Lightning Jeff

We all have to make our own judgments about how much risk we're willing to take on. I think those of us who like to cache in the lesser-traveled areas expose ourselves to somewhat more risk. Who knows what you'll find when you start exploring the stomping ground of the paranoid and criminal. I try to be deliberate about it; I've decided on the measures I'll take when I'm in such places to give myself a fighting chance if I do run into someone who has decided I should pay for some issue in his life. I agree, to an extent. There was some thought put into the location of the bunker, apparently - though it was probably also delusional to think it wouldn't eventually be found, and quickly if he was being sought. While he may not have been intent on hunting anyone down, I have little doubt that if anyone stumbled onto his bunker while he was there - before or after he killed his family - he would have tried and probably succeeded at killing the unlucky hiker/cacher. That's scary. I don't think I could outrun anyone. "They" are definitely out there. But you don't have to be defenseless. There are any number of ways to give yourself a fighting chance. Innocent people should not have to run in fear when trying to enjoy the woods. And innocent people who go out in the woods with no plan would, I hope, at least do so knowing that's what they're doing. I mean no criticism - just a plug in favor of being mindful of small risks that can have enormous consequences.

Yup, there are some good clues in the video, although some of the cuts add some ambiguity. My reasoning for pinpointing the spot I did was: It's at about eye level or so with the powerlines, as depicted in the photo Keller took from the general area of the bunker. He could walk the service road up to the powerlines, as described in media reports (which suggested he could get some kind of trailer to within 200 yards of the bunker) - yet not have to spend a lot of time out in the open under the powerlines. The jumping-off point from the road into the woods is almost exactly one mile from the trailhead area, as described in media reports (describing the trackers walking the powerlines and catching a whiff of smoke about a mile from the trailhead). As _Shaddow_ mentions, this spot appears to be in a buffer that is never likely to be logged. It's also the steepest area that matches the other parameters. On the Bing Maps Bird's Eye view, you can see a culvert under the road, meaning there is some kind of creek here. I think you can even see a well-worn foot path crossing the road and heading up into the woods (perhaps when he only had the backpack, he preferred to stay off the roads as much as possible): And that trail is not in Northwest Trails - needs mapping! That surprised me too. I was also surprised they didn't edit out the footage panning around showing the deputies' faces. It's kind of an odd little video Anyway, I'm not sure why this is so fascinating to me. I have no desire to memorialize or celebrate Keller, and this spot probably isn't even a good place for a memorial to his victims. But it's interesting to think that this was out there for so long, apparently without being noticed, and without his activities - which had to have seemed odd to someone - being reported. It makes you wonder what else, and who else, is out there.

So, would it be in poor taste to see who can guess closest to the actual location of the bunker? (And, I'd assume, future cache location?) If not: http://maps.google.c...013883&t=h&z=17 If so: Well, nevermind.

[Meh. Nevermind.]

I just meant my post in this thread - I updated it. I think Hancock is unlikely to push the issue, if one is simply traveling the road through their property to access the National Forest, not leaving the road and not otherwise causing problems. As far as I know, other than the perennial washouts, there's never been a problem with crossing that short stretch of Hancock (or Weyerhaeuser) land to get to Sunday Lake. (I've done so several times over the last 25 years and saw nary a soul nor sign, though admittedly haven't been there in a few years.) Of course, they've never asked $75 to hike on their property before, either, so who knows. It doesn't seem like they're giving much away these days. But I do think there's an argument in favor of ingress to the USNF land. (I also assure you that is not legal advice!)

Thanks for posting that - and, dang. Guess I'll edit my prior post with respect to Loch Katrine Monster. It's tempting to ask Hancock, except it's probably one of those deals where it's better not to know their answer...

I'm not responding to any one comment here, but just thought I'd express my thoughts on the "commercial" and "pay to play" elements here. I might be accused of being hypocritical, because in prior posts I've groused about the Discover Pass, and yet here I am saying I don't really have a problem with Hancock charging for recreational use of its land. I'm no staunch property-rights advocate, and I know that Hancock/its predecessors didn't pay "fair market value" for the property, but still I can't fault them for looking for a way to make money on what is their private property. (They sold the development rights of the property to King County a few years back, meaning the land can't be turned into another Snoqualmie Ridge for massive profit.) For me, gates with a possibility to gain entry for a fee are better than gates, period. And unlike the state trying to soak us by having us pay two and three times for permits (e.g., one Discover Pass for each car; and you need a Discover Pass even if you buy a daily Sno-Park pass) to use public land, Hancock is selling access to land we don't otherwise have any right to access. I agree that the price seems high, especially if your only interest is in finding a few caches. On the other hand, buying the $225 motorized use permit might well pay for itself if you factor in the ability to collect 5 cords of firewood, and the ability to get back to what may be some great, seldom-fished lakes with native trout populations. Some will pay, some will say no thanks, and that's all fine in my book. I guess my main point is that our activity fights a constant battle against land owners and managers restricting the placement of caches. Here's a vast working forest where the landowner doesn't seem to mind our activity, assuming we pay for entry. There are elements of caching that don't appeal to all of us, so we ignore those elements (e.g., for me, challenges, most virtuals, most micros, most 1-terrain caches). I guess I don't see pay-to-access caches as any different, whether we're talking about public land where fees are required, or private land where fees are required. We all get the difference between those two things, but in terms of the personal decision that has to be made about whether paying the fee is "worth it," I agree with Andrew's point (if I understood it correctly) that there really isn't much functional difference to a cacher.

Valid point. What I can't tell from looking at the maps I have available right now is whether those roads are public/National Forest Service roads. I believe that the road from NF-5700 (which is public) that heads south towards Sunday Lake (identified as NF-5720 in NW Topos) is public. That enters the National Forest, then a branch heads west back out of the NF, and switchbacks up and back into the NF towards Katrine. iMAP does NOT show these as public right of way, but I think that's just because they aren't state or county roads at that point. So, a very good question for the Forest Service: Are all of the NF- prefixed roads open to public travel, even if they cross Hancock land, because they lead to public land? All of these are about the same distance from the road, and yes, on Hancock property. Though I would argue close enough for a quick grab and go without a permit needed, just depends on how strict they want to be about it Yeah, I think one would be pretty safe doing a quick grab for those.

I didn't know there was an "argument." I would guess that if the cache owner was really all that sensitive about the issue, that person might have chosen not to list the cache?? Aw, trust me! As I see it, there are still a few caches that are on National Forest land that are accessible by the public North Fork Road aka NF-5700, though they require a long, bumpy drive and in some cases more: Lennox Mountain View Loch Katrine Monster - Requires crossing Hancock land unless/until the USFS obtains right of way between NF-5700 and Sunday/Katrine - per Shaddow - so you theoretically need Hancock's permit. Blackhawk Mine On the other hand, there are a number of caches on Hancock land - now ostensibly accessible only with a permit: Lake Katrine Falls (just outside the NF) Potty Mouth - Very close to the public road, but coordinates place it on Hancock land Forgotten Bridge at Deep Creek - Very close to the public road, but coordinates place it on Hancock land 1st Summit - Gargoyle Fuller Mountain View Maud Lake Viewpoint Half Way Up to Calligan Lake Getting Loony at Calligan Lake Fuller Mountain One cache, STUMPHI, has coordinates that place it within the public road right of way (according to King County iMAP). As far as I can tell, grabbing that cache would not require a Hancock permit, at least if the coordinates are accurate.

Yeah, because it's a big state secret, isn't it? And here I thought I was defending that listing.

This is BS. (Not as in untrue; as in, well, BS.) It makes sense only to a bureaucrat intent on charging families twice to access public land. And no, of course, a Discover Pass is not enough to park at a Sno-Park; you need both (unless you have the seasonal Sno-Park pass).

Sort of. In reality that cache was placed a few years ago, it just gained a new listing. I don't see a problem with that, maybe because I also don't really see these as "commercial" caches in the same way I would see a cache in a store as commercial. Reasonable people could disagree, since finding the cache does require the finder to "purchase a product or service," to quote the guidelines. But putting aside the "permission for caches on private property" issue, I think it would be unfortunate to lose caches in this area (and I was bummed to see so many archived). I figure if one doesn't want to buy a permit, they can choose to ignore these caches. Yes. It's actually a county road, I believe, but yeah, it's open to the public to its end. It's identified as NF-5700 and North Fork County Road on various maps. That's the "24 mile dead end" (as signed at the beginning of the road), and leads back to National Forest land that is open to all. However, that road does pass through Hancock land that is not open without the permit. Moun10bike's Northwest Topos mapset shows the boundary clearly, and accurately from what I can tell. You're correct that leaving the public road while passing through Hancock land, without their permit, would be prohibited (trespassing/theft of services, theoretically). You also mentioned the "parallel" road. That's actually the Mainline Road in Hancock's parlance and on their maps, and it doesn't lead directly to the reservoir though if one cared to get arrested one could get there from the Mainline.

I don't believe there was a blog post; the blog was, at that point, cobwebs. There hasn't been a single post to the blog between August 2010 and last month. I did tweet, but no one is required to read those (and few do!) - and it was pretty darn mild. Yes, there was an additional note on the cache page that responded to a nasty note left by someone else. Agreeing with you that the cache page shouldn't serve as a debate forum, I deleted both. None of which means you'd never heard of me, which was your assertion. Which is frankly irrelevant of course, except that your incorrect assertion might imply inaccuracy elsewhere in your telling. You had the correct coordinates, and claimed to have solved the puzzle. You admitted that you had help, which as I've said, was and is fine by me. Yes, I might have deleted your log had you admitted that you made no attempt to solve. But again, I didn't initiate that conversation, you did, and I only inquired as to whether you solved it when you challenged my reason for archiving. I have no problem with your disagreeing with what I did - deleting logs by a mini caravan of people who hadn't solved the cache. Groundspeak itself might disagree and that's fine - we're all free to do as we please. If it came to the point that I was forced to accept logs that contradict my intent for my cache, I'd honor their wishes for their web site by not listing puzzles here anymore. I'm perfectly fine being in the minority on this. Just please don't distort what actually happened.

And I will correct as appropriate... I will grant you, the archiving message was a tad testy, but then I wasn't thrilled with a bunch of non-solvers tagging along for the smiley. But "rude"? Judge for yourself. And for me, it truly is not about the numbers. This was a difficult puzzle. Relatively few cachers were able to solve it. That's what I intended. I intended for it to have few visitors. I intended those who did find it to have some sense of accomplishment in having solved the puzzle (even if they might have personally felt the puzzle was lame, which would be a totally fair opinion to hold). Where did I call anyone rude? Isn't that you, Paul, calling me rude repeatedly? As for me demanding to know how you solved the puzzle: I didn't "demand" anything, but I did ask if you solved it and if so, how. Why? My question to you was in response for your disputing a characteristic of the puzzle: I said I was archiving primarily because I wasn't comfortable with how the solution exposed personal information about me. You said you didn't think it did, which led me to question how you arrived at your results - at which point you admitted that you hadn't solved that portion of the puzzle. I have the entire email string, and I'd be happy to post it if you wish to stand by falsehoods. (Because you keep bringing this old issue up in the forums, people around here know who you're referring to when you continue to attack me.) Not true. If the experience left such a bad taste, why not just delete your log and forget about it? I know some solved it on their own. I know others solved it collectively, and/or with hints from me. That's all fine. What wasn't fine with me was people who had made no attempt at solving the puzzle, who had perhaps never even previously looked at the cache page, logging a find. I agree that people play the game differently, and I definitely think a lot of people play it differently now than when I started out. There's nothing I can do about that, but then I also don't have to make my caches available to people who play the game that way. Frankly, given this kind of drama from some numbers-hounds, I frequently wonder why I bother to keep any caches out there. (ETA: And the answer is, there are still people who play with integrity and that is still satisfying.)

I thought that had been gated for many years. I'm thinking of the route via Gate 10 and up what Hancock calls the "Mainline" road. Is there another route? (There was, in more recent years, a way to get through from the Marckworth Forest/Stossel Creek Road up to the Ben Howard Rd. near Sultan, but that's now gated about midway and also probably not what you were referring to.) On topic, I think the new permit scheme is unfortunate, but ultimately I can't fault them for wanting to find a new revenue stream for their private property. Theoretically, this could lead to further development of recreation opportunities displacing some logging activities. Maybe. Okay, probably not.

Well, it's a big forest, so it kind of depends on where you intend to walk or bike to. This is the jumping-off point for a number of caches. Others are further up the main road (variably called Stossel Creek Road or Tolt Truck Trail or Cherry Valley Truck Trail). Approaching another way, this (junction of Cherry Valley and Mountain View) is a great starting point for a number of other caches, and no driving dirt roads required. Finally, Moss Lake Park's main trail connects up with Marckworth trails. There are also a few lesser-known access points. Let me know what you have in mind, and I can probably help.

I wasn't trying to be derisive in my description of those who pay. I pay. I always paid the prior state parks fee, and did indeed feel like a sucker when I was the only one in a crowded parking lot to do so. I know I'll be in a tiny fractional minority when I pay to park just out of a ditch in the Marckworth State Forest. When no one else pays, I'll again feel like a chump. And yeah, I think I can bank on no enforcement there. I'm not advocating violating the law; I can't. I do wish they had excluded lands that they have no intention of patrolling, instead of lumping everything together. (What the hell am I even buying for my permit fee out in the Marckworth? There literally is no maintenance or other benefit to pay for.)

What really bugs me about this is that the state lands I use the most are entirely undeveloped, with not so much as developed parking areas or law enforcement patrols to ensure cars aren't being broken into. I'm talking about DNR land where all of the existing facilities (roads and gates - and that's it!) have already been paid for, I assume, by logging. The fee will buy nothing - DNR will not add user amenities to these areas. And seeing as how I've never seen a DNR vehicle on the lands I'm talking about, if they do patrol the lands for violators of the permit requirement, that will be the only thing the permit is buying - enforcement of the permit requirement! More likely is they won't patrol even for that purpose, as they don't now, and the only people who will buy the permit so they can use these lands will be suckers. The majority of users will simply ignore the requirement. (And really, most of the foregoing probably also applies to state parks.)

Your post is fairly afield of the topic at hand, but since I'm relatively sure you're referring to my cache, I'll correct your exaggeration and omission of information: I did not "delete logs." I deleted one log - the first I can remember deleting in over 6 years of hiding caches. And, the log I deleted invited me to do so; I simply took its author up on that snide offer. I'll be a minority voice here: I see a lot of opinion being offered as fact/official policy. And maybe these people are right, that you can successfully appeal a log deletion if you can demonstrate that you signed the physical log. However, I am the owner of the cache. It's never happened to me and so only theoretical, but if Groundspeak or any other listing service were ever to preclude/reverse my deletion of a log on a difficult puzzle because the finder clearly didn't solve that puzzle (but used the opportunity to leave a snide comment), the listing service would lose my free content. Maybe that sounds petty, but frankly, the satisfaction of coming up with a difficult puzzle is severely undermined if the listing service mandates that I allow a parade of non-solving tag-alongs to log the "find." I'm glad it hasn't come to that.

I've read this entire thread, and the one at WSGA, with interest, frustration and no small feeling of irony. As much as it pains me to say so, I'm in agreement with the sentiment that this cacher's behavior warrants suspension or banishment. Frankly, this cacher deliberately chose to ignore accepted norms (even if not hard-and-fast "rules") for moving TBs along. Then, when the issue was (apparently) presented to him pointedly, he deliberately chose to continue to ignore those norms, and to ignore the expression of concern from people he presumably once had respect for. He chose to do so, I assume, knowing that he was frustrating the well-meaning intentions of hundreds if not thousand of fellow cachers, who spent thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars on those TBs. How deliberately indifferent to the game's norms do you have to be to get banned? As for a disability: If he has one, I'm sorry he does. However, sometimes one's actions stemming from a debilitating disability will indeed lead to consequences, including the loss of friends and loss of access to recreational opportunities. The answer is to seek treatment, not ask the entire community to please accept his long-term and unyielding disregard of the community's norms. If he refuses to seek treatment, then I see a natural consequence in suspension or banishment. Is it really any favor to him, if he is sick, to allow him to continue to obsess over accurate statistics when it seems they never will be?? Maybe being locked out of his obsession is just what he needs. Finally, I think the concern about getting his current hoarded stash of TBs logged and back out into circulation is probably largely a lost cause. It's nice that he's deigned to release a tiny fraction of the TBs he's scooped up and held hostage. At the same time, let's be clear: He's almost certainly still out there scooping up more TBs, and not logging them. Better, I think, to perhaps sacrifice those currently in his possession, and prevent further loss, than to wait it out and naively expect that someday his inventory will be back down to zero. And I say all of the foregoing with full respect and appreciation for the people who have tried to work this issue behind the scenes - that is undoubtedly worth far more than any amount of bloviating in this forum.

This effectively closes the trails to most users when you consider families. Seems extreme to me. Gotta wonder how this would be enforced. Not sure the last time I saw a DNR employee on DNR land - possibly never. (So it turns into one of those fees that only us law-abiding suckers pay. ) At any rate, I'm thinking this proposal is DOA in the new legislature.

This is why I belong to WSGA. Well done - and thank you!

It's not clear from your post: You do know you have to run Garmin BaseCamp or MapSource, right? Install one of those first, then install the NWTrails (and/or NWTopos) mapset. You should be able to get it to work, and it's worth the effort - great maps!

And, picking up on the other side of the Snoqualmie River, it's there from SR 203 all the way east through the Marckworth State Forest to "no man's land" (approaching the regulating basin - no trespassing).

Any opinions on the Sevylor inflatable canoes, such as the Colorado?