-Hawk-

Looks like Shop99er and I will be up for this one. Not to be confused with Shop99er, this is my question, Are the Frito Pies still planned? . I Really gotta getta taste of that infamous goodness!

Welcome Ice and Wind! The is no surprise either. Appreciate the help!

The only thing that I see, is that the OP posted an honest question, and the thread went awry. He hasn't even posted anything since 18 posts ago, out of the 34 total here. And even then, he seemed in a defensive stature. Pretty sad as I see it. This thread started as a simple honest question.

SHOOSH...50 Waypoints !!! I was surprised to hear awhile back, that a local cacher was working on a bakers dozen cache, but that is only 13 WP's, not 50. Gotta say that I would more than likely not consider attempting this one, plus as mentioned, it seems that it would take space away from others in the locale, that could use the room for a fantastic cache. I am sure, with having to place 50 containers, the quality of those hides would diminish as the hiding of all those WP's would continue. I really enjoy a good quality hide.

No, it will be just Kitsap County.

How are you going to do this? Place a cache there yourself, or allow the first person that places a cache in that page, claim that page as found?

So, How did it go today?

Forgot till just now... , Congrats to Shop99er and TTUMS on 2400 last weekend!

No panick here! Not gonna make it on that weekend anyways. The weekend before=good, the weekend after= good, just not that weekend. Thanks for the planning anyways. Have fun, and don't forget to stop by the Big Sky Brewery while in town. Yummy!

I do think you are correct in your thinking. Although, I do a have a couple of additional thoughts on that. One being, that if the final WAS to be put on Blake Island, then as I referenced in post #16 of this thread, it would really put the "Challenge" in Kitsap County Challenge. I was able to figure out how to get there a year and a half ago to find them, and there was no challenge in place, so it is possible. Such as a group effort, that has been done at least once before by some area cachers...like a mini machine if you will. Creativity would definitely be a must. Second of all, in regards to finding that page, W7WT, mentioned that Southworth is on that page, so finding a cache on Blake Island to satisfy the requirements to gaining the final coordinates, is a moot point. Next thought, is, like any challenge....it just isn't everyones cup of tea. There are some challenges, that not everyone will be able to complete...in my case the Washingtons Highest Caches Challenge (I believe is it's name), just not gonna happen for me. Lastly, this is still in a very early, non-formal planning process, and it is just as likely that the final will NOT be on Blake Island as it being OFF Blake Island. Plus I am not sure that I wanna make a required maintenance run to it every 90 days, AND am still not sure that I will be the one heading this up. Keep an open mind, and keep the ideas and suggestions rolling. Ya Dick pretty much said what didn't have to be said. Logging finds twice is, in general, a caching practice that in frowned badly upon anyways, (probably ending in the result of your second "found it" log being deleted, and also making a bad name for yourself), why would it be allowed in this challenge? If you have all of the caches in a particular page already found, then you would be waiting for a new one to be put out in that page. And to stop the question before it is asked....placing a cache in a page would not qualify as clearing that page for the challenge. I believe Jon was allowing that for the Delorme Challenge, and I am not sure if he still is, but that was an area covering the entire state, not a county. I think this rule would help prevent, to a certain level, from poorly thought out film canister caches, just being tossed and strewn throughout the county just to complete this challenge. I believe, and am sure alot of people would agree, that enough of those are littering the county already.

...........no seriously....... . That would be downright mean, to make a cacher find a way over there to get a cache for the requirement, just to have to figure out how to get there a second time to claim the final. Again, I stress... It's all on your conscience now, my friend.

As Hawk pointed out, all of the cache on Blake Island were removed, and it sounds like there will be no more. Ajetpilot and I took my boat from Manchester and had a very enjoyable day finding all the caches there a few years back. Because of a shoulder injury I have since sold my boat. Yes, I agree Blake Island should be left out and besides it not on any of the pages. Thank you dick My mistake Dick. I remember back in November or December of 06' there was a big "to-do" about the hides on Blake Island, not being hidden with permission of the Park Rangers, and then the archival began. Snookie and I had just gotten all of them on the Island a couple of months prior, so I paid it no mind after that. I am now looking, and it appears, that since then, there has been the customary rules enforcement of the parks dept. put into place, where the cache owners have to do a mandatory maintenance check on those caches every 90 days, two of those caches still remain active. I think that if a requirement to get at least one of those two surviving caches were in place, it would truly put the "Challenge" in the Kitsap County Challenge.

Just got back to my hotel...long working days here. 14 hours today. All caches on Blake Island were required to be archived and the containers removed from the island, quite some time ago, so that is not an issue. I will have to do some research on this when I get home. I haven't even seen a road runner, or even a thomas guide.

Yah, what she said, just in less words

There are reasons behind each & every rule. In order to prevent some cachers from claiming finds on un-maintained caches just to log caches in counties they've never set foot in, I do not allow archived cache finds. Not to Hijack the thread, but I don't honestly think that that is a completely valid reason for excluding finds on caches that have been archived since I posted a find on them. In the entire state, how is a challenge cache owner to determine if a particular cache is un-maintained? If there is no maintenance logs by the owner, does not mean it isn't being maintained. If a challenge cache owner is basing it on previous log entries to mine, showing this cache is not being maintained, then I think it should revert to a case by case basis on wether or not it should be included in my finds towards the challenge. This would seem to me, to be ALOT of work on the challenge cache owners part, and possibly create a biased situation. Is claiming finds on "un-maintained" caches that were never visited, that prevelant of a problem compared to the theoretical possibilty of a cacher claiming an armchair cache on one that appears to be maintained, yet logsheets are not compared to online found entries by the cache owners, thereby giving a cacher one more find towards completing said challenge? Even if that log was found to be invalid and deleted by the cache owner, due to no signiture in the logsheet, after the challenge was completed, the "found it" log still served it purpose, to complete the challenge. The challenge owner would never know that after the fact. I feel that it is all the same...both are extreme, and unlikely situations, thereby not needing a restriction, on either one. I hope I was able to get my point on this subject out in a understandable way. Not trying to step on any toes, I am hoping I am able to relay my thoughts and make sure every aspect is out there. I had a county cache discounted due to it being archived since my logged find, but, I will deal with that one. I gotta go through that county anyways to get others beyond it. If it was the last county in the NE corner of the state, and it was the last county I needed, I would feel differently. I would then have to make a trip over there, based on a technicality. WHY didn't I think of that?!!! How absolutely brilliant. That would've pleased the majority and prevented all the flaming I was getting over the whole thing. Agreed - that is brilliant! I'm thinking the first 5 are "new" (from zero) contestants - then we open to the world. That means the world can start on it immediately, but it will be a month or so before the first 5 or so log and then everyone else can. Does that work for everyone? Works for me! I think it is a great idea to implement.

Sorry you had to feel you were talking to yourself Dick. I spent the day commuting to Kansas City for work, and am just now getting to email, forums etc. I love the idea of having a Kitsap County challenge in place. I am lost, thinking of what all it would entail to get it up and running, ie. polygons, filters, etc. If I had a better understanding of how all that works, I would be more apt to jump right in, but I don't. If someone wanted to work with me on it, then I certainly would be interested!

Sounds like a great idea Dick, but I really don't think I am the man for that job.....maybe the Kitsap county cacher, that is "The Man" when it comes to challenge caches, Ruck would like to do the honors. Seems fitting to me! Of course when would he have time to set something like that up, he is too busy completing the other challenges out there, maybe even twice. Now, thats a great idea!

You forgot to add the , TL! If my diet and time will allow, I am good with the Redhook choice as well. I also guarantee my diet (speaking on it's behalf) will agree . Time is the issue, on whether I will be back from a work trip to KC or not by then.

I agree whole heartedly with PP and Dwoodford. If you do a challenge cache, it will be worked on by many, but as PP said, and I agree, the date restrictions really put a damper on the whole thing, and kinda turns me off too. Another restriction I have a problem with on other challenges is not being able to log a find on a cache that is within the date allowance, but has since been archived. It was still an active cache when I found it, it is still a "found" cache in my stats, it should count no matter what. Don't take a legit find away from me when I found it, and the owner decided to archive it 6 months later...it is still a find. I will follow this topic, and I wish you luck. As Dwoodford said, it is another "doable" challenge, and not the WDC or WSCC, that will take me several years to complete. I live outside of King county, but it is no where near as far as the SE corner of the state. In short...yeah, I am interested. Edit to add: If it has a log sheet it is good to go.

It would be interesting to see what Jeremy envisions for this sport 10 years from now.

Through previous experiences, the drive through Anaconda (HWY 1 off of I-90, West of Butte) and Philipsburgh towards Georgetown Lake is a great one, this would fulfill your SW portion of the state info request. The last I heard, my two daughters, had a grand ol' time doing some ice fishing on Georgetown Lake, as well as some snow catting on the various trails in the area during the Christmas time. As far as commodities, I will have to get back to this thread on this one. I know there are some spots that may be of use to you in that area, but I need to verify info, and will post here to help you out. Not sure if this too far west for ya. Stay tuned!

Your welcome, and keep me posted, I hope I can make one of them. I believe that is highway 530, not 520

I mentioned on the Event listing, but I will do so here as well, that due to a business trip to Kansas City over that time period, I won't be able to attend . You can go ahead and pull me off of the reserve list and open it up to some other lucky soul that CAN attend. Maybe the next time. It was definitely something I wanted to attend.

Very Cool! Thanks for sharing Chooch!

Thanks klossner for the linky thing. Neat to see, and actually surprising how few logs, seeings how long it has been around.