Brian, Brian, Brian -- You need to learn not to post anything to this
list till your hangover stops raging.

You act like we're all idiots and you hate us all.

I can not wait to read the fallout from this one.

Soberly, Mary

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Brian, Ryan & Lori"
wrote:
> As many boxes as I've lost (and it's
> 50% of what I've planted)
>
> Let's face it, if you are losing half of the boxes you are hiding
you
> shouldn't be hiding boxes at all. You give us all a bad name and
> maybe you should take up another past time. When someone finds your
> box in the woods they don't think of it as anything but litter, and
> dispose of it properly, save them the time.
>
> Brian
> TeamGreenDragon

daughteroftheolddominion@yahoo.com writes:


> I can not wait to read the fallout from this one.
>

I think there's only one appropriate response to this. I now have to plant
a box in Brian's honor.

DebBee


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sorry, but I agree with Brian. The point is that if we're hiding
our boxes properly & tending to them with care that people outside
of letterboxing shouldn't be finding them AT ALL & hopefully they
won't be disappearing. Now, if you planted 2 boxes & 1 of them is
missing & that's your 50%, that's one thing. If we're talking 10 of
20 boxes, perhaps you might want to rethink your hiding techniques
or placement.

It's one thing if careless boxers leave your box out in the open-
that has happened to all of us. But with a ratio that high, I would
start to look for better hiding spots, deeper cover, & better
camouflage. Good luck & don't give up!

Happy Hunting!
The Family

> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Brian, Ryan & Lori"
> wrote:
When someone finds your
> > box in the woods they don't think of it as anything but litter,
and
> > dispose of it properly, save them the time.

Well, we're all used to Brian now, aren't we? :-)

Extremely course in his responses, but always well-meaning if you
read between the lines.

With my limited exposure to Sir Green Dragon himself I think he's an
asset to letterboxing, even if I can't condone his blunt and often
harsh posts.

So, DebBee, let me translate and, to the extent I can, soften the
message:

There is little we can do about careless letterboxers finding our
boxes and failing to rehide them properly except continue to try to
educate them on why it is so important to rehide well.

There is little we can do about animals that dig up our boxes or
pull them into the open except try to be aware of where we hide the
boxes in the first place and be sure not to include anything in the
boxes that might attract such critters.

There is little we can do about non-letterboxers who just happen to
stumble upon one except do our absolute best to hide our boxes well
in the first place and perhaps not hide them in places that might be
obvious to non-letterboxers to look into.

Boxes will go missing and "die".

There is no official or unofficial study or survey that attempts to
figure out what percentage of boxes placed have been lost due to
these or other reasons beyond the placer willfully retiring the
box. It's hard to say, then, what a reasonable attrition rate is.
We strive to make it 0%, of course.

However, what I believe alarmed Brian in the post was the statement
that 50% of boxes placed had been lost. Despite the lack of some
study or evidence, this appears, on it's surface, to be a very high
attrition rate. Although it's entirely possible that all of those
boxes have been lost due to careless finders, animals, or accidental
finds by non-letterboxes. As another poster said, if the number of
boxes placed was low -- say 4, and thus the number lost was also low
(2), then this is entirely plausible. I do not know if you really
meant 50% or were using a bit of license. I do not know if you've
listed all your boxes in the LbNA database, or if the ones that are
there are only the ones that survive.

However, if of the 14 boxes you have listed, 7 of them are gone, it
might (and in my most diplomatic tone let me emphasize MIGHT) be
that the reason you are losing so many is that something about the
way your are placing your boxes is greatly increasing the likelihood
of their disappearance. This could be any of the following:
1. Using containers that are too big for the hiding space, thus
making it challenging to adequately hide the letterbox.
2. Picking hiding places that are less than ideal for a box --
hiding places that invite non-letterboxers to explore, for example,
or areas that are so highly trafficked that you unintentionally
invite non-letterboxers to find them. Remember, gardeners,
landscapers, and maintenance men can be enemies to letterboxes too.
3. Not fully hiding the boxes or leaving part of the box exposed.

Other possibilities exist.

This, I believe, is the point Brian was making in many fewer words
than I'm using now. Make sure that the reason you are losing so
many boxes isn't you.

Kind regards,
CPAScott

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, StDebb@a... wrote:
> daughteroftheolddominion@y... writes:
>
>
> > I can not wait to read the fallout from this one.
> >
>
> I think there's only one appropriate response to this. I now
have to plant
> a box in Brian's honor.
>
> DebBee

Oh, I don't know - I've always thought of Brian as the boxer most
likely to go "postal" - maybe a PLB would be best. ;-)

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "lynne_c_doyle"
wrote:
>
> Best make it a HitchHiker, I heard these get killed off quickly
and
> quietly.
>
> Lynne C Doyle

>
> Best make it a HitchHiker, I heard these get killed off quickly and
> quietly.
>
> Lynne C Doyle

Nothing ever dies. Maybe you need some pseudo-HitchHikers.

The Gothic Go-Suto