I too agree with Ken's conclusions on better trail marking. But why so much discussion to get there? They are simple and obvious.
I also have to take exception to the premises that got Ken to these simple conclusions. First, that the family would not be reading this thread. Anyone reading this forum interested in the SAR process for any reason should be presumed to be reading this just as much as the other.
More importantly, I think the implication that the SAR was not looking in the right places is grossly unfair and unfounded. Just because we think a particular area was the highest probability does not mean that any other possible area should not also be covered. There is not the least evidence for Ken's presumption that "it took 5 days to actually look at the area".
The family can be assured that massive and highly competent resources were devoted to this effort: an Army Chinook for criyin' out loud, Sheriff, CHP and SEKI choppers, upwards of 70 people on the ground. And, sorry, but the idea that this being a rescue rather than recovery lead to overlooking the eventual location is just silly and shows a complete lack of appreciation or understanding of the effort that these teams made. ISO never said he was found at the bottom of a cliff, and the speculation to that effect is baseless. The SO release clearly said "in a steep chute", which implies to me a well-hidden spot that could quite reasonably take 5 days to locate given the amount and character of terrain that needed to be covered.
It comes down to very simple and obvious solutions: better trail marking in that area and more education on the importance of groups staying together especially descending late in the day. I don't think that the overwrought discussion at the top of this thread or second-guessing the magnificent SAR effort here contributes to that in the least.
