E
enufcouesbs
Guest
For those with interest in forming their own opinion about the King buck and its story, these comments are worth a read. No agenda exists within them other than to provide support for a close friend who demonstrates the day-to-day integrity necessary to remain silent while others take pot shots at him in these message boards.
In keeping with provisions contained within a legally binding Settlement between himself and the State of AZ, Dan King continues to hold his tongue in spite of what has been written by a number of posters here. I would be naive not to expect that one or more of those posters will react negatively to my message here. These reactions are immaterial to me, and it is not my intent to respond to them.
Dan and I have been friends for many years, and I consider him a brother. We share a number of common interests, one of which is Coues Deer. Having done some guiding myself years ago, I respect the profession and those who uphold its standards in the face of a public with more than its share of characters. I understand and respect Dan's silence concerning his big buck, the story behind the hunt, and the legal action commenced and settled. Accordingly we've not talked about it at any level following the Settlement. What I know, and believe, are admittedly a function of conversation with him a number of years ago. I remember clearly however, much of what we talked about. A number of areas relate directly to the pot shots taken at Dan on this web site over the past several weeks. Again, it's easy to attack hearsay, but for those who consider all sides before drawing conclusions, and for those who appreciate that this does come from the horse's mouth once removed, here are a number of what I believe to be truths.
As to the question of promotional treebark camo and Weatherby rifles, I offer this. Dan WAS wearing old treebark when he killed his deer. I'm not sure anyone knows what day they're going to kill a buck ahead of time, and the day he killed the deer happened to be a day when he was not wearing the new treebark version. The rifles, I recall, arrived a day before the hunt opened. Dan had to buy scope mounts. He put Jim's rifle together but discovered that the screws were not in his (Dan's) mount package. Dan's promo rifle wasn't together during the hunt, and accordingly not used to kill his deer. I have not seen Dan's diary, but believe him as to it containing a statement to the effect that he did not think he would be able to get his hand around the left base because it was clear in glassing the buck and in his live buck footage that the base was wider than the deer's ear. That is significantly different from the posting here that indicated that the diary entry stated that he couldn't get his hands around the bases. Dan shared with me years ago that he had an opportunity to kill the Reynold's buck during the 1990 season but didn't given that Jim had "first choice" and had made it clear that it was his deer to kill. I also understand that it was Dan who convinced Jim not to try to jump shoot his buck the day of the kill, but rather to wait and let the deer come to them, which it did. Dan and I have traded a lot of photos of deer, elk, and other game we have taken through the years. I have a photo of Jim and Dan crouched behind Jim's buck on the ground the day it was killed. They are shaking hands and both obviously feeling very good about what they had accomplished. This thing has deteriorated so badly over the years, that later writings about the hunt insinuate that no one else but Jim was involved in the hunt.
The "factual scientific evidence" referenced within the context of the legal action was performed by an expert who had not previously ever attempted to date a photo by way of shadows etc.. This expert initially stated that Dan's deer had likely been shot in August. He later recanted that expert opinion when advised that the buck would have been in velvet if that were the case. He then "recalculated" his findings and arrived at an October kill date. If Dan was going to poach the buck, he had plenty of opportunity to do so during the early archery season. Dan, I understand, passed a polygraph test with flying colors. I am not aware that anyone else was subjected to one. The legal Settlement between Dan and the State, I understand, included a provision that neither Dan nor the State would possess the antlers. SCI remains the custodian of the antlers to this date. That provision suggests to me a stalemate wherein the Plaintiff does not prove its case, and the Defendant doesn't have the dough to fight it.
The mafia jazz is embarassing to even read, and doesn't sound like Dan to me. Continued references to having beaten up a guy who is two-thirds of your body weight, Jim, I'm not sure are the way you want people to view you in all this. Most of us know that an average big guy will generally take out even the best smaller guy.
As to who is whose competition among the active guides here, who cares as long as everybody is making a living? I do know that Dan is viewed by many, including what looks to me to be a majority of auction tag holders, as the "go to" guy for big coues deer. Everybody has their own fans, guys. Nobody has a monopoly, and that's the way it should be. There's a lot of nasty insinuation about a lot more than the King Buck in a number of posts here, and I'm not sure any of it reflects well on the sport we all love, especially at a time when too many misguided folks would like to see all hunters lose all rights to harvest game.
Doug Field
In keeping with provisions contained within a legally binding Settlement between himself and the State of AZ, Dan King continues to hold his tongue in spite of what has been written by a number of posters here. I would be naive not to expect that one or more of those posters will react negatively to my message here. These reactions are immaterial to me, and it is not my intent to respond to them.
Dan and I have been friends for many years, and I consider him a brother. We share a number of common interests, one of which is Coues Deer. Having done some guiding myself years ago, I respect the profession and those who uphold its standards in the face of a public with more than its share of characters. I understand and respect Dan's silence concerning his big buck, the story behind the hunt, and the legal action commenced and settled. Accordingly we've not talked about it at any level following the Settlement. What I know, and believe, are admittedly a function of conversation with him a number of years ago. I remember clearly however, much of what we talked about. A number of areas relate directly to the pot shots taken at Dan on this web site over the past several weeks. Again, it's easy to attack hearsay, but for those who consider all sides before drawing conclusions, and for those who appreciate that this does come from the horse's mouth once removed, here are a number of what I believe to be truths.
As to the question of promotional treebark camo and Weatherby rifles, I offer this. Dan WAS wearing old treebark when he killed his deer. I'm not sure anyone knows what day they're going to kill a buck ahead of time, and the day he killed the deer happened to be a day when he was not wearing the new treebark version. The rifles, I recall, arrived a day before the hunt opened. Dan had to buy scope mounts. He put Jim's rifle together but discovered that the screws were not in his (Dan's) mount package. Dan's promo rifle wasn't together during the hunt, and accordingly not used to kill his deer. I have not seen Dan's diary, but believe him as to it containing a statement to the effect that he did not think he would be able to get his hand around the left base because it was clear in glassing the buck and in his live buck footage that the base was wider than the deer's ear. That is significantly different from the posting here that indicated that the diary entry stated that he couldn't get his hands around the bases. Dan shared with me years ago that he had an opportunity to kill the Reynold's buck during the 1990 season but didn't given that Jim had "first choice" and had made it clear that it was his deer to kill. I also understand that it was Dan who convinced Jim not to try to jump shoot his buck the day of the kill, but rather to wait and let the deer come to them, which it did. Dan and I have traded a lot of photos of deer, elk, and other game we have taken through the years. I have a photo of Jim and Dan crouched behind Jim's buck on the ground the day it was killed. They are shaking hands and both obviously feeling very good about what they had accomplished. This thing has deteriorated so badly over the years, that later writings about the hunt insinuate that no one else but Jim was involved in the hunt.
The "factual scientific evidence" referenced within the context of the legal action was performed by an expert who had not previously ever attempted to date a photo by way of shadows etc.. This expert initially stated that Dan's deer had likely been shot in August. He later recanted that expert opinion when advised that the buck would have been in velvet if that were the case. He then "recalculated" his findings and arrived at an October kill date. If Dan was going to poach the buck, he had plenty of opportunity to do so during the early archery season. Dan, I understand, passed a polygraph test with flying colors. I am not aware that anyone else was subjected to one. The legal Settlement between Dan and the State, I understand, included a provision that neither Dan nor the State would possess the antlers. SCI remains the custodian of the antlers to this date. That provision suggests to me a stalemate wherein the Plaintiff does not prove its case, and the Defendant doesn't have the dough to fight it.
The mafia jazz is embarassing to even read, and doesn't sound like Dan to me. Continued references to having beaten up a guy who is two-thirds of your body weight, Jim, I'm not sure are the way you want people to view you in all this. Most of us know that an average big guy will generally take out even the best smaller guy.
As to who is whose competition among the active guides here, who cares as long as everybody is making a living? I do know that Dan is viewed by many, including what looks to me to be a majority of auction tag holders, as the "go to" guy for big coues deer. Everybody has their own fans, guys. Nobody has a monopoly, and that's the way it should be. There's a lot of nasty insinuation about a lot more than the King Buck in a number of posts here, and I'm not sure any of it reflects well on the sport we all love, especially at a time when too many misguided folks would like to see all hunters lose all rights to harvest game.
Doug Field
