Lee!

I'm going to believe they made it back to the boat, then remembered they forgot to sign the log.

I understand the desire of not wanting to log a DNF after that kind of journey but it seems like the right thing to do when you didn't find the cache. Clever Monkey DNF'd Pilgrim River Cache (https://coord.info/GCQ6JV) the same day which hadn't been found since 2008. So maybe CM did actually find RyAk's replacement cache as has been stated which is still an accomplishment but leaves the 'true' FTF up for grabs. The sad thing is that with a found log now on Kougarok it won't show up on anyone's lists if they weren't already aware of its status. IF the original container is still in the area it's either moved or buried. There may never be a 'true' FTF but IF kudos go out to anyone for an FTF when leaving a replacement cache at GZ they should go to RyAk in 2008. RyAk has photos of himself at GZ just like Clever Monkey but only wrote a note instead of logging a find because he didn't find the cache.

No he didnt. If he did... he would post pictures of the cache. In situation like this... ALWAYS take pictures of the cache. Nobody is going to believe it. The 'find' at 4.5lb Walleye looked like a throwdown too. Cannot find the cache? Throwdown. Is finding a throwdown finding the cache? Nope. The jury is still out about that cache. Base on his video and track logs, its questionable. There is more than one video including opening the original 4.5lb Walleye container with original contents and cache note. If that was a throwdown they took the time to not only take a duplicate container with them but duplicates of all the original contents. They were also congratulated by the CO on the forums for 4.5lb Walleye after the find. Had you see the track log? He went back to the boat to get the replacement cache. The box was way too clean and ziplock bag was too clean too...There should be moisture and there was none. So the cache was a throw down. If you want people to believe that he didnt put a throw down, the video should be unedited from start to finish. You can see that they been digging around looking for it. Yes, I remember the track but there are multiple other reasons to go back to the boat. They could have been going back for the hatchet, water, camera, etc. They could have been going over to the water to rinse off the dirty container they had just dug up (they went back to the water at different spots at times so not always back to the boat). They showed the original log and cache note hand-written by the CO which would have been stupid to do for someone putting out a throwdown. The CO congratulated them and would have had access to the video (don't know if he watched) and could have easily said "that's not my..."(handwriting/container/fishing lure) but never did. My apologies to everyone for the diversion from Kougarok. It would be nice to hear confirmation from Clever Monkey that he did get FTF on 'Kougarok 2' as RyAk called it and only left the new container because of the condition of RyAk's container. The log only mentions the new container and not RyAk's. Since CM left a new Pelican case there's no reason not to post a picture of RyAk's container. With a location this remote that only gets visited every 7 or 8 years anyone going deserves props even for a DNF or placing a replacement. Maybe in 2024 I'll head up and see how many containers I can find. Anyone want to join?

No he didnt. If he did... he would post pictures of the cache. In situation like this... ALWAYS take pictures of the cache. Nobody is going to believe it. The 'find' at 4.5lb Walleye looked like a throwdown too. Cannot find the cache? Throwdown. Is finding a throwdown finding the cache? Nope. The jury is still out about that cache. Base on his video and track logs, its questionable. There is more than one video including opening the original 4.5lb Walleye container with original contents and cache note. If that was a throwdown they took the time to not only take a duplicate container with them but duplicates of all the original contents. They were also congratulated by the CO on the forums for 4.5lb Walleye after the find.

For a cache like this claiming FTF after a throwdown (the 2nd throwdown) seems like bad form. If anyone should have FTF it should be RyAk from 2008 when the first throwdown was placed and Clever Monkey isn't claiming FTF in his log. It was 7 years before RyAk was there and now 8 years before Clever Monkey made the trek to GZ so still a very lonely cache and quite an accomplishment. It's safe to assume that if the original container is there it is buried or has drifted over time so who knows where it would be. It was smart thinking to take a metal detector and would have been great if it had detected something. I'm not even sure what the original container was so maybe the metal detector wouldn't have mattered. While this isn't as exciting as when Stormgren-X found 4 1/2 Pound Walleye (GCDFB) which was so much fun watching the spot messenger updates, pictures, video and the original cache container dug up at the end but a trip to Kougarok is an adventure most cachers will never make. Congratulations Clever Monkey

I want to voice my agreement for this idea. Knew somebody had probably suggested this before, did a search and sure enough. Ran a pocket query today (end of July) and several events from April are still showing up. I normally try to say something directly to the Event Host via PM or maybe write a note on the cache page before putting an NA but all of that seems unnecessary. A week is more than enough time after an event for most people to get in their logs. I personally always tried to archive mine within a week or two and have never had any complaints. And since nothing restricts people from logging after archiving I would fully support 7rxc's idea of automatically archiving the next day. Geocaching searches, maps, and PQs are supposed to show cachers something than can go find. Events after the date are no longer findable so why should they be there? And for the Event Hosts that want to keep the same GC number for multiple events (which seems wrong to me, I thought that wasn't allowed any more), they would just have to update their event date prior to the archiving time limit.