KUOW73%

Washington’s historic High Rock Lookout ransacked by vandals 82%

By Ian McCluskey0%

6/16/2026, 1:47:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Sunk Cost Effect, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 36.5% saturation with 313 hits. Analysis detected 1,829 faulty-reasoning hits from 857 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.7% and a BS Rank of 82% (3,989 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.80% of the article peer group.

Volunteers are picking up the pieces after a decade of work restoring a beloved Northwest heritage site. 
Washington’s iconic High Rock Lookout tower was nearing the completion of a 10-year volunteer restoration effort last week when an online video reported devastating vandalism. 
The High Rock Lookout, a heritage site and one of the most popular hiking destinations in Washington, had been ransacked by vandals. 
It sent shockwaves through the community leading the restoration effort, and across outdoor enthusiast groups that appreciate the site for its unequalled view of Mount Rainier. 
The video, posted on Thursday by one of two hikers who reported the incident on the High Rock Lookout restoration Facebook page, detailed the aftermath of intense, targeted destruction. 
The front door had been smashed in with blunt force, shattering the doorjamb. 
Metal clasps that had secured the heavy wooden shutters to protect the newly-restored historic windows had been pried off and broken. 
Vandals smashed in the vintage door of the 1931 High Rock Lookout tower in June 2026, after it had been restored by volunteers in a decade-long historic preservation effort. 
Much of the glass panes had been shattered, and several of the windows had been completely destroyed, their fragile woodwork ripped out. 
The destruction went beyond the structure: tools used by the volunteer workers, including an extension ladder and portable cement mixer, were hurled off the edge of the 600-foot-high cliff where the lookout is perched. 
Original milled boards, meticulously repaired and restored, and ready for installation to complete the ceiling, were tossed over the cliff as well. 
“These are some of the best original materials we had,” said Sand Mountain Society board member Rick McClure, who has been helping lead the volunteer efforts at the lookout and workshops off-site, where volunteers learned historic preservation skills. 
“The vandals really spent some time inflicting as much destruction as they could.” 
The violent, seemingly senseless act resulted in hundreds of online posts from people who were shocked by the extensive damage and rallied to support the volunteers. 
Glass panes smashed out in act of vandalism June 12, 2026. 
These historic windows were originally installed in the High Rock Lookout in 1931 and were restored to original condition by volunteers with the Sand Mountain Society over a period of four years before being reinstalled at the lookout in 2025. 
“What many people don’t see is the amount of love that went into bringing this historic lookout back to life,” one supporter wrote online in response to the news of the destruction. 
“For years, people gave up weekends, carried materials, raised funds, donated skills, and worked tirelessly to preserve one of Washington’s most iconic fire lookouts. 
And in a matter of moments, someone chose to damage what so many worked so hard to save.” 
The lookout, originally built in 1931 during the Great Depression, is a historic landmark. 
It has been beloved for generations of hikers who have trekked to the 5,685-foot pinnacle that commands a front-row view of the Northwest’s largest Cascade volcano, Mount Rainier. 
The structure had been damaged by exposure to the high elevation weather as well as vandalism in the years leading up to 2015, when the White Pass Country Historical Museum and Cowletz Valley Ranger District asked the Sand Mountain Society to help save the lookout. 
In 2020, volunteers packed the historic windows of High Rock Lookout on their backs to restore them over the next four years before reinstalling them in 2025. 
In June, 2026, vandals destroyed all the volunteer work. 
For the past decade, volunteers have dedicated hundreds of hours of labor to bring the lookout back to its original condition, salvaging as much of the original wood as possible and painstakingly rehabilitating it piece by piece. 
Oregon Public Broadcasting’s “Oregon Field Guide” has been documenting the restoration since 2020. 
Following the reported damage, Miles Stipek, a law enforcement officer for the U.S. 
Forest Service’s Cowlitz Ranger District, hiked up to the lookout to initiate the criminal investigation and photograph the crime scene. 
The High Rock fire lookout is federal property, managed by the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. 
The vandalism at High Rock is a federal offense. 
McClure said that a hiker came forward as an eyewitness and reported that four people committed the crimes in about two hours from 6-8 pm on Tuesday, June 9. 
The 10-year lookout restoration project had recently made significant progress and was nearing completion this year. 
However, with the extensive damage, the completion will be pushed out to 2027, according to McClure. 
Sand Mountain volunteers had been planning to resume work soon, but now will have to clean up and repair the new damage. 
On Monday, Sand Mountain Society volunteer Haley Kautz hiked to High Rock to assess the possibility of retrieving the historic building material. 
Using a drone to descend the 600-foot sheer cliff, she reported that the rehabilitated historic wood might be retrievable. 
Volunteers involved in this project are asking anyone with information related to the crime to contact the Cowlitz Valley Ranger Station in Randle, Washington, at 360-497-1100. 
This story was originally published by OPB. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.4%Ian McCluskey: 1.7%KUOW: 2.6%Confirmation Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Ian McCluskey: 4.9%KUOW: 3.4%Availability Heuristic6.4%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%Ian McCluskey: 1.5%KUOW: 7.4%Framing Effect0.9%This article: 4.1%Ian McCluskey: 7.4%KUOW: 1.0%Loss Aversion4.1%This article: 1.6%Ian McCluskey: 0.8%KUOW: 1.0%Status Quo Bias1.6%This article: 18.2%Ian McCluskey: 18.3%KUOW: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect18.2%This article: 6.5%Ian McCluskey: 5.7%KUOW: 3.8%Optimism Bias6.5%This article: 2.9%Ian McCluskey: 1.5%KUOW: 1.8%Pessimism Bias2.9%This article: 31.6%Ian McCluskey: 21.1%KUOW: 8.0%Negativity Bias31.6%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Ian McCluskey: 1.5%KUOW: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error1.5%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Ian McCluskey: 6.5%KUOW: 2.0%In-Group Bias10.0%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Ian McCluskey: 6.4%KUOW: 2.7%Halo Effect5.8%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.2%Ian McCluskey: 6.5%KUOW: 1.1%Recency Bias8.2%This article: 1.9%Ian McCluskey: 0.9%KUOW: 0.4%Primacy Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.0%Ian McCluskey: 3.0%KUOW: 4.3%Appeal to Authority6.0%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.3%Ian McCluskey: 1.6%KUOW: 4.1%Hasty Generalization3.3%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 36.5%Ian McCluskey: 23.7%KUOW: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion36.5%This article: 2.1%Ian McCluskey: 1.1%KUOW: 0.8%Begging the Question2.1%This article: 3.0%Ian McCluskey: 1.5%KUOW: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.0%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.7%Ian McCluskey: 4.8%KUOW: 3.3%Anecdotal9.7%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.9%Ian McCluskey: 2.5%KUOW: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.9%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 16.5%Ian McCluskey: 8.2%KUOW: 1.0%Unattributed Quote16.5%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 1.9%KUOW: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 25.1%Ian McCluskey: 12.5%KUOW: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice25.1%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 3.3%Ian McCluskey: 1.6%KUOW: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian McCluskey: 0.0%KUOW: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

857 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers13%attributed speech748writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageRick McClure • 38 words • 100.0% coverageRick McClure • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageOregon Public Broadcasting’s “Oregon Field Guide” • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageRick McClure • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageRick McClure • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Rick McClure

100%flagged-word coverage
96 attributed words88% of attributed speech76% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Unattributed Quote+25.8 ptsWriter: 13.8%Rick McClure: 39.6%39.6%Biased Writer Voice-28.7 ptsWriter: 28.7%Rick McClure: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-3.7 ptsWriter: 3.7%Rick McClure: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.