Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 42 of 42

Thread: The Nature Coservancy Infiltration.....ForestDefenders in Flesh and Blood

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Bangor, ME
    Posts
    6,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CARoperPhotography View Post
    On a side note, were Groundspeak to retroactively require all caches that have been placed to show some sort of proof of property owner permission, or be archived.... how many would survive?
    Another topic that may deserve to stand on it's own...

    I would suspect a lot of good quality caches owned by cachers who are active in the game, feel their caches are worth saving, and are willing to put some work into their cache placements and maintenance. If were were gambling on a percentage, I'd say 24% would remain. I would do my best to keep all of mine.

    It would be sad to see a few older caches go which are great caches but their owners are just no interested. But overall I think it would be a good thing and would support it.

    While many caches would be archived, I imagine a new breed of placements would evolve. Caches would rarely be hurriedly placed, which I believe is a common denominator to lesser quality caches. Possibly fewer caches would be placed by hiders not interested in maintaining them, since they would have someone to answer to. I think cachers would feel more at ease caching in public areas knowing that permission was given for the hide. It would still not be perfect, land changes ownership - sometimes without notice, some hiders would "cheat the system", and some finders would still violate conditions required by the landowner, but it would still be a step up IMO.
    Last edited by brdad; 01-06-2011 at 07:08 PM.
    DNFTT! DNFTT! DNFTT!

    "The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realize it doesn't say anything it's to late to stop reading it..."

  2. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brdad View Post
    Another topic that may deserve to stand on it's own...

    I would suspect a lot of good quality caches owned by cachers who are active in the game, feel their caches are worth saving, and are willing to put some work into their cache placements and maintenance. If were were gambling on a percentage, I'd say 24% would remain. I would do my best to keep all of mine.

    It would be sad to see a few older caches go which are great caches but their owners are just no interested. But overall I think it would be a good thing and would support it.

    While many caches would be archived, I imagine a new breed of placements would evolve. Caches would rarely be hurriedly placed, which I believe is a common denominator to lesser quality caches. Possibly fewer caches would be placed by hiders not interested in maintaining them, since they would have someone to answer to. I think cachers would feel more at ease caching in public areas knowing that permission was given for the hide. It would still not be perfect, land changes ownership - sometimes without notice, some hiders would "cheat the system", and some finders would still violate conditions required by the landowner, but it would still be a step up IMO.
    24% is a very optimistic estimate. I'd say more like 5% if that

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •