Contributors to this thread:
North American 29
I have a question, If a person decided he, or she, wanted to try for a Super Slam. Would it be possible now since the Quebec Labrador caribou can't be hunted anymore. And are there any women bowhunters that have accomplished the Super slam, or are getting close?
Anna Vorisek completed her NA29 last year. She was the woman with an archery super slam
I had heard there was a bit of discussion by GSCO to remove the Quebec Labrador Caribou from the Super Slam list but don't think it has happened yet. Call the GSCO office and ask if you really want to know.
It's not something you complete in a couple years. I cant imagine that a season won't be offered as caribou numbers cycle as they seem to do about every 20 years from peaks and troughs. I'd be very surprised if there isn't a season again within 10 years.
I would never consider whatever g$co says. The super slam to me is all the recognized species by P&Y, in the recognized boundaries. So for now with QL caribou closed you can’t get all 29.
GSCO will make any changes it sees fit to promote its group. I don’t agree with it, but that’s its prerogative.
Whether you can still get all 29, depends on whether you've already arrowed a Q-L caribou. Some may have taken one early in their pursuit of 29 and still have many other species yet to go.
Just do like some and claim the species is something it's not. You know, I have a huge Tule Elk........from Arizona! :)
I have seen some giant Coues’ deer killed in Texas too!! Deer species are easy to manipulate
A while back G$CO copyrighted/trademarked the terms grand slam/super slam etc and sued other wildlife conservation hunting groups for millions to no longer use those terms. Now they sell memberships etc to validate your hunting slams. They have created their own boundaries, areas to hunt for each species that are not always the same as P&Y.
While we all agree GSCO is not perfect, their "Slams" have become the benchmark for the industry. The "Super 10" has created all kinds of interest for those unable to go for the 29. In some cases GSCO's boundaries are more accurate than B&C and P&Y boundaries IMO. I'm not here to defend GSCO, but if you want to say you have a "Super Slam" you have to "consider what GSCO says" because it's their deal, their rules. If you want to take the 29 following P&Y rules and boundaries that's awesome and an incredible accomplishment but until you register them with GSCO it really isn't a "Super Slam". Kinda like a guy that says he has a P&Y buck, but has never had it scored or entered. I'm not posting this to defend any of the organizations. They are all clubs and have their own rules and that is fine. None of them are perfect and until someone starts DNA testing the species the lines will be blurred with the imaginary lines in the sand these groups use to define a species. That would be the ultimate...The "DNA SLAM". All 29 species each DNA tested to know their actual genetic makeup. THEN we would have a "true slam". :) In the end, do what you like, set your goals if you're in to that kind of thing. Pick a set of club rules and follow them or make up your own. The key is to have fun doing it...Heck, I even know a guy chasing the ever impossible "Avian Slam" ;)
Thanks for the info, not really interested but I do have all the caribou.
Kota-man, Good summation. I don't know what the future holds, regarding DNA testing as it applies to correctly identifying an animal. However, it does seem less than logical that a bull moose can cross the US - Canada border in the course of its day, and change from a Shiras to Canadian Moose, or vice versa. Unfortunately, arbitrary lines are frequently drawn(.e. - Grizzly bear vs Brown Bear in Ak) and they have to be dealt with, if you want to play by any organization's rules.
On a related note, as it applies to local economies, I have wondered what would happen if DNA testing WAS applied to moose near the US/Canada border. Shiras Moose hunts command a pretty high price in the lower48....if DNA testing proved that the moose of southern Alberta were also Shiras Moose, can you imagine what that would do to the "reshuffling of the deck"? I'd imagine that lower Alberta moose hunts would quickly increase in price (or at least, in bookings), while US Shiras Moose hunts would probably drop in value. Because of that possible outcome, I have often wondered if the hunting organizations are ever pressured to keep or change rules based on economic impacts versus the correct taxonomic classification. I'll probably never know, but I have wondered. Since these types of situations are rareties....maybe/maybe not.
I'm sure g$co does a lot to promote hunting, but it was the way g$co went about co-opting a common hunting term "slam" and suing all others is what will forever rub me the wrong way. Also by g$co logic Chuck Adams does NOT have a "Super Slam" because he refused to sell out to them.... They could have easily invented their own term, such as Super 10 which is fine, and a great idea.
In regards to the Shiras, g$co already recognizes Southern Alberta Moose as Shiras. Bison is another that g$co is very liberal on recognizing as "free range". I do think P&Y has been behind the times in the past, and can still do a lot to maintain interest and relevancy.
Chuck is registered as the number one archery slam with GSCO so I believe he has it. Did GSCO sue organizations like you imply? I understand that they were intelligent enough to file for the trademark first. So other people and organizations didn't like it. I am unsure if the club took initiative to sue however. I know of one archery superslammer that has not registered and there could be others but Chuck is registered.
I also asked GSCO, a couple months ago, what they were going to do with the Superslam now that Q/L cannot be currently hunted. They said they will leave it the same for now in hopes that thy will be "opened up" to hunt again in the future.
here is a flashback to 2008-
Yes, they sued FNAWS for a trademark infringement and won. I was a member of both then and remain a member of both now. Wild Sheep probably benefited most from the lawsuit in the long run. Just look at the two groups now and tell me who REALLY won. GSCO was just trying to protect what they owned. In the long run, the lawsuit was not good for them even though they won. WSF/FNAWS flourishes...
GSCO did file a lawsuit against the Wild Sheep Foundation a few years ago for using the term "slam." GSCO did not invent the term "slam" to describe the taking of all species of north American sheep. It was coined by a sheep hunter named Grancel Fitz in 1949. The term was used in numerous publications and by the general hunting public before GSCO decided they "owned" the word. How can you legally file to trademark a term that had been used in the public domain for so long?
I think the results of the lawsuit answer that Ollie...Something doesn't always have to be "right" or even make sense to be law or in this case a "trademark". You don't have to invent something to register a trademark. You just have to be the first to register the trademark. You can read about Trademark law all day using google...
Well said Kota-the DNA slam should be next on your list! :-)
Given the history of GSCO and the disputes over the years I would find it hard to believe that Chuck registered his slam with them. As I recall there was a LOT of conversation about this when GSCO started tracking the NA29.
The board of directors probably decided it was in their best intrest to list Chuck as #1. I seem to remember Jimmie Ryan as previously being #1 with them. Also in Mirandas book he does not mention Chuck which Is where I think the bad blood started.
Good for you Randy not knowing you’re better off anyway.