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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
cocomod said:
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.
Click to expand...
Snipped for focus

I'm confused.

Why would game animals being hunted by bow hunters have different perceptual ability than game animals being hunted by gun hunters? I don't get it.

Surely, if game animals can't see orange on gun hunters, they can't see it on bow hunters? I doubt they can get spoofed by camo, either. They pick up a predator presence largely by sound, smell, and movement.

SK was the size of caribou, smelled like caribou, and had those antlers protruding overhead like caribou. Easy to be mistaken for caribou by another hunter or another predator, the apparel notwithstanding. It was very important in this case to be seen by other hunters, as it turned out. It might also have helped if he'd flagged his meat cache with hunter orange tied to his pole.
 
RickshawFan said:
Why would game animals being hunted by bow hunters have different perceptual ability than game animals being hunted by gun hunters? I don't get it.
Click to expand...
Animals can’t tell blaze apart from other colors like humans but they can see big blobs of the same color that do not look natural. Camo breaks up the big blob making the person look more like a natural part of the landscape.

When gun hunting, the hunter can be hundreds of yards from the animal and get a shot, and due to the distance less likely to be seen when wearing orange that makes him look like a big blob. When bow hunting, the hunter needs to be within 50 yards or less in most cases to get a shot, and needs to blend into the environment more to avoid being spotted. Plus, the chance of another hunter accidentally shooting you with a bow and arrow is almost 0. Hence Camo being commonplace for bow hunting and blaze orange commonplace for gun hunting.
 
Black Diamond said:
Animals can’t tell blaze apart from other colors like humans but they can see big blobs of the same color that do not look natural. Camo breaks up the big blob making the person look more like a natural part of the landscape.

When gun hunting, the hunter can be hundreds of yards from the animal and get a shot, and due to the distance less likely to be seen when wearing orange that makes him look like a big blob. When bow hunting, the hunter needs to be within 50 yards or less in most cases to get a shot, and needs to blend into the environment more to avoid being spotted. Plus, the chance of another hunter accidentally shooting you with a bow and arrow is almost 0. Hence Camo being commonplace for bow hunting and blaze orange commonplace for gun hunting.
Click to expand...

Orange camouflage does exist, though. You still be visible from the air, yet can ambush the animal while hunting with bow. By the way, where did you get the info Steve and his friend hunted with bows?
 
charminglane said:
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.
Click to expand...
They might have miscalculated on this, too. There’s no reason other hunters couldn’t be there.
 
RickshawFan said:
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.
Click to expand...
The source said the family had written the piece, and it was hosted on the official family's Search for Steve facebook page.

Now, because of trolls that are for some reason attaching themselves to this missing person's case, the supportive website has removed Steve's story content from their missing person's website because it was taking too much of their time to babysit their forum.
 
Hexe said:
Orange camouflage does exist, though. You still be visible from the air, yet can ambush the animal while hunting with bow. By the way, where did you get the info Steve and his friend hunted with bows?
Click to expand...
Agreed on the orange camo. But, it’s not really that popular. Being seen is not a high priority for hunters unless there are other hunters with guns nearby. Wearing orange for the sake of planning for the worst to be seen by rescue personnel is not a consideration I ever heard of. Hunters don’t go in the woods expecting to become unconscious and needing to be seen from afar by rescuers.

Someone else brought up bow hunting. I think just in regards to Camo. I just wanted to answer the question on orange vs Camo when bow hunting. I have not read anything about how the caribou were killed, gun or bow.
 
cocomod said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not so. There is no need to wear camo when bow hunting. In some places wearing hunter orange is mandatory.

"All licensed hunters, including bow hunters, falconers, bear hunters and trappers who are hunting under their trapping licence during a gun season for deer, elk or moose, are required to wear hunter orange."

 
Black Diamond said:
Agreed on the orange camo. But, it’s not really that popular. Being seen is not a high priority for hunters unless there are other hunters with guns nearby. Wearing orange for the sake of planning for the worst to be seen by rescue personnel is not a consideration I ever heard of. Hunters don’t go in the woods expecting to become unconscious and needing to be seen from afar by rescuers.

Someone else brought up bow hunting. I think just in regards to Camo. I just wanted to answer the question on orange vs Camo when bow hunting. I have not read anything about how the caribou were killed, gun or bow.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Informative.
However, maybe in Alaska, as a harsh environment on the tundra, this should be considered (BBM).
 
Black Diamond said:
Hunters don’t go in the woods expecting to become unconscious and needing to be seen from afar by rescuers.
Click to expand...
Snipped for focus

Experienced outdoor recreationists take first aid supplies in the same way they take rain gear in the off chance it's gonna rain, get cold, or they might have to bivouac. First aid stuff is in the 10 Essentials. Yep, experienced folks think ahead about emergency contingencies. It's one aspect of being "experienced": you have an idea what could go wrong, and you address it. This includes the potential to become unconscious, get shot, have a heart attack, skin a knee, twist an ankle, or the appalling accident that happened last week where someone impaled themselves on a hunting arrow that wasn't retrieved by the hunter-owner.

So, yeah, if there are hunters out there who don't have a plan for what happens when nature or their maker comes calling (which will happen to them or someone with them sooner or later), they likely have survived on luck.

****
A few years back, I took a Red Cross Wilderness First Aid course. I didn't really have ideas in my head about actually needing those skills exactly, but took the course because I knew it would make me more resourceful in an emergency or how to think about accidents.
I needed it the first day I went hiking after that, the first day of a thru hike. I could see ahead of me someone who was kinda staggering up the trail, and his skin tone was a weird greyish color. His heart, I thought. I could have hiked right past him. Instead, I paced him, slowed him right down, got his breathing right, made him drink water....And then I called for him to get picked up at a trailhead.
This wasn't an emergency, but it was a need. I had come to the hike in a framework where I thought an emergency could happen, and I was able to head it off.
Turns out, the guy was 90, had done very little hiking, and was wearing a pacemaker.
 
Remember NSB LE said in an FB statement that the two hunters were required to check in with authorities before hunting?

I randomly found a relevant regulation in the Alaska Hunting Regulations:

Page 105, pertaining to the Dalton Hwy corridor:

1 Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area (DHCMA) - Units 20 and 24-26 extending five miles from each side of the Dalton Highway, including the drivable surface of the Dalton Highway, from the Yukon River to the Arctic Ocean, and including the Prudhoe Bay Closed Area. The area within the Prudhoe Bay Closed Area is closed to the taking of big game; the remainder of the DHCMA is closed to hunting; however, big game, small game, and fur animals may be taken in the area by bow and arrow only, and small game may be taken by falconry.Any hunter traveling on the Dalton Highway must stop at any check station operated by the department within the DHCMA.
 
From some of the recent posts, it appears some here believe the hunt was illegal because SK & BC do not reside in AK?
I'd like to see more than a random regulation quotation to prove that because almost two months into this saga, no LE/government/MSM source has ever stated it was an "illegal" hunt due to them being from the Lower 48 or not hunting the required five miles away from the Dalton Hwy. I wonder if they are being fined for not checking in with the BLM before their hunt? Would the fine apply to BC personally &/or to SK's estate? I guess we'll have to wait on MSM or LE to provide that info.

Re: Antlers
Is the expectation that BC would have been responsible for removing all of the meat from both of their kills to be able to remove the antlers they possessed? Once Steve was missing, it appears the search took priority over regulations since his meat was dumped at some point. Perhaps his antlers remained in the field also. I guess we are still waiting to hear about fines for not removing SK's pack/dumping the meat in a body of water?

Confusion re: DHCMA Units vs. Mileposts
Are we comparing apples & oranges when describing the hunt area in different terms? It is very important to have accuracy in dissecting the choices and actions of these two hunters. I don't believe the discrepancy between the original Mile 336 announced location of their hunt vs. the search area around 10 miles north (Mile 347?) has ever been cleared up. Rather than trying to convert their hunt area & the search area to units, sticking to Mileposts might make things clearer. But maybe I'm just not smart enough or willing to put in the effort to compare the two & figure it out.

Blaming Steve
I am highly uncomfortable with language describing SK as having "got himself lost." Anyone else feel the same way? We don't know how or why he disappeared. To me, any implication that it was completely avoidable for SK to go missing is completely wrong. IMO we don't have enough clear info to apportion blame. Even if we did, a man lost his life. The fine line between life & death on the tundra is just that. Who is wise enough to determine where mistakes stop & fate begins (or vice versa)? I'm not.

<modsnip>

JMO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RickshawFan said:
The waterproofing wasn't the problem. The lack of support is, especially in that terrain. But it also seems the waterproofing wasn't adequate for the task. Per Chet, SK's socks left in his tent were wet; it was 20 days before BC's feet returned to pre-tundra condition.

What I like about Chet's explanation, actually, is when he details exactly what he (Chet) wears to keep his feet dry. Layers and layers, and NEVER boots like that. He even trialed SK's socks.... Chet's layers include waterproof pants, gaiters, more than one baselayer (including one that is Smartwool)....

Chet aims for dry from tundra water, and doesn't care if his setup retains sweat: at least it's warm.

Perhaps even more importantly, waterproof muck boots are useless if water gets over the top. In tundra, it will.

Cotton pants—which it seems SK was wearing—would keep water in the boots. Not just an occasional drip, but a DRENCHING amount. See how he keeps his pants tucked into those boots? That cotton will soak up water like a sponge. Recall, the tundra is not just ankle-deep in water: it can be MUCH deeper. And the water is frozen ice. Every time SK stepped, he would have been squeezing cold water from the pants into the boots. They probably filled with water.

Also, Muck boots are neoprene (I have some, and I'm looking at them right this minute), except on the lower shin and foot, where they are rubber. Neoprene is wet-suit fabric. Yep, the stuff that keeps you warmer in cold water, but does not keep you dry (it keeps a layer of water against your skin). They are not water-proof breathable, and they are hellish hot, even in mid-winter. You'd want to be wearing very expensive socks, like Smartwool or Darn Tough of the really thick model.

So, yeah, Muck boots are theoretically designed to keep your feet dry, but not in AK or in the wilderness. People use them around here for farming, mucking out stables, getting maple syrup, places where you're unlikely to get an ankle roll. I only wear mine in the yard, and in snow. (They shred my feet; the only advantage is I can get them on quickly.) Maybe they use them for hunting in Kentucky, but I can't think they do much backcountry walking in them in rough terrain.

One very likely scenario for SK's disappearance is that he rolled an ankle, became incapacitated, and very quickly succumbed to hypothermia. The latter almost certainly happened (he'd only have avoided it if he was spirited to heaven), but a rolled ankle from inadequate support might very well have been a precipitating event.
Click to expand...
There is no water body that they are going to walk into. So any boot would not be condicive to that anyways. As for rain the Mucks protect. The white socks maybe he just forgot them and they got wet as they were left where they were in the that flimsy tent. How do we know that these guys weren't wearing layers? We don't know if those weren't adequate pants without layers. Where does it state that Bryan's feet took 20 days to get back to normal? Maybe Bryan meant that his feet are adjusting back to the climate back home.
 
@WingsOverTX Partial response to your long post: my ipad won’t snip for focus

Once we were past everyone understanding BC and SK are not aliens, I haven’t seen anyone maintain they could not hunt as non-residents. They were subject to AK’s non-resident hunting regulations, spelled out in AK’s lengthy rulebook. These regulations include locking tags, permits, licenses, bag limits, kill removal, recommended clothing and gear, and recommendation against folks from the lower 48 hunting off the Dalton Hwy.
AK goes out of its way to keep people safe: they even provide a workbook for planning.

The mile designation they were hunting at on the Dalton Hwy put them into the Dalton Highway Corridor. This is the DHCMA. This is where the 5-mile rule comes from. Some portions of the tundra near the DHCMA are not open to non-residents for hunting. I haven’t seen anyone say SK and BC weren’t legal in this regard.
In his videos, Chet found two pairs of antlers abandoned at the base camp, one that was brown, and one that was cream. I assume BC took his set home with him.

I don’t regard SK himself as a victim at all, since he has had no crime perpetrated on him. IMO he put himself in harm’s way, and harm happened. There is a choice to venture into the wilderness, and nature can be very destructive. You can mitigate risk, but you can’t eliminate it. How you address risk is on you.
I would venture the possibility that his family is a victim of SK’s risk taking, but I haven’t seen anything negative about his family here. Actually, I don’t think we’ve talked about them much. The person I really feel for is his hunting partner, BC: IMO he’s being severely bashed back home. He must be absolutely broken about how his adventure of a lifetime evolved.
 
Last edited:
5W's said:
There is no water body that they are going to walk into. So any boot would not be condicive to that anyways. As for rain the Mucks protect. The white socks maybe he just forgot them and they got wet as they were left where they were in the that flimsy tent. How do we know that these guys weren't wearing layers? We don't know if those weren't adequate pants without layers. Where does it state that Bryan's feet took 20 days to get back to normal? Maybe Bryan meant that his feet are adjusting back to the climate back home.
Click to expand...



Yes, there are water bodies they may have walked into, crossed or gone along a sodden edge.

I doubt big tough Caribou hunters in the wilderness are going to be tiptoeing along only scarce high and dry tracks.

The soil itself is waterlogged; link below.


Here is a picture of the waterway SK is standing close to at the camp from the family Facebook page Sept 23rd update:

Facebook


>Still, the tundra is usually a wet place because the low temperatures cause evaporation of water to be slow. Much of the arctic has rain and fog in the summers, and water gathers in bogs and ponds.>

Tundra: Mission: Biomes


>During the summer, the snow and the soil layers above the permafrost (the active layer) melt.

This creates and feeds a vast network of lakes, streams, rivers and wetlands.

The waterlogged soil and 24-hour sunshine boost rapid plant growth, and in lower latitudes of tundra even lush, densely packed plant mats can grow.>

https://www.hww.ca/assets/pdfs/factsheets/tundra-en.pdf

There are waterproof boots that can be worn while crossing a waterway or stepping into a bog.
Look at North Face and other outdoor active wear companies there are plenty of choices.



IMO
 
RickshawFan said:
@WingsOverTX Partial response to your long post: my ipad won’t snip for focus

Once we were past everyone understanding BC and SK are not aliens, I haven’t seen anyone maintain they could not hunt as non-residents. They were subject to AK’s non-resident hunting regulations, spelled out in AK’s lengthy rulebook. These regulations include locking tags, permits, licenses, bag limits, kill removal, recommended clothing and gear, and recommendation against folks from the lower 48 hunting off the Dalton Hwy.
AK goes out of its way to keep people safe: they even provide a workbook for planning.

The mile designation they were hunting at on the Dalton Hwy put them into the Dalton Highway Corridor. This is the DHCMA. This is where the 5-mile rule comes from. Some portions of the tundra near the DHCMA are not open to non-residents for hunting. I haven’t seen anyone say SK and BC weren’t legal in this regard.
In his videos, Chet found two pairs of antlers abandoned at the base camp, one that was brown, and one that was cream. I assume BC took his set home with him.

I don’t regard SK himself as a victim at all, since he has had no crime perpetrated on him. IMO he put himself in harm’s way, and harm happened. There is a choice to venture into the wilderness, and nature can be very destructive. You can mitigate risk, but you can’t eliminate it. How you address risk is on you.
I would venture the possibility that his family is a victim of SK’s risk taking, but I haven’t seen anything negative about his family here. Actually, I don’t think we’ve talked about them much. The person I really feel for is his hunting partner, BC: IMO he’s being severely bashed back home. He must be absolutely broken about how his adventure of a lifetime evolved.
Click to expand...
RBBM
According to what source has he "had no crime perpetrated on him"?

This is the heart of my concern. We don't know enough to pronounce cause of death. We don't even know if he is dead. Many of us just assume so from his not being found.

We just do not know. Perhaps we never will. I prefer to leave it an open question because despite obvious errors on the part of both hunters, no official conclusion has been reached AFAIK.
 
Jade said:
There are waterproof boots that can be worn while crossing a waterway or stepping into a bog.
Look at North Face and other outdoor active wear companies there are plenty of choices.
Click to expand...

Snipped for focus.

Indeed. In addition to waterproof breathable lace-up boots (which are standard in the backcountry because they support ankles), people wear waterproof breathable socks, booties, gaiters, rain pants, wicking base layer bottoms....

One of the biggest problems in tundra is that the water is ubiquitous, comes from several sources (e.g. rain and swamps), and is very cold.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 133 more.
Total: 1,713 (members: 134, guests: 1,579)

Online statistics

Members online
134
Guests online
1,579
Total visitors
1,713
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
606,068
Messages
18,197,701
Members
233,721
Latest member
KiKi_T
Back
Top