away or at all, may have the same issue.

Haffy
09-12-2006, 04:48 PM
Seems to me if I remember correctly Jake you were the first one to complain about the cache to begin with and warned others of the same. You even had your cache post deleted by the owner as well and complained to GPSfun to that effect.

Smitty & Co.
09-12-2006, 07:36 PM
Seems to me if I remember correctly Jake you were the first one to complain about the cache to begin with and warned others of the same. You even had your cache post deleted by the owner as well and complained to GPSfun to that effect.

Its comments and finger-pointing like this that make me want to stay away from here and other geocachers altogether. :mad: Sheesh folks, let it go!! :(

dí76
09-12-2006, 08:52 PM
End of discussion...

I tried to help Haffy sorry, But I dont have the energy to fight the battle with you. You guys win.:mad:

attroll
09-13-2006, 12:31 AM
Its comments and finger-pointing like this that make me want to stay away from here and other geocachers altogether. :mad: Sheesh folks, let it go!! :(
Thank you. That was what I was trying to say in post #5.

brdad
09-13-2006, 06:29 AM
There are no winners, and it should not be a war.

As Haffy asked in the first thread, should anything have been differently?
What are you going to do when it happens next time (And it probably will)?

And why aren't we doing it now with similar caches, like other questionable rest stops and the Little Falls Cache?

dí76
09-13-2006, 06:57 AM
Let it go folks isnt that what you wanted. No need to beat a dead horse right:mad:

firefighterjake
09-13-2006, 07:29 AM
Seems to me if I remember correctly Jake you were the first one to complain about the cache to begin with and warned others of the same. You even had your cache post deleted by the owner as well and complained to GPSfun to that effect.

You are partially correct . . . and in retrospect perhaps I should have handled things a bit differently, but I believe that I actually followed most of BrDad's suggestions for dealing with a questionable cache.

I found the cache and posted a log entry suggesting that folks might want to use some caution as some type of odd activities seemed to be occuring at this location or something to that sort along with the usual log entry about what I left and took.

I deliberately used non-inflamatory language and attempted to be as obtuse as possible as to what was going on . . . only saying I personally felt uncomfortable there and while I didn't see anything illegal I felt as though folks there were not simply stopping to walk the trails, use the bathroom or have a picnic.

A few days later I happened to notice that my log entry had been erased without any notification from the owner that he/she was doing so. I sent them an e-mail outlining my concerns with the cache and suggested a note might be appropriate to put in the cache description due to some of the activities that seemed to be occuring there and added that sending an e-mail to a geocacher before deleting their log might be more courteous.

They replied back that they had some issues with my log entry and felt as though I should have e-mailed them first before posting my log entry -- a valid point I thought -- and they concluded by adding that they didn't feel they had any responsibility to notify geocachers if they deleted their log entries. They never stated one way or the other if they were going to alter their cache description and I don't believe it came out in our e-mails.

It was around this time I sent an e-mail to our reviewer asking him about the protocol of deleting log entries and if it would be OK to re-log my find . . . I also sent him all copies of my e-mailed correspondence. GPSFun returned my e-mail informing me that I could re-log the find and said he was going to post a warning note in the log entries.

Later on in an on-line chat I mentioned this cache and my main issue with the owners deleting my log entry without notification . . . although some of the debate did also involve the other activities that are occuring here . . . my main issue with this cache was the deletion of my logged entry without notification. I was a bit peeved that night -- again about the deletion.

After venting I was OK and had moved on from my issues with this cache . . . I re-logged a very terse log entry about my previous log entry being deleted -- originally I simply wanted to leave this blank since silence often speaks volumes, but was unable to do so -- and then I moved on and more or less forgot about this one "bad" cache among the countless "great" caches I've visited.

It was much later that folks began to have some issues with the activities going on at this cache and were logging similar experiences to my original cache -- in fact I was first PMed by a fellow member and alerted to the fact that a lot of other gc-ers were having similar experiences. I had no idea that other folks were having the same issues with deletions and odd experiences there since I had put this cache out of sight and mind and it was no longer an issue for me -- I had my found cache logged and I was happy.

Much later a thread appeared here on this cache and I believe in one or more threads I put down that I had some of the same concerns and shared my experience at this cache.

Other than the first e-mail or two that I sent to the owner about deleting my log I never sent them anything else via e-mail and I have never returned to the area or posted any notes on-line other than my second found note. I didn't want any more trouble from the owners and felt that what GPSFun did was very appropriate and well worded.

I still am not convinced as some gcmaine.org members that this was all an elaborate way to "lure" geocachers to the area or to promote controversy in some way . . . I believe this new geocacher placed a cache here in good faith and then was blasted for their decision and I think like many folks they became defensive. Maybe I'm just being naive, but I still believe this.

Furthermore, I honestly believe this issue has become over-blown and over-discussed. As BrDad said, to me the issue now (the issue originally was deleting the log entry without notification) is not the cache, but rather that the State/City apparently is doing very little to maintain this area by cleaning it up, patrollling it if need be, etc.

firefighterjake
09-13-2006, 07:43 AM
Let it go folks isnt that what you wanted. No need to beat a dead horse right:mad:

Is there a Smiley out there that shows the Smiley beating a dead equine? ;) :D