Jump to content

Archive or Not?


Followers 5

Recommended Posts

I am the Groundspeak Volunteer Reviewer for Alaska, I have a watch on the cache and will take action when there is enough evidence that archival is necessary. Right now, there is only one DNF on the cache and there is apparently a throw down container on site. If the cache is archived now, at least one piece of geolitter will be left behind. This is a perfect example of why throw down caches (especially in a remote areas) are a terrible idea. If the Good Samaritan doesn't actually know where the original cache was placed, they run a very real risk of placing a second container in the area that also has the potential to become geolitter.

 

Please consider the following:

1. Whether the Cache Owner was validated or not is irrelevant to this conversation. Validation because a fixture of the site long after this cache was placed.

2. Whether the Cache Owner is active or not is irrelevant to this conversation until a problem with the cache is verified. There are currently hundreds of caches in Alaska with inactive Cache Owners that are perking along just fine. There are tens or hundreds of thousands of caches worldwide without active Cache Owners. When actual issue(s) arise with them, they are dealt with on an individual basis.

3. One DNF does not require archival. The number of DNFs it takes to prompt Reviewer action varies subjectively based on region, number of potential visitors, difficulty of the cache hide, difficulty of the terrain, perceived experience level of the cache seeker(s), and other variables.

4. Considering the date the cache was placed and not knowing the GPS model or experience of the Cache Owner with the GPS, it's very possible the coordinates are significantly off and a fairly broad search area many be required.

Edited by Greatland Reviewer
Link to comment

This cache isn't as remote as people make it out to be, but I recognize that different people have different ideas about what constitutes "remote." There are several newer caches placed in Alaska that I consider to be much more remote or inaccessible than this cache due to technical rock and ice climbing, bush plane chartering, extended river float trips, etc., that haven't yet been found.

 

SPOILER ALERT: for those who don't want the location demystified, stop reading now.

1. Do some homework about gold mining roads and trails in the Seward Peninsula. The winter and summer trail systems form a spiderweb of routes all over the tundra. Study GoogleEarth and other aerial photos of the area. Note where other rocky outcropping are located, especially in areas of transposed or slipped coordinate digits.

2. Fly commercially to Nome Airport.

3. Rent an ATV or hire local with extra ATV to ride about 85 miles up the Kougarok Road (see photo of Kougarok River bridge at that point). Take plenty of fuel and tools (including a metal detector) because there are no facilities out there. Don't go alone or with only a single machine. Alternatively, go self-propelled on a mountain bike for a multi-day epic ride of a lifetime.

4. Choose route carefully based on answers from #1. One may be able to get within 1 km or so of GZ on 10-11 miles of pre-existing road or trail and have an easy tundra walk to ground zero OR one may continue about nine or ten miles up the Kougarok Road until roughly directly abreast of ground zero and cross about five miles of open tundra (see photos) with optional pack raft for crossing the Kougarok River.

5. Come back with a smile on your face with or without a successful hunt because of the really cool adventure involved in getting there and back. The country out there is big, it's amazing, and a visit will never be forgotten.

Link to comment

So what has changed? It still only has 1 DNF from someone who currently has 17 finds, and who can say it needs maintenance without finding it? I think the NAer who joined 3 months ago should settle down. There are caches around here that have 3 DNFs which get archived only because the owner does not respond, yet they are fine and still in place. Hope something like that doesn't happen here. :mad:

Link to comment

It's been visited once, and had one DNF. The cacher who DNF'd it made sure to rehide an other container, to replace the missing one. Asking for this to be archived is like posting an NA on a cache that hasn't been looked for yet, just because you "have a feeling it might not be there". I would only post one if it's almost 100% certain that it is missing. With one visit, there's really no way to know until someone else makes the hike to the cache.

 

I think the cache should be archived after say, three DNF's in a row, unless one of the cachers chooses to replace it again, like it has already been.

Link to comment
unless one of the cachers chooses to replace it again, like it has already been.

I discourage anyone from dropping a replacement cache unless they know exactly where the original cache was located and know for a fact the original container is missing. This goes for any cache, not just the one that is the subject of this thread. My preference for "Kougarok" is that the next seeker remove the throwdown cache and log their "Found It" or "DNF" based on their success in finding or not finding the original container. This would restore legitimacy to the first "found it" on Alaska's oldest unfound cache or set the stage for eventual archival without knowing for certain geolitter would be left behind.

 

Other cachers have dropped "replacement" caches at some of my player account's hides rather than log a DNF and I've had to go out and remove their container because the original was sitting exactly where it was supposed to.

Edited by Greatland Reviewer
Link to comment

I remember getting a DNF on one of my caches and immediately running out to check on it since it was supposed to be an easy find. The ammo can was sitting right there, visisble from the road. On any given day anyone can overlook any cache. I've certainly DNF'ed a number of easy caches myself.

 

I don't see a single DNF as a reason for archival. It's not like the listing is preventing anyone from hiding another cache in the area.

Link to comment

*Big cheer*

 

Do I get FTC?

 

Kougarok found

 

I'm hoping this wasn't an April Fool! :D

 

MrsB

 

Anyone want to go try and find Conch Shell Horn? I think that's the next oldest without a FTF. I looked at the logistics at trying to find it when the 4 Pound Walleye cache was found and it looks fairly doable, especially if you could get 2-3 people to go in on a boat rental/tour.

Link to comment

I'm looking forward to the photos and additional trip documentation, too. I've done the research to pull off the cache hunt which isn't nearly as tough as "Walleye." Fly to Nome with a mountain bike or rent a snowmachine, ATV, or SUV depending on the season, and ride/drive old mining roads to within a few hundred yards of the cache.

 

Given that the Iditarod sleddog race finished on snow in Nome not too long ago, an ATV trip lasting a minimum of 8-12 hours to the location on a day when the temperature range was -8°/+9° F must have been interesting to say the least, especially for a couple without a record of going for high terrain caches. The full story should be fascinating.

Edited by Ladybug Kids
Link to comment

I hate having caches that old getting archived. But when the cache owner is no longer active and someone did a throw down? (and we know how many of you hate that :P ) and it has never been even found which would be different if it had been. I would say it's toast.

Also if someone did replace it, was it where the CO placed it? And years of weather and who knows what how do we even know the replacement is still there. I hear many of you say over and over the CO is responsible for maintaining their own caches. Well there is no more CO to do that.

That and the cache page is more like a forum post.

And one of those cachers complaining and being rude on the cache page, I had to deal with him once when he sent me rude remarks. Not a nice person and is no longer active themselves.

Link to comment

I hate having caches that old getting archived. But when the cache owner is no longer active and someone did a throw down? (and we know how many of you hate that :P ) and it has never been even found which would be different if it had been. I would say it's toast.

Also if someone did replace it, was it where the CO placed it? And years of weather and who knows what how do we even know the replacement is still there. I hear many of you say over and over the CO is responsible for maintaining their own caches. Well there is no more CO to do that.

That and the cache page is more like a forum post.

And one of those cachers complaining and being rude on the cache page, I had to deal with him once when he sent me rude remarks. Not a nice person and is no longer active themselves.

Please see the post I wrote last year about this cache.

 

There are threads in these very forums started by cachers upset about what they perceive as overly aggressive archiving, yet for some reason cachers who have no intention of ever coming even within several thousand miles of this cache have a keen interest in its demise despite the fact the only site visit is a logged DNF by a cacher with relatively few finds who was naïve enough to drop a throw-down cache. I can understand the cache having a curiosity factor because it is the oldest unfound cache in the world, but I don't understand why so many folks feel compelled to tell the local Reviewer to archive a cache they have never visited and likely never will. It's not like the cache is taking up space in their Pocket Queries or is sitting in the middle of a cache-saturated area.

 

With respect to the cache page being "more like a forum post," that's happened because some cachers don't understand cache pages are supposed to be reserved for documenting the cache hunt experience, whether successful or not, and logging the movements of trackables. When the cache page Notes have gotten out of hand, I have directed cachers to these forums to continue the commentary. Beyond that, Reviewers are generally not the Log Police unless the logs contain content that violate the Terms of Use.

Edited by Greatland Reviewer
Link to comment

I hate having caches that old getting archived. But when the cache owner is no longer active and someone did a throw down? (and we know how many of you hate that :P ) and it has never been even found which would be different if it had been. I would say it's toast.

Also if someone did replace it, was it where the CO placed it? And years of weather and who knows what how do we even know the replacement is still there. I hear many of you say over and over the CO is responsible for maintaining their own caches. Well there is no more CO to do that.

That and the cache page is more like a forum post.

And one of those cachers complaining and being rude on the cache page, I had to deal with him once when he sent me rude remarks. Not a nice person and is no longer active themselves.

Please see the post I wrote last year about this cache.

 

There are threads in these very forums started by cachers upset about what they perceive as overly aggressive archiving, yet for some reason cachers who have no intention of ever coming even within several thousand miles of this cache have a keen interest in its demise despite the fact the only site visit is a logged DNF by a cacher with relatively few finds who was naïve enough to drop a throw-down cache. I can understand the cache having a curiosity factor because it is the oldest unfound cache in the world, but I don't understand why so many folks feel compelled to tell the local Reviewer to archive a cache they have never visited and likely never will. It's not like the cache is taking up space in their Pocket Queries or is sitting in the middle of a cache-saturated area.

 

With respect to the cache page being "more like a forum post," that's happened because some cachers don't understand cache pages are supposed to be reserved for documenting the cache hunt experience, whether successful or not, and logging the movements of trackables. When the cache page Notes have gotten out of hand, I have directed cachers to these forums to continue the commentary. Beyond that, Reviewers are generally not the Log Police unless the logs contain content that violate the Terms of Use.

Maybe they just want to see it gone so the next oldest most likely get found.

 

Like a stalled car in the middle of a single lane road and the owner walks away from it and no one can move until a tow truck comes and hauls it away.

Edited by jellis
Link to comment

I don't know why Kougarok not being found would keep cachers from chasing other similar older unfound caches.

 

Your car analogy assumes there is something wrong with the cache. Right now, the only legitimate on-site log is a DNF log. I can only imagine the cries of outrage if the Volunteer Reviewers or an automated Groundspeak algorithm started archiving caches after a single DNF log, active cache owner or not.

Link to comment

I don't know why Kougarok not being found would keep cachers from chasing other similar older unfound caches.

 

Your car analogy assumes there is something wrong with the cache. Right now, the only legitimate on-site log is a DNF log. I can only imagine the cries of outrage if the Volunteer Reviewers or an automated Groundspeak algorithm started archiving caches after a single DNF log, active cache owner or not.

I don't have examples with me but I have seen caches get archived that has never been found and some of those had COs still active. Does any one remember the one called Obelisk?

Edited by jellis
Link to comment

The cacher apparently did not find anything. It appears he left a throw-down just like the last seeker did.

We got a message from Steve that he found the throw down and placed it in a pelicase. So there's one throw down and the original couldn't be found even with a metal detector

Link to comment

The cacher apparently did not find anything. It appears he left a throw-down just like the last seeker did.

 

I might have missed something. Where did it say they left a throw-down?

 

https://coord.info/GC1259

 

Even the Reviewer acknowledges that the "find" is another throwdown:

 

Post Reviewer Note

07/09/2016

 

I am locking this listing and direct cachers to post in this thread in the forums.

 

Cache pages are intended for logging cache activity. Given that there may now be two throw-down caches at ground zero, I'm certain many cachers will have something to say about it. The cache page is not the right place.

 

Post Reviewer Note

06/01/2014

 

I remind interested cachers again that this Groundspeak forum thread, not this cache page, is the appropriate place to hold a debate.

 

I have a watch on the cache and will take action when there is enough evidence that archival is necessary. Right now, there is only one DNF on the cache and there is apparently a throw down container on site. If the cache is archived now, at least one piece of geolitter will be left behind.

 

Please limit postings to this page to "Found It" and "DNF" logs following a visit to ground zero.

 

I'm sure CleverMonkey is quite proud of his "accomplishment".

 

:rolleyes:

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

Geocache Description:

 

Near the beginning of the new world. Remote Alaska. Be prepared for anything.

 

I've been watching this cache for 15 years. The fact that someone went through all the trouble to get to the beginning of the new world finally is just terrific. My hat's off to him. Congrats on your expedition. This is what makes caching interesting. It's the trip, mainly in my opinion, not just the find. Alan2.

Link to comment

The cache description contains a bit of hyperbole. There are many, many, much more remote locations in Alaska. Accessing this cache does not require use of a helicopter or technical skills. It's just a long day trip from Nome. See post #53 for details.

 

Given the location, it is highly unlikely the original container was muggled by humans. However, the tundra growth could have encompassed the original cache and perhaps even throw-down number one in a very thick vegetation mat or the local rodents may have buried it during their burrowing activities.

 

If/when I get to make the trek, I will go with cachers committed to a thorough search, plan enough time for said thorough search, and perhaps even be equipped to spend the night to allow time to check a very large area. The last two visitors to ground zero flew there with helicopters which are expensive to just park on standby, so I doubt either past seeker was able to hunt and probe thoroughly at their leisure.

 

The cachers who placed throw downs rather than simply logging a DNF have continued to tie the local Reviewer's hands. If the DNF string would grow, the Reviewer could act on that. If the thrown down caches had not been left behind, geolitter would not result from an archival.

 

I don't understand why visiting cachers drop throwdown caches when they should DNF. A very prominent cacher dropped a throwdown north of the Arctic Circle a few years ago. Two months ago, I visited ground zero and found the original container and log in a matter of minutes. Ironically, I could not find the throwdown so I could remove it.

 

I also don't understand the entitlement to logging a "found it" some people have just because they took a long or expensive journey. Caching is about the journey, so a DNF can be as much fun/rewarding to write as a "found it" with the right mindset.

Edited by Ladybug Kids
Link to comment

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

Link to comment

I don't understand why visiting cachers drop throwdown caches when they should DNF. A very prominent cacher dropped a throwdown north of the Arctic Circle a few years ago. Two months ago, I visited ground zero and found the original container and log in a matter of minutes. Ironically, I could not find the throwdown so I could remove it.

 

I also don't understand the entitlement to logging a "found it" some people have just because they took a long or expensive journey. Caching is about the journey, so a DNF can be as much fun/rewarding to write as a "found it" with the right mindset.

+1

Yep. :)

Link to comment

Helllllllooooooooo!

 

As mentioned above. There isn't a second throw down. He found the first one. He didn't find the original cache though.

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. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

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. :rolleyes:

Well one of us talked to him after the find and it wasn't you. If you want to accuse him of cheating / lying go out there find the cache and prove him wrong ;)

Link to comment

Helllllllooooooooo!

 

As mentioned above. There isn't a second throw down. He found the first one. He didn't find the original cache though.

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. :rolleyes:

 

The 'find' at 4.5lb Walleye looked like a throwdown too. Cannot find the cache? Throwdown. Is finding a throwdown finding the cache? Nope.

Link to comment

Helllllllooooooooo!

 

As mentioned above. There isn't a second throw down. He found the first one. He didn't find the original cache though.

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. :rolleyes:

 

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. :ph34r: Base on his video and track logs, its questionable.

Link to comment

Helllllllooooooooo!

 

As mentioned above. There isn't a second throw down. He found the first one. He didn't find the original cache though.

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. :rolleyes:

 

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. :ph34r: 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.

 

Link to comment

Helllllllooooooooo!

 

As mentioned above. There isn't a second throw down. He found the first one. He didn't find the original cache though.

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. :rolleyes:

 

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. :ph34r: 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. :blink:

Link to comment

Helllllllooooooooo!

 

As mentioned above. There isn't a second throw down. He found the first one. He didn't find the original cache though.

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. :rolleyes:

 

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. :ph34r: 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. :blink:

 

I followed that trip like many others and although the box did look very clean I still think it was a legitimate find and the track log didn't change my mind. They were on the river navigating to the cache for several days and after arriving at GZ, a short walk back to the boat wouldn't seem to be unreasonable after scoping out the area.

 

Based on the logs on Kougarok it really looks to me like two people were able to reach GZ, neither found the original cache, and both placed throwdowns. There is also reason to believe that it's been gone a long time or even that it never existed in the first place.

 

After Kougarok, there's Conch Shell Horn (GC105E), located on a small island about 60 nautical miles off the coast of Venezuela. Unlike Kougarok, the cache owner has responded to a reviewer as recently as 2015 and posted photos of the cache in place. A couple of years ago I looked at the viability of going after Conch Shell Horn and it would require a bit of work but would be attainable. It's part of the Los Tostigos islands and although not frequently visited, it does appear to be accessible by sailboats and there are boat rental places in nearby Porlamar. on Isla de Margarita. There are several caches on Isla de Margarita and direct flights from Caracas, Venezuela.

 

 

Link to comment

Helllllllooooooooo!

 

As mentioned above. There isn't a second throw down. He found the first one. He didn't find the original cache though.

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. :rolleyes:

 

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. :ph34r: 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. :blink:

 

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? :)

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

Based on the logs on Kougarok it really looks to me like two people were able to reach GZ, neither found the original cache, and both placed throwdowns. There is also reason to believe that it's been gone a long time or even that it never existed in the first place.

Both people who reached Kougarok GZ used a helicopter. Clever Monkey himself stated that "time is money when you're renting a chopper" in his DNF log for "Pilgrim River Cache" and "Mindful of time on the ground $$$" in this Kougarok log, so I doubt either seeker spent much time looking for the original cache before deciding they'd burned enough money or pilot duty time and placed their respective throwdowns.

 

As a "local," I don't feel there is reason to believe that the cache has been gone a long time or that it never existed in the first place. Tundra grows slowly, but persistently. In fifteen year, the tundra could easily have enveloped a micro cache, so slow, persistent probing around the large boulder and other hiding spots within 100m or so (consider the accuracy of some GPS models from that era) could be required. Rodent burial or movement could also be a factor, so digging in rodent piles might also be required. I've had to be persistent to find "lonely" caches that were placed only three or four years earlier. As I said before, if/when I go to GZ, I would go with one or more cachers and be prepared to spend a significant amount of time looking. It doesn't get dark up there at this time of year, so a long day trip or an overnight stay would work. There is an ATV trail only 50m away, so hauling in gear would be easy.

 

Clever Monkey's possible throwdown and subsequent "found it" log will take Kougarok off the "unfound" list. His log states "The cache is now a write in the rain a4 bit of paper and I placed the cache inside a bright yellow pelican type case I had with me for my camera gear." So, what isn't clear is what besides the a4 bit of paper is inside the yellow case; Throwdown #1 or the original cache or nothing? If throwdown #1 or nothing, a DNF is still the appropriate log. If the original container, then history was made.

 

Cleaver Monkey's states in his log, "Is this the oldest unfounded cache ? Some will say yes, some will say no. I won't argue either way." If he truly isn't going to argue either way, he would have logged a "note." Instead, he logged a "found it" which indicates he believes he found the cache, thought it is unclear what he actually found.

 

From that log, there is no way of knowing whether the original container or throwdown #1 were found, and had I been the one to visit the site and found throwdown #1, but not the original, I would have logged a DNF and CITOed out throwdown #1. That would have left the Reviewer in the position of tracking the DNF logs and taking action when he felt it is appropropriate. On the other hand, having Kougarok come off the "unfound" list will take the pressure and attention off the cache until a party prepared to actually spend some time at the site deploys, thoroughly searches the area, and CITOs all throwdowns. In the process, that party may or may not actually find the original container. If they find the original container, they will make history. If they don't find It and log a DNF, the stage will be set for archival without geolitter being left behind.

Link to comment

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).

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

Link to comment

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).

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

 

:lol:

Link to comment

Both the largest FTF in Spain and (previous?) longest FTF in the world had a throwdown+false FTF at the time of the legal FTF claim.

 

Maybe now with a false FTF on Kougarok someone will make a serious attempt and a legal FTF :rolleyes:

 

For a definition of serious see Ladybug post. +1

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...