Printable View
Thanks for all of your support on this cache issue. I think we should bring a state representitive or maybe the local police on a cache hunt there and see what they think or how they feel. I can't seem to put into words what I would like to say...all I keep saying is that it just does not seem right for a cache to be there. Actualy everything the rest of you have been saying is pretty much how I feel. Some very good points on this.
I don't know what bringing a state representitive or maybe the local police to the place would acomplish. They have not say so if a cache gets placed there or not. Maybe bringing them there would let them see the problem though and maybe the area would get cleaned up.Quote:
Originally Posted by team teebow
I found a cache at a very similar location near downtown Concord, NH the other day. I kept my cell phone to my ear to look busy so I wouldn't be "bothered".
I meant that like you said, maybe if these people could see what is gong on at rest stops that maybe something would be done. I highly doubt it though. It is just a scary world out there and you never know what you might be walking into. It's a shame.Quote:
Originally Posted by attroll
Whoever you bring out there will be asking themselves 2 questions. 1. Will it hurt my career if I don't do something about this? 2. Will it help my career if I do?
If a State Rep or a cop has a stake in it, they'll help. If it looks like it's going to be a lot of trouble for not much gain, they will ignore you. I think a news reporter would see it as a way to create a sensational story and get themselves in line for an award, so that's why I'm planning to go to the press with it if I get no response from MDOT. I'll either go to the BDN or one of the TV stations. I won't bother with the Ellsworth American because I don't think they'll do a story that reflects badly on business and tourism. I'd do it myself but I have no outlet in that region. Cynical, huh?
The other route is what some citizens are doing in other cities, which is to show up with cameras and start taking movies and stills, and tell the men we're delivering the pictures to the press ourselves.
I wish we could go back to editing our own messages! I just want to add that I feel bad about it because the men were polite on the day that I was there. One guy even stopped to talk about the weather. But if I had run into anyone having sex, I would have been pretty upset. And if I were a man, I would not have felt safe at all. Also the privy seems to be a message drop and I wouldn't want a child to read that stuff.
In another responce to a thread by haffy, I will post my $.02 here.
I just read the forum about this on geocaching fourms. I agree, a cache like that should be taken away, replaced, or atleast disabled. Without reading the logs to that cache, others wouldn't know what to be aware of, but back to the point, why the hell is there a cache here... Maybe the owner did not know about these "activities" here, but if he did that's just wrong in so many counts.
A new thread? http://www.geocachingmaine.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1584
Before this gets MORE carried away, I'd like to make a suggestion? Everyone just needs take a moment, take a deep breath and remove their PERSONAL BELIEFS from their posts for this topic before submitting them. Going to ANY place for a geocache where people are unexpectedly and openly engaging in sexual acts are hopefully the ONLY issue people are having, not the sexual orientation of the people that meet here for it. A hotel window cache or a cache under the bed of a married couple should be no less disturbing.
To reference this cache as ‘bad’ and also to mention the cache owner by name is completely uncalled for. They haven’t signed into their account for two weeks now and have only found five caches. They hid this in the middle of May, probably way before any of this would have been obvious. They also could have hid it in April as well and waited to submit it to geocaching.com – why this ‘topic’ ever got posted to the groundspeak forums is beyond me. Now there are STUPID posts regarding mosquitoes of all things! A simple e-mail to gpsfun and it would have been over and done with, even though he was already well aware of the situation.
Here at geocachingmaine? Posting a simple ‘Hey, you might want to check out this cache listing before you go do it… just in case’ note and locking the topic on this site would have been the way to go.
I hope all of you are ready to stand behind TAT (no matter what!) if someone comes along and inadvertently does something similar as to what Haffy just did. I'm sure this geocacher is equally as blindsided as TAT would be right about now?
... There is now 2 topics on this and if you read what Attroll said in the other forum --- you might want to read the whole story before basising your opinion...your not making much sense.
It does not matter whether they have signed into there account in two weeks or not. They have been replying to emails from cachers within the last week. So they know the problem but continue to ignore it. We have gotten GPSFUN involved in it and and I am sure it will be taken care of.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoMaine
What I am saying is that gpsfun has already known about this since May 22 and has been following it since then. It's now August and it's getting rehashed times two; you have less gotten GPSFUN involved than you have actually second guessed him.
E-mails or not; if I was that geocacher, I would certainly be 'ignoring' some of the comments I've been reading, lest I go and think that there are way too many ignorant people in Maine.
If ANY of you are thinking that you don't have a friend, child, co-worker or a fellow geocacher among you that is gay or lesbian, it's time to dig yourself out of the 1700's!
Wake up and smell the roses here GeoMaine. This is not about being gay. No one is bashing gay people. It is about doing indecent things at this particular rest stop. You seem to be reading between the lines and find hidden messages that are not there.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoMaine
AGAIN... this is not about someone having lesbian or gay friends, family or whatnot, it's the fact of the matter of what goes on here and people that don't want to be around these sexual acts in the woods. It's not bashing gays and lesbians, but do you see straight people going at it in the woods when you are looking for a cache? No.
You probably don't have kids, but one would imagine you wouldn't want your kids looking for a cache and saying "Look dad!" Think outside the box for a change.
Don't worry about GPSFUN, he is old enough to take care of himself.
Who are you calling ignorant, your not even reading whats going on here are you?
Rick, you probably should go through all of the posts and actually READ them (not just skim them) before you make a blanket statement like that? Not just the last page. ALL of them. I have and there are many examples.
Better yet, just delete both my posts, it's immediately obvious I'm not ever going to be welcome here with an opinion that isn't shared by the masses.
Enough of this. I am not going to keep this going. I will leave your posts up. I will not reply anymore. It seems like you are just trying to lead me on and I fell victim to it for a bit but I am not going to fall for it again. Ta TaQuote:
Originally Posted by GeoMaine
Quite the assumption but honestly, I'm very much used to it. Actually, I do have a daughter. She's six. I already have to explain all too many things to her, us surprising a couple that are having sex on said cache trail would honestly NOT be on that list I want to have to get to anytime soon. In fact, I'm pretty good with never. : )Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Cyr
As to what that couple was actually comprised of? That's the part that wouldn't bother me in the least.
I'm still unsure if I would call this a "dangerous" cache . . . I was uncomfortable and that "little voice in my head" (no, not the one yelling RedRum, RedRum . . . the other little voice ;) :D ) kept telling me that something was going on besides just a few folks taking a break.Quote:
Originally Posted by brdad
My personal take on the whole thing is that there should at the very least be a sticky note or note in the description alluding to the fact that there may be some questionable activities going on here . . . the same words of warning I would expect to see if I was to do a cache has other elements that folks should be aware of (i.e. nearby poison ivy, steep cliff, abandoned well, etc.)
Hmmm . . . you can't be talking about any caches under my bed since I've been married now close to 10 years and about the only thing disturbing under our bed are the dust bunnies . . . well that and my wife has about a bazillion half-completed puzzle books which she has accumulated over the years. ;) :DQuote:
Originally Posted by GeoMaine
Should there be a warning for the lightpost micro at the Wal-Mart parking lot saying its not kid safe. After all there have been several abductions. I agree that I don't want to see the "activity" that is alledged to have happened at the Fitz cache but placing a "attribute" to warn others of such behavior...hmmm. Your cache on top of the mountain,,,one of the first you placed FFJ,,,,should have a warning that there may be partying and "other" activity happening there. That could be a rowdy situation if you arrived unawares. Any cache that is remote should then come with that warning.Quote:
Originally Posted by firefighterjake
It should be implied that anytime someone ventures into areas unknown that they should expect the unexpected. Using the general rules of, "Never put yourself in a dangerous situation." and "Trust your instincts." should keep you out of most trouble. Putting that kind of information in the cache description should not be necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoMaine
I have to say I agree with some points made here . . . it did seem that all of a sudden folks were being whipped into a frenzy about this cache even though it's been operating since May or so. It almost seemed like we were about ready to grab the pitchforks and flaming torches.
I imagine these folks may feel rather blindsided by the sudden barrage of flaming e-mails and in one way I feel bad for them . . . I said my piece a long time ago and after I said what I needed to say about deleting logs without notifying folks I moved on. That said, as others have mentioned, these folks have (or should be) receiving regular e-mails that clearly show a pattern where folks were surprised to find out what has been going on here, many felt uncomfortable and there are few positive comments . . . I know these folks are new, and maybe it's just me, but after receiving more than a few negative comments about the activities going on here I think I would consider archiving this cache myself.
I would hope that folks are more upset about the sexual activity rather than the sexual preference that is occurring here. Honestly, I've done a few caches in areas where a couple is engaged in some activities that are one or two steps below being illegal (at least in public) and I didn't particularly like it then either . . . but the main difference for me has been seeing a single set of lovers versus five or six folks looking for love. Maybe it's just me and my prudish Puritanical ways . . .
I'm not saying I like this cache . . . and in fact quite honestly this was probably one of the worse caches that I've done . . . but that's my opinion.
I was more upset that the cache owners arbitrarily deleted my log entry without me knowing . . . although the issue of other geocachers knowing about the area was important enough to me personally that I sent GPSFun an e-mail about the cache and he put up a note in the log entries which I though was well worded. For me personally, that was pretty much the end of my involvement with this cache . . . although I keep it on my watchlist just to see what other folks think of the cache.
[quote=Trezurs*-R-*Fun] Your cache on top of the mountain,,,one of the first you placed FFJ,,,,should have a warning that there may be partying and "other" activity happening there. That could be a rowdy situation if you arrived unawares. Any cache that is remote should then come with that warning.
Maybe you didn't read the description on FFJ's cache...but he clearly states that it has been known to be a "partying" place.
A place where people occasionally have parties is a far cry from a place where people meet for sexual encounters.
[quote=Mainelyroses]I clearly read it,,,but it doesn't have an "Attribute" associated with it. Where in the description does it say its not "kid friendly." That is my point, we're adults and everyplace we go we should understand that we may encounter something we may not feel comfortable with. The seperation you suggest; "...partying being a far cry from sexual encounters"....LOL..LOL..LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trezurs*-R-*Fun
If you think I''m picking on that cache, your wrong. You could say the same for all my caches. The point I'm making is that even going to Wal-Mart, you have to be aware of your surroundings. But a Wal-mart lamp post cache would not need an "Attribute" saying its not kid friendly because there have been abductions in the past.
Cache On!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trezurs*-R-*Fun
I guess the difference for me is that I have yet to see a single person who has visited the Thrill Cache (much less any of my other caches) mention that they were uncomfortable, that there were people there doing questionable things (i.e. drinking, drugging, cruising, etc.) versus this cache where many, many cachers have mentioned seeing this questionable activity.
To me it comes down to a frequency issue in these cases -- if the problems reported at the Fitz cache were rare then I would say an attribute or even mentioning it in the description would not be necessary, but when nearly every single cacher (or it seems as though every other cacher) has mentioned folks cruising the woods and following them into the woods then I would say it may be indicative of a problem and not just a cacher who is imaginging things or making a mountain out of the proverbial molehill.
As Rose mentioned I did mention in the Thrill cache description (and I know you're only using this as a possible example and not that you have a problem with this cache . . . especially since I actually got the coords right on this one!) that it is possible that folks may be up on the mountain partying -- although in fact I have yet to be up there and see any folks partying, drugging, drinking, cruising, etc. . . . and I will say I have met many folks up there who have hiked up the hill, rode their ATV there, driven up in their pick-up, etc. I added that tag-line just in case folks happen to be doing a cache on a Friday or Saturday evening and just in case there happens to be a party going on. Again, I have yet to see a log mentioning any bad encounters or experiences.
Again, to me it boils down to the frequency of the problem. If say the fictional "Lover's Getaway Spot" has a cache placed at it and cachers often report interrupting young lovers in passionate acts then I would say that a word of warning (maybe even an attribute) might be necessary . . . at the very least I (as a responsible cache hider/owner) would want to post a word of warning since many folks have young children and many folks don't really want to see that type of thing) . . . and if I felt the problem was serious enough I would consider archiving that cache. If, on the otherhand, LGS cache was more hype than reality and/or there were no or an infrequent reports of questionable activity I might not feel compelled to type up some words of warning (of course the definition of "infrequent" is subjective but I would base it on the time the cache is at a site and the number of cachers who have found/looked for the cache).
I do agree with you on one point however -- any cache can be dangerous in the right -- or perhaps I should say wrong -- situation depending on the time of day, location, etc. It is a matter of balancing that risk against one's skills, knowledge, etc. As an example . . . choosing to not do Hole in the Wall at 11 at night in the pitch black after it has rained all evening is probably a good decision. ;) Even simple caches can turn bad . . . i.e. grabbing a dalmatian alongside busy Rt. 1 could prove deadly if a child were to excitedly run into the road to be the first in the group to find the cache (although one would hope that most normal cachers -- OK, maybe a bad word choice with the word "normal") -- would realize the inherent danger of the traffic without being told since it should be pretty obvious (although I have done caches where I have been warned about the traffic . . . and I have at one cache even warned folks to be careful where they park due to the traffic).
OK, enough rambling . . . I'm not sure if I'm even making sense anymore.
I've read the logs for the Fitz cache and while it doesn't sound like its a place I want to be (...thats just wrong in my book) I don't see this "frequency" issue. There are easily as many "good" remarks as there are "neutral" and "bad" remarks. I've read the cache description for the first time and someone even included a "bookmark" suggesting this cache as a place to visit. The attributes say that its not available 24/7 but it does say its kid friendly. Maybe so during the day light hours?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by firefighterjake
My question is, what "attribute" or disclaimer should be associated with the cache that would tell people that they are in MORE danger here than any other rest area in the United States?? What danger are they in?? Has anybody been accosted? Is what the "bad" people are doing against the law?
My wife will NOT stop at any rest area on her way to visit family in Presque Isle unless I'm with her. The implied danger of these areas are universal, why is this one to be treated any differently than every other rest area?? I've heard the what ifs; maybe a young child is with them or what not. I guess as a parent, if I pulled up and saw this activity I would put my childs safety and consideration first and simply leave. I wouldn't continue on to the cache. On the flip side of the coin, I've had to explain to my 4 year old while shopping in Augusta why a man was wearing a dress. There are no signs along my way into Augusta saying that my children may see questionable "things." These things happen and while I don't wish to be part of these alternate lifestyles how can I be assured they will never "see" them. Heck, I don't want to see them. Are we not responsible for ourselves anymore? Just because someone placed a cache somewhere does it mean that we should throw all our "street sense" out the window and assume things will go perfectly. What if someone pulled into your "Thrill cache" and the people partying were rowdy and decided to fight. Even if it was only one time in 25 years, because of it being infrequent it isn't just as dangerous to the individual at that moment? I remember your cache description saying this is a party place but did you say be careful?? Shouldn't a cacher be when entering this area? It was implied when you said a party area and it should be implied when someone says rest area.
The frequency means what in reference to the Fitz Cache?? That a cachers chance of being grossed out are increased, big deal. So then it becomes the cache owners fault for not protecting cachers from being "grossed out." While I don't condone, partake or even want to hear of the "questionable" activity that may be happening there, why should this cache be treated any differently than any other cache?
Cache On!!!
Okay I was the one that started this thread and by no means did I mean it to start arguments over what sexual preference some one is. I wanted to hear the opinions of other cachers about the cache. That is all.....
Rik - I apologize..I didn't realize this thread would turn into what it has.
Team Teebow 2
You aren't in any danger here, but you & your kids might have to see activities, and it does seem to happen daily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trezurs*-R-*Fun
Sorry about closing the thread but I think it has gotten off topic from what it was originally intended. No fault of anyone in particular. I just do not want it getting to the point that it is a hindrance.