neesaki
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,611
- Reaction score
- 46,683
That part really makes zero sense to me. Why wear all camouflage clothing on a hunt in the wild?And if they wore it in TN, why not AK?
That part really makes zero sense to me. Why wear all camouflage clothing on a hunt in the wild?And if they wore it in TN, why not AK?
Can you provide the photo or a link showing the pic of 3 sets of antlers? I have only seen the photo with 2 sets next to the tent.
SK & BC are U.S. citizens so they would not fall under the nonresident alien requirements.
A man beloved by his family, friends & community is not coming home.
While it is important to look at what these hunters failed to do, I feel like we are piling on criticism now.
It is legal to hunt caribou without a guide off the Dalton Highway if you are a U.S. citizen. Have we heard if any government or search authority (BLM, AST, SAR, State of AK, etc.) is fining or billing these hunters for not following regs or for search costs?
Even if their hunt had been better planned & they had followed all regs, Steve still might have died. Even on a guided hunt, the outfitter sites are clear: the hunter determines whether they are up to the rigors of a tundra excursion & assumes all risk. Basically, the risk of injury or death is always there due to terrain, unknown pre-exsisting health conditions, accident, etc. It is assumed the client has seriously measured that risk.
I appreciate everyone's diligence in researching the failures here. All hunters attempting any kind of tundra hunt could learn a lot from this tragedy.
I hope they do. It would be great if another good person does not meet their death on the Northern Slope. But fate still exists even with a more "perfect" execution of a hunting trip in wilderness. And fate to me is man vs the environment. Let's not forget man is not the only predator on the tundra.
JMO
Why is the family so upset with Alaska government, SAR, etc.? In part because of what you expressed. But in larger part because in AK, people are often not rescued or recovered after the first attempt due to the danger to rescuers. The calculation made there seems callous to many in the Lower 48 but it is not hard-hearted, it is meant to keep those who are living, still living.Here's the thing: It can be assumed by anyone and everyone that the client has "seriously measured the risk and has made an educated judgement to assume those risks." However, we live in a culture wherein.... we rescue people. No matter what. No matter that folly may be involved. And people have come to expect that.
Truly, it would be another matter if this were not so, but it is. In this day and age, anytime we get ourselves into a dangerous predicament the expectation and reality is that people will come to the rescue, often at great risk and expense to themselves. It's just a reality. Knowing that, it becomes incumbent on everyone to seriously measure the risk -not only to ourselves, but to others as well. The likelihood that we may need rescue, and the risk of those who would be doing the rescue.
I understand that this family is going through their worst nightmare, but day in and day out we read of people who put others in danger because they attempt a hunt, a hike, a climb, or some other event ill prepared and put rescuers at risk (sometime leading to death) but have little tolerance for those who would question or critique.
I don't know whether he had breakfast or not; however, that post was directed by the family, and posted at the request of the family. So to me, that carries more weight than a piece written by a reporter who isn't speaking on behalf and at the request of the family.Snipped for focus
No one until now said SK had breakfast, so the post was out of line with everything that had been said already. The detail was that SK had coffee. Breakfast was never mentioned.
Bad habits die hard? Commercial outlets push wearing camouflage? Lack of education about the danger to humans? Lack of understanding about how the species you are hunting sees you?That part really makes zero sense to me. Why wear all camouflage clothing on a hunt in the wild?
Snipped for focus...PTSD? I'm not sure SAR volunteers should be signing up to volunteer if they are not willing to take on the mental & emotional risks.
I guess I'm not sure whether that was the family that made the statement. I understood it was the person who was running the FB page. But then again, that's a problem with SM... no way to tell clearly what the source is.I don't know whether he had breakfast or not; however, that post was directed by the family, and posted at the request of the family. So to me, that carries more weight than a piece written by a reporter who isn't speaking on behalf and at the request of the family.
The timeline has them shooting two, but they had three sets of new antlers.But according to the now-removed timeline, “On August 22 they hiked west to the 5 miles point to hunt Caribou. This would be approximately 2 miles west of the lake camp. His hunting partner shot a Caribou on the 23rd, Steve shot a Caribou on the 24th,” so that makes it two, right? SMDH … sorry.
Other than the caribou meat, bottled water and coffee, do we know what drinks and foods the gentlemen had ready access to at the camp the morning Steve disappeared? Just curious. Not a camp person, not even outdoorsy. My head is spinning.
—the fellas may have bought permits, but they did not buy the required locking tags ($650 for each caribou)
I believe they are required to minimize trophy hunting: you can't move the antlers anywhere without the meat. I would guess they are $650 (for non-residents), just because they can be....For all of us non-hunters here, can you (or anyone else!) explain what locking tags are, why they are required, and why they are a whopping $650 for each caribou?
Thank you.
There is no such pic. There is one picture showing Steve with two sets of antlers placed in front of the tent and the second one, depicting Steve with another set of antlers tied to his backpack. As far as I can see the backpack set of antlers does not match any of the tent pic antlers, therefore my suggestion there were three caribous shot.
The ones on his back in the picture look just like the smaller set by the tent (left side of the picture.) I think you’re both wrong and there were only 2 sets of antlers.The timeline has them shooting two, but they had three sets of new antlers.
I thought I'd seen a 3rd pic of SK in profile facing right with two sets of antlers on his pack. That's the photo I'm looking for. This would correspond to what you're saying about there being 3 different sets of antlers: the one on SK's pack, and the two in front of the tent.There is no such pic. There is one picture showing Steve with two sets of antlers placed in front of the tent and the second one, depicting Steve with another set of antlers tied to his backpack. As far as I can see the backpack set of antlers does not match any of the tent pic antlers, therefore my suggestion there were three caribous shot.
Camo is very common hunting attire. The only reason hunters wear blaze orange is to be seen by other hunters hunting with firearms so they don’t get shot at. If blaze isn’t required or if the hunter feels safe without it then Camo is usually what they will be wearing. Most people don’t expect to need to be found by aircraft when they get dressed for a hunt, and that probably never crossed anyone’s mind on this hunting trip.Bad habits die hard? Commercial outlets push wearing camouflage? Lack of education about the danger to humans? Lack of understanding about how the species you are hunting sees you?
It's a fashion statement.That part really makes zero sense to me. Why wear all camouflage clothing on a hunt in the wild?
They were bow hunting? That’s the first I’ve heard that.My sister's husband's cousin just had an emergency while hunting. They thankfully had an emergency response item with them. I would never want to go in the back woods without something. He is very active, so he also climbs, rides mountain bikes, and skis. I think it should become a standard to take a beacon with you - especially when you are in an area that you are not familiar with! There are many, many dangers including getting lost, hurt, or animal attacks.
Regarding wearing camo, if you are bow hunting, you always wear camo because you have to get closer to the animal to be able to shoot it.
Even in the old days, late 70’s , my ex and his hunting buds wore bright colors, orange or red. It was common knowledge re: hunting safety.Camo is very common hunting attire. The only reason hunters wear blaze orange is to be seen by other hunters hunting with firearms so they don’t get shot at. If blaze isn’t required or if the hunter feels safe without it then Camo is usually what they will be wearing. Most people don’t expect to need to be found by aircraft when they get dressed for a hunt, and that probably never crossed anyone’s mind on this hunting trip.