View Full Version : Grandkid38 geocache needs rescued.....

04-28-2014, 01:27 PM
Is there someone out there local that could go rescue this older cache?

This is a Grandkid38 cache that needs help....GCKTPT. What a shame it would be to let this one die.

04-28-2014, 08:40 PM
I didn't post where - it is in the Little Rock area.

04-29-2014, 07:53 AM
If a cache owner is no longer active and not maintaining his or her cache, then the cache should be archived, rather than maintained by other cachers. This will then open up the spot for a new cache, placed by a geocacher who will be more responsible. Just because a cache is "older" is no reason to keep it going, if the owner doesn't care about it anymore. Just my opinion.

04-29-2014, 07:16 PM
Don't agree in this case, Frank. Just can't agree.....

Mickey McGillicutty
04-30-2014, 09:55 AM
Dare to be shocked ArkGeo... I agree with ORR! Never thought you'd see that. ;) A date on a cache, it just that... a date.
He doesn't cache anymore, everyone in AR knows that. He hasn't for years. I'd rather find a brand new cache, maintained
by an active cacher, than an old water-logged one that's been lingering on because everyone is sentimental about a date.

12/30/2013 - The log was a little damp from all the recent rains, but is still in good enough condition to sign, so SL and replaced.

10/09/2013 - Log is full and wet, rest of swag is damp. Needs a new log at very least

06/10/2013 - Hi! It's great to have a bigger cache in this location. However, the contents are in bad shape. Everything is wet,
basically gross, and somewhat rust laden. Too bad as I would have loved to put some extra swag in there for the kids.

05/30/2013 - Everything was wet. So I put all the contents in a plastic bag inside the cache. Tftc.

04/17/2013 - TFTC Log was wet, container is taking on water. Stopped in from AZ.

03/15/2013 - There were several logs, but all were wet. Started a new log in a dry new zip lock. Removed some food and dropped some SWAG. TFTC

02/22/2013 - TFTC, left a ziploc with several goodies. Log is damp and moldy.

10/30/2012 - An easy find even in the dark. The log book was a little damp, but signable. Thanks for the fun!

10/14/2012 - This one was easy to find, but the contents were all wet, and the log book was fairly soggy.

07/06/2012 - Easy find. Contents a little damp. Tftc and for helping me keep the streak alive......................

04-30-2014, 10:10 AM
Don't agree in this case, Frank. Just can't agree.....

I can understand a reluctance to let go of the "past". When Grandkid 38 was actively geocaching, I enjoyed his company at events and also enjoyed looking for his hides. And this cache is nearly 10 years old, so I can understand the feeling of respect for older caches.

However, according to his profile, Grandkid 38 hasn't visited the website in over 6 years. I bet that is longer than most of ArkGeo's members have been caching. When one stops geocaching, one should either let another active geocacher adopt the caches, archive them, or at least maintain them, even if one is not going to actively hunt for geocaches anymore. If one is not going to maintain his or her cache after stopping geocaching, then the cache will eventually become geo-trash and set a bad example for new geocachers or muggles who happen to stumble across it. And to block out an area where another active geocacher might want to hide a new cache is just not right.

Regarding the cache in question, other than it being old, there is nothing special about it. I remember the hide, even though it was nearly 10 years ago that I found it. It is not in a special or scenic place. There is nothing unique about the hide, like special camo or the way it was hidden. It is just an older cache. So I think it is time to let it go, if the owner is no longer maintaining it or at least adopting it out to a responsible cacher.

This is one of those topics in geocaching that reasonable people can be both sides of the issue and can agree to disagree. It's just that I see way too many caches that have been abandoned by inactive geocachers, so I am not sensitive to the "older cache" argument anymore.

04-30-2014, 03:55 PM
Well, Mike and ORR have a point. When active, GK38 did a great job maintaining his caches, but he has been off the radar for some time. A few years back we heard he was doing a presentation on caching at a library in west Little Rock. But, he is not dealing with the caches in Burns Park (or elsewhere; near Hot Springs for example). A new group in Burns would be fun driving us back into the park. :D

04-30-2014, 05:33 PM
Here are my thoughts. It a 2004 cache and the cache owner other caches are being archived. It looks like the CO is letting his caches die. If it where a cache from 2000 or 2001 I would say we should save it.