AK AK - Steve Keel, 61, missing from hunting trip, from TN - Aug 27, 2022

[neesaki]

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?

 

[Hexe]

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.

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.

 

[fridaybaker]

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

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.

 

[WingsOverTX]

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.

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.

I'm glad we have people willing to risk so much & potentially put themselves in danger to rescue others when it is by choice - volunteer-led SAR.

I'm also glad places with a lot of outdoor risks, like Colorado, are trying harder to educate people about SAR needing to be used sparingly if it is to continue to exist. There may come a time when the Alaska calculation begins to be needed in other places in the U.S. We are not there yet, but it is trending that direction and with cause.

Our society accepts a lot of preventable deaths - think drinking/drugging and driving. I'm not sure singling out people being foolhardy or irresponsible outdoors has any benefit.

Human nature is human nature. Don't put yourself in a precarious place in AK by choice because the odds of rescue/recovery are not in your favor. And those you love will potentially endure grief not mitigated by the possibility of seeing you for a final goodbye.

MOO

 

[LauraAnne]

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.

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.

 

[WingsOverTX]

That part really makes zero sense to me. Why wear all camouflage clothing on a hunt in the wild?

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?

 

[RickshawFan]

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.

Snipped for focus...

PTSD among volunteer SAR members as become rampant. They did not sign up for damaged lives. Unfortunately, they see a lot of very messy accidents, e.g. from people falling off cliffs or getting torn apart limb from limb in avalanches. They also do a lot of recovery.

Here's an NPR story:

First Responders, Rescuers Come Forward With PTSD

Post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, is usually associated with the battlefield. But it's also turning up in civilian first responders -- search-and-rescue personnel, paramedics and firefighters. Now those communities are trying to destigmatize the disorder and get help to those in need.

www.npr.org

 

[RickshawFan]

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.

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.

 

[charminglane]

I think also, hunting in a remote area, they probably didn't wear orange because they were not going to be around other people.
If you don't expect to SEE other people, you don't expect to need to be SEEN by hunters.

 

[cocomod]

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.

 

[RickshawFan]

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 timeline has them shooting two, but they had three sets of new antlers.

 

[annpats]

—the fellas may have bought permits, but they did not buy the required locking tags ($650 for each caribou)

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.

 

[RickshawFan]

I have lost, for the time being, the photo where SK is wearing a pack with 2 sets of brown-velvet antlers attached.

In looking for that, I found a post of Chet Showalter, who is the AK fellow doing on-site searches on his own dime. The site I accessed was FB Search for Steve...Questions. Chet is pretty much the only source for local information.

It think his post clears up some of the questions we had previously about how extensive the search was, where it was, etc. He is talking about searchers who came from TN. Here is what he says:

A COMPREHENSIVE GROUND SEARCH WAS NEVER DONE.
WHAT ABOUT THE LAKE?
● My advice?
FORGET ABOUT FINDING STEVEN KEEL IN THE LAKE.
● Steve's sons searched around the lake.
● You cannot get anything out to the middle of the lake without leaving a huge visible disturbance on the shore in the mud etc,
● Same with underwater near the shore in the very visible bottom of the lake.
No way to hide that.
Nothing available to weigh a body down with.
● What about the meat that was thrown into the lake, why didn't that float?
With butchered meat there's nothing to contain the gaseous reactions of decomposition within the meat, like with a body.
Meat is just meat.
Dense.
Bones.
No guts, organs, and no hide/skin to contain the gases produced by decomposition.
Bodies bloat and float.
Meat don't....
● Steven Keel is on, or under the tundra.
No mystery.
● He would be difficult to spot even when laying on top of the tundra.
He was wearing camo.
A PROPER GROUND SEARCH WAS NEVER ACCOMPLISHED
● How much area COULD the Dover team search?
And PLEASE anyone that sees a mistake in my process?
Please correct me.
● 3 days ground searching with 4 guys at 1.25 miles per hour.
● A man could be half buried 20 feet on either side away from where you walk, and you wouldn't see him.
Let's use a 40 foot wide area for each of the Dover team.
20 feet on either side of each man.
● They went in and out from approximately the same area to search all three days, to the best of my knowledge, from the road.
● They went in from the road at approximately 8:30.am.
● They were back to the road by 5 pm
8.5 hours per man, per 3 day search.
● 8.5 hours X 3 days X 4 men = 102 total.man hours.
● 102 hours X 1.25 miles per hour = 127.5 miles actually walked by 4 guys.
● 127.5 X 5280 feet in a mile =
673,200 feet total walked by 4 guys.
● 673200 × a 40 foot wide area effectively searched =
27 million square feet.
1 square mile =
27,878,400 square feet
Most missing people are found within 6 miles of where they were last seen
A 6 mile radius from the campsite equals 113 square miles.
ONE square mile was searched by the Dover team.
That's not even 1% of 113 square miles.
THERE'S NO MYSTERY JUST BECAUSE STEVEN KEEL HASN'T BEEN FOUND YET.

 

[RickshawFan]

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.

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....

I am not a hunter: I can't believe I now know about locking tags.

 

[Black Diamond]

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 timeline has them shooting two, but they had three sets of new antlers.

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.

 

[RickshawFan]

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.

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.

 

[Black Diamond]

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?

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.

 

[RickshawFan]

That part really makes zero sense to me. Why wear all camouflage clothing on a hunt in the wild?

It's a fashion statement.

 

[neesaki]

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.

They were bow hunting? That’s the first I’ve heard that.

 

[neesaki]

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.

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.