Vandalism?
I’m disappointed, frustrated, sad, … I had to archive a second cache: Allemaal beestjes II GC1QT4F.
I have noticed that this cache wasn’t logged for a while now. So I took a look last Friday in order to check what the reason could be. Once there, I was relieved that it was still there. It wasn’t on its place anymore, but the wire was clearly helpful. But when I tried to put it back again it wouldn’t stick on the nail anymore. When I had a closer look, I discovered that the lower part of the nano, which holds both the magnet and the logbook, was vanished.
© www.ukgeocachers.co.uk
This is the 4th time that something happens with my 2 nano caches. One could argue that an animal was (twice) the cause of the problems with my first cache, which was a nano glued in a snail’s shell. But I can hardly believe that an animal is interested in a plastic finger bear puppet with a nano glued in it. That version vanished rather immediately and my second attempt was a wooden ladybird on an wooden apple with a nano glued in it. Seriously, I don’t see an animal unscrew the bottom of a nano, take it along and leave the top intact. There must have been some human intervention in this case. Are muggles so interested in these caches or think that it doesn’t belong there whilst leaving the rest of the junk in the wood(s)? Or is it a geocacher who’s looking for some spare parts for nano containers or doesn’t like the caches? I can only call it vandalism. This might seem some wild accusations and I need to be rather careful not fall into the trap to take the wrong conclusions.
Speaking of, something simular happened this week in the BE GC forums. Somebody logged a multi and explained that he could find the stash despite not finding last 4 (out of the 6) WPs. Another geocacher (related to the owner) had his doubts on the log and posted some remarks as a note to the cache. The logger sees this as he has been put in the pillory and start a thread on the BE forum, which ends in a typically ‘ill may the kiln call the oven burnt-tail’ discussion. Luckily some other posters point out that things were better discussed in private. I don’t want to stir up things again, but one’s right. Both parties didn’t use the most efficient way to discuss this matter.
