# Bear Attack



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

OH THIS IS NOT GOOD!!! I'M SLIPPING.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZnsL7-UdGc&eurl=[/ame]

big rockpile


----------



## RoyalOaksRanch (Nov 14, 2003)

THe mama was just protecting her cub.. Wasnt like it was some freak attack for no reason. 
For those who cant view the video---
The men are bear hunting, being video taped by Cabellas Outfitter Journal (Tv Show) THe men shot a big male, at the sound, this sow pops up from over a dune and locks on to them.. The men hollered and yelled to scare the bear away, instead she came at them full charge, And she was shot when they had no other choice. Tragic for the sow. But least it isnt some bear going after humans for no apparent reason. Her maternial instinct was to protect her cub. Totally Understandable. 

However I was looking at the responses posted below and MAN there are sure alot of anti hunters posting about it... Those people posting are acting like the hunter should have not shot her.. Makes no sense..


----------



## KimM (Jun 17, 2005)

I would have liked to see them at least try and fire a warning shot to scare her back before she got that close. Now the cub suffers a horrible death.
What does someone need to hunt bear for anyway? Sport is just not a good enough reason to me.


----------



## jen74145 (Oct 31, 2006)

I don't know, Kim... if a big, angry mama grizzly is coming at me, I am not wasting time or a shot trying to warn her off. I probably would just kick into survival mode and not even think about it.
Besides, mother bears are not really something you can warn off... if she feels that cub is in danger, she doesn't care what she's going up against.

Whatever people hunt, as long as they eat it (or give it to someone who will) and use as much of the animal as possible, fine with me. Normally though, I'm all for letting apex predators be to help maintain/achieve a balance, but if one goes after people... different story.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

KimM said:


> I would have liked to see them at least try and fire a warning shot to scare her back before she got that close. Now the cub suffers a horrible death.
> What does someone need to hunt bear for anyway? Sport is just not a good enough reason to me.


Are you forgetting that firing a shot is what set the sow off in the first place? She was in full mode and nothing short of a bullet was going to stop her. She was coming so fast that most people couldn't even chamber a second round, and who wants to be the one with an empty rifle when she gets there?


----------



## momlaffsalot (Sep 9, 2004)

KimM said:


> I would have liked to see them at least try and fire a warning shot to scare her back before she got that close. Now the cub suffers a horrible death.
> What does someone need to hunt bear for anyway? Sport is just not a good enough reason to me.


I agree. That video really ticked me off. What great fun that must be, killing these animals, watching them try to get up and run, having to shoot them again, then joy of all joys, a mama and her babies and oh darn, we have to kill her too. That is just savage as far as I'm concerned. They don't need to meat to stay alive and they don't need to to make a wrap to stay warm, they do it because they feel macho killing a big beast like that. 
Disgusting.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

if you live in bear country long you will find out for yourself what a grizz or brown bear can and will do to you.it will kill you.also if you dont hunt and manage large preadtors and they grow old they wear there teetth down and starve.that is the only death of them.2 lady trappers that live in the denali area had to kill a bear that it's teeth were so worn out and couldnt eat.that it couldnt hiberante because of lack of fat and starvation.it was out in middle of winter and it was stalking the homestead and trying to get them and their sled dogs.after a couple of days of being circled by this bear they had to kill it.it had no hair left on its feet due to the ice and snow build up .harless and starving.....what a death by nature.the trappers names are judy and niki collins...they are true homesteaders in the alaska wilderness.

also when a bear comes for you it's not going to play "tag your it"..it means to disable you.you dont get a second chance to stop a brown bear attack.i have lived in alaska and i can tell you the bears can make your hair stand on end sometimes.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Truth that is one reason I think they were Hunting Bear.It is the thrill of hunting something that has the possibility of killing you.They got what they wanted.

But on other hand if we don't hunt them they lose what fear they have and will think nothing of killing a Human.The human goes from Predator to Prey.

I had a friend that killed a Sow Grizz up there because she found his Moose kill and she wated it :shrug: Same thing she was protecting something of hers.

You don't reason with a charging Grizz!

big rockpile


----------



## beorning (Apr 14, 2006)

I must not have watched the same video as some of the folks that posted here.

A little review...

- One of the first decisions I noticed these guys make was to not use a bow to take the boar they were hunting. Their reasoning was that they would not be able to make an accurate and humane kill due to wind conditions.

- One hunter lined up the shot, waited until he had a good broadside presentation and was sure of a good hit and fired. After the shot was taken, he chambered another round checked the condition of the boar and fired again when it was evident that the bear wasn't going to drop quickly. The second shot was also well placed and carefully chosen.

- The hunting party took multiple steps to try to dissuade the sow from charging. She closed to eight yards before anyone fired on her. The hunting party, in it's entirety, was horrified and upset by the situation, as was evident by their comments. It was not something that they felt good about. It was not something that they did to feel macho.

- The alaskan authorities ruled that the incident was self defense, no doubt after having viewed the video. My experience with game authorities is that they come down on lawbreakers like a ton of bricks. If they viewed the situation as an unfortunate neccesity, then that is what it was.

It's true that we no longer need to hunt for survival. Likewise, we don't need to grow our own vegetables, raise any livestock, or do anything but run to the supermarket and pick up a styrofoam tray or plastic bag full of whatever food we happen to want. There are some pretty serious ethical flaws with doing things this way, despite the fact that it allows the consumer to pretend that everything is happy and bright and they need not have anything to do with something as ugly as killing their own food. I firmly believe that declining morality and human cruelty directly benefits from this situation. No one has to learn that survival involves sacrifice. It is no longer neccesary to understand that this sacrifice deserves our respect, and should be done in the quickest way possible. With reverence. 

I don't personally hunt bear. I don't want to eat it. Lots of people do. I don't have a problem with that. These guys, as represented in this video, are absolutely ethical hunters. Not a bunch of yahoos shooting at anything that moves.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

I live in Black Bear country, and I do hunt bears; I like the meat, but if I were afield and armed, and any bear, upon dicovering my presence, did other than run away, I would prepare to shoot it. If it got too close, I would be like the old Swede who killed a bear out of season then was asked by the Game Warden if the bear had charged, whereupon the Swede replied, "Ay no vait to see, Ay yust shoot him."


----------



## staceyfb (Jan 13, 2005)

KimM said:


> I would have liked to see them at least try and fire a warning shot to scare her back before she got that close. Now the cub suffers a horrible death.
> What does someone need to hunt bear for anyway? Sport is just not a good enough reason to me.


For one the sport of hunting anything is exhilarating. However we do eat bear meat. Actually is very good. So its not just the sport of it, some of us do hunt bear to feed our families.


----------



## KimM (Jun 17, 2005)

I'm sorry, I don't agree. There was plenty of time to jump up and down, yell, shout, and wave and video tape, they could have fired a few shots in front of her early in her charge. (He certainly had time to fire off a second quick round at the boar, didn't he?) I'm not ignorant of wild animal behaviour and it wasn't just the shot that set her off, it was the entire incident, the shots fired, the boar flailing around and running off panicked, possibly the smell he gave off from fear (dumping his anal glands, adrenaline). I don't believe animals have much reasoning powers but it sure looked like that mama bear put two and two together. HOWEVER, a couple quick shots would have been fair to her AND HER CUB. There was more than one man with a gun. Then I would have agreed that they "tried everything".

But now we'll never know.

Another thing, since they did kill the cubs mother, the humane thing to do would have been to go ahead and shoot the cub since he was just sentanced to death by slow starvation. (but probably illegal)
It's bad enough some have to be killed because people moved into their territory but when people go into their territory to slaughter them for no GOOD reason, and animals are where they belong and minding their own business of living, I think it's just very sad. 
(donning flame suit)





tinknal said:


> Are you forgetting that firing a shot is what set the sow off in the first place? She was in full mode and nothing short of a bullet was going to stop her. She was coming so fast that most people couldn't even chamber a second round, and who wants to be the one with an empty rifle when she gets there?


----------



## KimM (Jun 17, 2005)

I think anyone that gets exhilerated from seeing a living thing lose it's life has 'issues', IMHO. (One person's issue is another person's rush I guess) :shrug: 
I am not opposed to hunting for meat and especially if the population needs to be kept in check. 




staceyfb said:


> For one the sport of hunting anything is exhilarating. However we do eat bear meat. Actually is very good. So its not just the sport of it, some of us do hunt bear to feed our families.


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

If it were not for the fees and money spent by hunters there would be very little habitat for wild creatures , How much money do you think PETA give for habitat preservation? here a clue not a dime. we have an abunance of wild game today not because of animal rights ativists but because hunters work hard to preserve game stock and habitat. ducks unlimited is a good example. 
Im sure Im not the only one who remembers the great florida deer hunt controversy, where a bunch of animal rights folks went out and caught deer to protet them from the evil hunters and released them on an island where hunting was banned . They saved them alright of not one of the over 100 deer they saved survived , they all died of starvation and dease on an iland that had just enough forage for its native population of deer.
I can't speak for all hunters but I dont get a thrill from the kill , yes theres a rush watching a fine animal work its way into range but if Im not thinking food I wont take the shot. The only exception to this is if something is attacking or has attacked my stock.
If you've never been hunting you dont understand. BTW a hunt can be nothing more than taking pictures .
I plant food plots for wild game along the edge of my field and in openings in the timber. today in less than an hour I watched 6 deer,a beaver,countless squirrles ,a small covie of quail(that was a shock as the turkey have desimated them around here) more song birds and woodpecker than I care to count, and a bobcat. While we do have a few black bear in the county I have no plans of hunting one unless it causes damage. 
what do those of you who find hunting so repulsive do for the creatures of the woods? 
I swear we need to ban bambi and all the disney fantisy movies


----------



## staceyfb (Jan 13, 2005)

KimM said:


> I think anyone that gets exhilerated from seeing a living thing lose it's life has 'issues', IMHO. (One person's issue is another person's rush I guess) :shrug:
> I am not opposed to hunting for meat and especially if the population needs to be kept in check.


So I should find no enjoyment in the hunting for my plate? How would that be possible. I live strictly on wild meat. I also emensley enjoy the art of hunting that animal I am sustaining my life on.
I never said I enjoyed watching anything die. But it is part of the cycle of life.

As for the "poor" cub that has been "sentenced to a slow death by starvation", have you ever seen another pig(of which the bear is) or cow or anything of the sort adopt an orphan? Not saying that it real often in the wild. However if the cub was that young to die of starvation it has a chance at it. I would say that by the size of the cub he/she will be fine as pie. The wild animals can overcome great obstacles that humans have no chnace of ever doing. 
I have seen fawns with spots that are orphaned and 99% of those live to be part of the herd and usually wiser and craftier than the rest.

Lets not be so niave about the way of life. We are the top of the food chain and by defending ourselves we stay there. Same as every other link in the chain. The lower life forms don't become the predator to their predators.


----------



## jen74145 (Oct 31, 2006)

Kim...
I really hope, for your own safety and that of your livestock, you study up a bit on carnivore behavior. Once a bear charges, or a mountain lion starts stalking, it's game over for somebody. They aren't to be reasoned with.

Please realize this isn't said to be rude, I am genuinely concerned. 

Goodness, that's a grizzly, and a mama grizzly at that. Sort of the archetype of a protective, unreasonable critter, ya know? They can move AMAZINGLY fast, and one bite or swat is enough to kill. 

Again, if such a creature charges, i seriously doubt anyone would be capable of cogent thought. Good ole' fight or flight kicks in, not "Hmm, how can I keep from killing this massive predator that is trying to kill me?"


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

It was them or the Bear.You dont mess with Bears.
Bye Bye Bear.









Personally thought that was a nice calm shot he made,very impressed.

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

KimM said:


> I would have liked to see them at least try and fire a warning shot to scare her back before she got that close. Now the cub suffers a horrible death.
> What does someone need to hunt bear for anyway? Sport is just not a good enough reason to me.



WARNING SHOTS ARE FOR DEAD PEOPLE


----------



## bgak47 (Sep 4, 2003)

IMHO this whole video was Utter & Complete BS! Did you Ever see any kind of a Bow in the video? Were either of these ''bow hunters'' ever close enough for shot with a bow?I saw 2 rifle hunters that never got closer than 200-300yds to a bear & when they decided to shoot with their scoped rifles they muffed the shot & only wounded the boar, then they Claimed that they were in Danger from the''charge'' by the sow from 200yds. The entire video is BS, & their ''interview'' about their ''danger'' from the ''charge'' by the sow is idiotic. They obviously provoked the charge by their antics so that they could shoot the sow for the dramatic effect for that stupid video. This entire ''hunting'' incident pretty much sickens me,as it was scripted to be ''dramatic'' for the video that was being shot. I wouldn't ---- on either one of these ''bear hunters'' if they were on fire in my living room.


----------



## poorboy (Apr 15, 2006)

bgak47 said:


> IMHO this whole video was Utter & Complete BS! Did you Ever see any kind of a Bow in the video? Were either of these ''bow hunters'' ever close enough for shot with a bow?I saw 2 rifle hunters that never got closer than 200-300yds to a bear & when they decided to shoot with their scoped rifles they muffed the shot & only wounded the boar, then they Claimed that they were in Danger from the''charge'' by the sow from 200yds. The entire video is BS, & their ''interview'' about their ''danger'' from the ''charge'' by the sow is idiotic. They obviously provoked the charge by their antics so that they could shoot the sow for the dramatic effect for that stupid video. This entire ''hunting'' incident pretty much sickens me,as it was scripted to be ''dramatic'' for the video that was being shot. I wouldn't ---- on either one of these ''bear hunters'' if they were on fire in my living room.


Glad to know we have a video expert examiner on the board..


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I can see why they shot the sow, but I just hate the hunting of grizzlies (brown bears). There are plenty of black bears to hunt and eat, but I seriously doubt they were hunting for food. I don't think it should be illegal or anything but I personally dislike hunting just for sport...particularly when people shoot large predators that aren't a threat to people or livestock. I think it's kind of ghoulish to kill for pleasure.


----------



## tallpaul (Sep 5, 2004)

bgak47 said:


> IMHO this whole video was Utter & Complete BS! Did you Ever see any kind of a Bow in the video? Were either of these ''bow hunters'' ever close enough for shot with a bow?


For starters there was a bow in the video at the start- they made a decision to leave it when they deemed conditions not appropriate. They then went to rifle mode. I imagine that the permit to harvest the bear was for either method. With guides the back up rifles are permited anyhow, and needed


----------



## tallpaul (Sep 5, 2004)

KimM said:


> What does someone need to hunt bear for anyway? Sport is just not a good enough reason to me.


Seems to me ya could say the same for raisin meat goats... I mean a cow is bigger and ya need to take fewer lives per pound aquired and even at that to be a vegetarian would even let all animals live... 

whats more inhumane- harvesting a wild critter or growin them to kill them? I mean ya breed them just to kill them...

Its all perspective. I personally would not likely hunt bear,mostly due to the costs involved but then again someday I might if the opportunity come up- they don't taste bad and the fats are used for quite a few things.


----------



## bgak47 (Sep 4, 2003)

poorboy said:


> Glad to know we have a video expert examiner on the board..


 Did you Poorboy? I mean see a bow? I never saw a bow & I never saw any bear get closer to that camera than about 100yds. Maybe I disremembered it, but I sure don't remember seeing any bears on that video at 8yds! Why do you suppose that is Poorboy? 8 yds? isn't that about 24ft? I didn't see that. Did you? I'm not an expert video examiner, but I know the difference between 100yds & 8yds when I see it.


----------



## momlaffsalot (Sep 9, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> It was them or the Bear.You dont mess with Bears.


That's the point, if they wouldn't have been 'messing with the bear' in the first place, they wouldn't have had to kill two of them.


----------



## agmantoo (May 23, 2003)

I saw the quiver with the arrows in the beginning and I also saw that the man that shot the boar was not the same man that shot the sow. The first shot to the boar was a killing shot and the boar was running on adrenilin. The second shot to the boar was to finish him quickly as he was standing and about to fall regardless. The person that shot the sow appears to me to be a guide. I doubt that a hunter would have been permitted to carry the handgun that the second shooter had strapped on. The reason the sow appeared so far away was that the camera man was way behind the group. I also agree that it is the money from the hunters that creates the circumstances for the game to thrive. If the sow and the big male had crossed paths the cub would have been killed by the boar. I have no idea if the cub can survive but people do not realize how cruel nature can be. Man is cruel to man and sometimes the cruelty involves animals. However, with animals, nature is the cruelist of all IMO.


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

bgak47 said:


> Did you Poorboy? I mean see a bow? I never saw a bow & I never saw any bear get closer to that camera than about 100yds. Maybe I disremembered it, but I sure don't remember seeing any bears on that video at 8yds! Why do you suppose that is Poorboy? 8 yds? isn't that about 24ft? I didn't see that. Did you? I'm not an expert video examiner, but I know the difference between 100yds & 8yds when I see it.


bgak47, the bow is clearly visible starting at about 17 sec in to the tape, until about 30 sec, when they switched to a rifle. 

You're also pretty good at distance judging, too. The sow was shot just as she was coming up the face of the dune they were on. She was well within a quarter of the distance the boar was when they shot _him_ (they said 60 yards, BTW) when you lose sight of her just before the fatal shot. She started farther away than he was (1:58), started the charge at 2:17, and was almost on them in 9 seconds (2:26). She was shot at 2:27 as she was coming into view just over the dune (all you can see is her head), total elapsed time of 29 seconds!

You really should _watch_ the video.


----------



## KimM (Jun 17, 2005)

tallpaul, you're missing my point.
I don't have a problem with hunting if one NEEDS the meat. I don't have a problem with *humanely* raising and slaughtering an animal for food. I don't even have a problem with hunting to reduce the population *when it is neccessary.* But when people who have more money than sense go out to kill an animal for the sake of something to shoot over the weekend, I have a problem with that. They don't NEED to hunt for food, they want to kill something. 
As for the video I stand by my opinion. Not one person here can say FOR SURE that it would not have made her stop, they absolutely did have time to shoot off a couple rounds before the bear got as close as she did, meaning that they could have still shot her when she reached the pint that she did. It may not have deterred her but she deserved that chance. That is my main point of the video. No one has to agree with with me, this is just how I feel about what I saw. 



tallpaul said:


> Seems to me ya could say the same for raisin meat goats... I mean a cow is bigger and ya need to take fewer lives per pound aquired and even at that to be a vegetarian would even let all animals live...
> 
> whats more inhumane- harvesting a wild critter or growin them to kill them? I mean ya breed them just to kill them...
> 
> Its all perspective. I personally would not likely hunt bear,mostly due to the costs involved but then again someday I might if the opportunity come up- they don't taste bad and the fats are used for quite a few things.



Not many people would admit they get a thrill of killing or watching an animal die. 

No, I looked back and didn't see where I used the term "poor" cub....if you're going to quote me, at least quote me correctly.

The probability of another lactating mother bear willing adopt an orphaned cub is extremely unlikely, realistically. 

99%? How did you document this and came up with that percentage? Did you tag these animals and follow them around until they grew up? How can you tell that those specific deer are "usually wiser and craftier than the rest"? Not that the actual number is important but please don't just pick numbers out of the air and state that it's fact.

If you want to hunt for meat, more power to you! I'm glad you make GOOD use of what you harvest.



staceyfb said:


> So I should find no enjoyment in the hunting for my plate? How would that be possible. I live strictly on wild meat. I also emensley enjoy the art of hunting that animal I am sustaining my life on.
> *I never said I enjoyed watching anything die.* But it is part of the cycle of life.
> 
> As for the* "poor" cub * that has been "sentenced to a slow death by starvation", *have you ever seen another pig(of which the bear is) or cow or anything of the sort adopt an orphan? Not saying that it real often in the wild. However if the cub was that young to die of starvation it has a chance at it.* I would say that by the size of the cub he/she will be fine as pie. The wild animals can overcome great obstacles that humans have no chnace of ever doing.
> ...


----------



## tallpaul (Sep 5, 2004)

KimM said:


> tallpaul, you're missing my point.
> I don't have a problem with hunting if one NEEDS the meat.


Ya missed my point... no one NEEDS goat meat either... its a choice and if ya don't want bear meat you need not participate. There are plenty of folk who would argue that what you do is as inhumane as what the hunters do/did. I am not one of them but I am pointing out to you that there are and quite frankly thier point of view is as valid as yours- IE not correct. Mother nature is harsh and all sorts of cubs die every year as well as animals period. Male bears sometimes kill cubs... life is harsh and to call someone elses choices to hunt worse than your choice to raise to slaughter worse or less humanely is just ignorant.


----------



## KimM (Jun 17, 2005)

And that is your *opinion!*  



tallpaul said:


> Ya missed my point... no one NEEDS goat meat either... its a choice and if ya don't want bear meat you need not participate. There are plenty of folk who would argue that what you do is as inhumane as what the hunters do/did. I am not one of them but I am pointing out to you that there are and quite frankly thier point of view is as valid as yours- IE not correct. Mother nature is harsh and all sorts of cubs die every year as well as animals period. Male bears sometimes kill cubs... life is harsh and to *call someone elses choices to hunt worse than your choice to raise to slaughter worse or less humanely is just ignorant.*


----------



## tallpaul (Sep 5, 2004)

KimM said:


> And that is your *opinion!*


Thats the point as is yours on the issue of bear hunting so


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

KimM said:


> Another thing, since they did kill the cubs mother, the humane thing to do would have been to go ahead and shoot the cub since he was just sentanced to death by slow starvation. (but probably illegal)


Kim, it appears to me that this is a second year cub. Cubs stay with the sow until the second winter, then the sow gives the cub the boot so she can prepare for new cubs in the spring. The weather appears to be fall like and the bears are in good flesh which certainly is a strong indicator of fall conditions. In all likelyhood this cub would soon be seperated from it's mother anyway and it's chances for survival haven't been affected in the least. Study up a little Kim.


----------



## bgak47 (Sep 4, 2003)

OK, I did see the bow, so I'll acknowlege that these guys probably Did have the intention of hunting this boar grizz with the bow. The weather conditions didn't allow for that. But this ''sport'' hunter was determined to kill a grizz because he was the ''star'' of this video. Maybe he paid a lot of money for this guided hunt & it was the thrill of his life, or maybe it was paid for by Cabellas so they could use the video on their TV show. Either way, IMO,this video was of something that should never have happened. I think that we all know that this hunt was never about Meat. Grizzleys are predators & carrion eaters, & most people don't really care for the taste of their meat. I doubt seriously if the meat was even harvested.This was a Trophy hunt from the beginning.The Idea was to video a dangerous hunt of an animal that might be able to kill you if you weren't armed with powerful rifles.Vicarious thrills for ''armchair hunters''!I don't like it & the only reason it happened was for Entertainment purposes...if you can call it that. So I'll stand by my original OPINION...It was useless BS!


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

bgak47 said:


> I doubt seriously if the meat was even harvested.This was a Trophy hunt from the beginning.The Idea was to video a dangerous hunt of an animal that might be able to kill you if you weren't armed with powerful rifles.Vicarious thrills for ''armchair hunters''!


Yep, I agree with that. It also appears to have been done legally and ethically.


> I don't like it & the only reason it happened was for Entertainment purposes...if you can call it that. So I'll stand by my original OPINION...


And I think you have every right to dislike it, just like I have every right to dislike mustard and football. Should you give them up, because I hate them? 

It seems to me that you and Kim kinda want the rest us to be just like you.


----------



## jross (Sep 3, 2006)

bgak47 said:


> IMHO this whole video was Utter & Complete BS! Did you Ever see any kind of a Bow in the video? Were either of these ''bow hunters'' ever close enough for shot with a bow?I saw 2 rifle hunters that never got closer than 200-300yds to a bear & when they decided to shoot with their scoped rifles they muffed the shot & only wounded the boar, then they Claimed that they were in Danger from the''charge'' by the sow from 200yds. The entire video is BS, & their ''interview'' about their ''danger'' from the ''charge'' by the sow is idiotic. They obviously provoked the charge by their antics so that they could shoot the sow for the dramatic effect for that stupid video. This entire ''hunting'' incident pretty much sickens me,as it was scripted to be ''dramatic'' for the video that was being shot. I wouldn't ---- on either one of these ''bear hunters'' if they were on fire in my living room.


Did you watch the same video as the rest of us? I saw the bow at the beginning. The bear was in the archers bow range, sixty yards for some is not hard shot, but they were concerned about the wind blowing the arrow off course. If the video was set up as you say then I would have expected the yahoos we see in some rediculous hunting videos. What makes you think they would want to be in your living room?


----------



## jross (Sep 3, 2006)

The goat growers are starting a campaign to explain to us how much better goat meat is than beef. Probably is, maybe like venison?


----------



## KimM (Jun 17, 2005)

Can you not READ or can you just not COMPREHEND?????
For the last time - 
I have NO problem with hunting FOR FOOD IF it's NEEDED. I am opposed to hunting for SPORT. You want to eat bear, have at it! You want to eat a skunk's rear-end, knock yourself out. 
This board is for discussion and giving opinions. I gave mine and the rest was either explaining my reasons for my opinion or defending myself against semi-snide remarks. What part of any of my posts do you get I'm trying to get everyone to be like me? Try reading what's actually there and not read crap into it that isn't there. 
I don't give a rat's patooty if anyone here agrees with me! :nana: 



Steve L. said:


> Yep, I agree with that. It also appears to have been done legally and ethically.
> 
> And I think you have every right to dislike it, just like I have every right to dislike mustard and football. Should you give them up, because I hate them?
> 
> ...


----------



## KimM (Jun 17, 2005)

It's suppose to be milder than venison, especially the Boer and Boer-cross (as opposed to dairy breeds), but just as lean. I've only tried it once so far and it was pretty good.




jross said:


> The goat growers are starting a campaign to explain to us how much better goat meat is than beef. Probably is, maybe like venison?


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Kim, please tell me how you would explain your reasoning to the goat that it is ok to kill and eat the goat, and not the bear.


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

tinknal said:


> Kim, please tell me how you would explain your reasoning to the goat that it is ok to kill and eat the goat, and not the bear.


tinknal, Iâm not trying to speak for Kim here, but I think itâs because the hunters probably didnât eat the bears. I also believe that they didnât, and I too am not very interested in going on a hunt like that. 



> This board is for discussion and giving opinions. I gave mineâ¦


And I gave mine. 



> I have NO problem with hunting FOR FOOD IF it's NEEDED. I am opposed to hunting for SPORT.





KimM said:


> Can you not READ or can you just not COMPREHEND?????





> Try reading what's actually there and not read crap into it that isn't there.


Oh, so _now_ youâre saying that my understanding of your position is way off base, and that you _wouldnât_ work to ban hunting exclusively for sport! I'm sorry, I really am just stupid, I guess. 



> I don't give a rat's patooty if anyone here agrees with me! :nana:


I can respect that position. But why did you decide to â(don your) flame suitâ (back in post #12)?


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

Oh, and Kim, one more thing. Just so I can understand your 'real' position, would you be so kind as to answer the question I posed in post # 35, to whit - 
"Should _you_ give them up (things that _I_ dislike), because _I_ hate them?"


----------



## beorning (Apr 14, 2006)

The line between trophy hunting and subsistence hunting is extremely blurry. I've never met a deer hunter, for instance, that doesn't want to bag a trophy buck at some point in his hunting career. I'm sure they exist, but they are extremely rare. 

Trophies are never my primary focus when I hunt. I'm after meat. But the elements of sport that exist keep meat hunters ethical. Otherwise, whatever was the easiest way to get the most meat would be the preferred hunting method. Most of these methods are outlawed because they don't give the game a sporting chance and because they deplete game resources. Take a look sometime at game animal populations since subsistence hunting ceased to be neccesary to survival. 

Ethical, law abiding trophy hunters generate a lot of revenue. Money that goes towards restoring habitat, restocking game animals that have been depleted, providing tons of jobs, et cetera. A trophy hunter is often willing to spend thousands of dollars for a single hunt. I usually drop about a hundred bucks a year to go deer hunting. That trophy hunting money helps to bolster my right to continue to hunt venison for my freezer, and helps insure that there will be deer to hunt in the future.

No one needs to hunt in this country in order to survive. Not a soul. So the real debate here boils down to semantics. I have far more issues with the "if it's brown it's down" subsistence hunting yokels that will shoot anything that moves and deliberatly flaunt hunting laws designed to maintain game populations than I do with ethical trophy hunters. I don't believe you'd ever catch any of the guys in this video blasting away at a DNR decoy from the cab of their pickup trucks, or gut shooting a pregnant doe out of season because they were too darned lazy to go to the range and get some practice in and didn't care about game laws.


----------



## KimM (Jun 17, 2005)

Never said it wasn't ok to EAT bear. REVIEW the posts. 



tinknal said:


> Kim, please tell me how you would explain your reasoning to the goat that it is ok to kill and eat the goat, and not the bear.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

The Great Outdoors 
A forum for hunting, fishing and trapping.

This says that this Forum is for Hunting,Fishing and Trapping.Yes people do things that not everyone agrees with.

If I had Posted about Bow Fishing,with pictures would I hear the same controversy.What if it had been Leg Hold Trapping,or fixing up a Trap to drown several Mice.

Yes more than likely the Bear was not shot for its meat,most Grizzlies have very strong meat.I killed a Boar Hog last Spring for the thrill,its meat was not strong tasting,but it was tuff.So my wife says not to shoot anymore Old Boars.

Ok I'm not PC,I get tierd of AR People.This Forum is about Hunting,Fishing and Trapping.There is going to be blood,guts,and animals dying.It might be for Food,Fur,or Population control.

So now you know,so don't be coming on this Forum preaching how you think we are so wrong.If you don't like what goes on here don't come here :shrug: Its that simple.

big rockpile


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

beorning said:


> The line between trophy hunting and subsistence hunting is extremely blurry. I've never met a deer hunter, for instance, that doesn't want to bag a trophy buck at some point in his hunting career. I'm sure they exist, but they are extremely rare.
> 
> Trophies are never my primary focus when I hunt. I'm after meat. But the elements of sport that exist keep meat hunters ethical. Otherwise, whatever was the easiest way to get the most meat would be the preferred hunting method. Most of these methods are outlawed because they don't give the game a sporting chance and because they deplete game resources. Take a look sometime at game animal populations since subsistence hunting ceased to be neccesary to survival.
> 
> ...


Very well written, beorning. I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

beorning said:


> No one needs to hunt in this country in order to survive. Not a soul.


Perhaps. But I think there are a lot of people (and I know a bunch of them here locally) who hunt in season to keep their freezers filled so they don't have to depend on the food bank or government handouts.


----------



## KimM (Jun 17, 2005)

Steve L. said:


> tinknal, Iâm not trying to speak for Kim here, but I think itâs because the hunters probably didnât eat the bears. I also believe that they didnât, and I too am not very interested in going on a hunt like that.


 That was part of it, *I feel * if ya have to kill it, at least use it for food and don't kill something just to kill it. 



> Oh, so _now_ youâre saying that my understanding of your position is way off base, and that you _wouldnât_ work to ban hunting exclusively for sport! I'm sorry, I really am just stupid, I guess.


 You said; "It seems to me that you and Kim kinda want the rest us to be just like you." I was giving my point of views, I wasn't trying to talk anyone into being the like me. Unfortunately there's no possible way to determine that someone who hunts will use the game as food or not but if there were a way to ban hunting _exclusively for sport_ I'd likely be right there fighting for it.


> I can respect that position. But why did you decide to â(don your) flame suitâ (back in post #12)?


 That's what a flame suit is for, so flames don't burn ya! Seriously, I guess I just expected it. 



Steve L. said:


> Oh, and Kim, one more thing. Just so I can understand your 'real' position, would you be so kind as to answer the question I posed in post # 35, to whit -
> "Should you give them up (things that I dislike), because I hate them?"


 Who asked you to give anything up? I certainly didn't. You said, "....and I too am not very interested in going on a hunt like that." So I assume you do use what you kill. Nothing wrong with hunting for food.


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> Perhaps. But I think there are a lot of people (and I know a bunch of them here locally) who hunt in season to keep their freezers filled so they don't have to depend on the food bank or government handouts.


Sure. 

Lesse, I spent maybe 160 hours deer hunting the past two seasons. I got a total of 3 deer, at most 200 pounds of meat. That's almost an hour per lb. of meat (I didn't realize it was so time consuming, until now)! If I'd spent that time working at a minimum wage job, I'd have made enough money to buy pretty darned good beef, and that doesn't take into account processing and storage costs. Beorning is right. It isn't just that "nobody _needs_ to hunt for meat", but also that the only way it makes sense to do it is if they get pleasure from the experience. Otherwise, it's just time and money down a rat hole.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Steve L. said:


> Sure.
> 
> Lesse, I spent maybe 160 hours deer hunting the past two seasons. I got a total of 3 deer, at most 200 pounds of meat. That's almost an hour per lb. of meat (I didn't realize it was so time consuming, until now)! If I'd spent that time working at a minimum wage job, I'd have made enough money to buy pretty darned good beef, and that doesn't take into account processing and storage costs. Beorning is right. It isn't just that "nobody _needs_ to hunt for meat", but also that the only way it makes sense to do it is if they get pleasure from the experience. Otherwise, it's just time and money down a rat hole.


Well Steve, I grew up on the east coast and I can tell you that things are a little bit different here than they are in New York. There isn't exactly a surplus of jobs in North Idaho, they are pretty hard to come by, minimum wage or otherwise. Loggers get laid off frequently and there is no other way to pick up the slack. So assuming someone can just make the money to buy grocery store meat is a pretty big assumption. Also, we don't just have little bitty deer here. They also hunt moose and elk which can fill up a freezer a bit quicker. It also doesn't take much time to get a deer and people do a lot of the processing themselves.
And I'm sure they _do_ get pleasure out of hunting but it doesn't negate the fact that a lot of people do need to hunt to feed their families.


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

KimM said:


> That was part of it, *I feel * if ya have to kill it, at least use it for food and don't kill something just to kill it.


I feel that way, too.



> if there were a way to ban hunting _exclusively for sport_ I'd likely be right there fighting for it.





> Who asked you to give anything up? I certainly didn't.


Uhmm, fighting for a ban on âhunting _exclusively for sport_â IS asking people to give up "hunting _exclusively for sport_â. I was using âIâ and 'me' in a rhetorical/general sense. (Reading comprehension down just a little, this morning? :croc: )



> You said; "It seems to me that you and Kim kinda want the rest us to be just like you." I was giving my point of views, I wasn't trying to talk anyone into being the like me.


But you _do_ want us to only kill what we _need_ to eat, âjust like youâ would, don't you? 

Who was it, (John Donne maybe?) who wrote 
âAny manâs death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind..â

Well, Iâm unwilling to abrogate any rights/privileges that I donât absolutely have to. I support your ârightâ to smoke, and drink, and murder your babies, too, by the way. :lookout:

Heck I'm even ok with the idea that you should be allowed to vote Democrat!!!


----------



## largentdepoche (Dec 9, 2005)

I feel bad for the baby bear but it'll make it on it's own.

If I was getting charged, I wouldn't give myself a second thought before I'd take it out. 

Bears are above us on the food chain, but we have the fingers that pull the triggers.

Kat


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Gotta agree with BR,this is a forum for HUNTERS.Period.

Rest edited out.As Im just a lurker here,not a participant,my opinions dont count.But the title of the forum couldnt be clearer.

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## bgak47 (Sep 4, 2003)

I've been a Meat hunter for over 50yrs & if I don't want to eat it I won't shoot it. Its abosolutely true that trophy hunters contibute to local economies & that their liscense fees & a portion of the taxes that they pay on their equipment goes towards wildlife conservation & the preservation of wild lands. Its also true that the majority of the people in this country are not hunters & that they don't approve of hunting, especially trophy hunting. Public lands belong to everyone in this country, & the vast majority of the people that OWN those lands do NOT approve of killing a Grizzely bear for Sport. That bear ''attack'' would never have happened if those trophy hunters had not started it. They may have been paying thousands of dollars for the Privilege of killing a bear for Sport, but Most non-hunters wouldn't care. They don't have thousands of $ to spend on something like this. Despite what you might think, hunting in this country is ''allowed'' by the non-hunting majority. Videos like this one just give opponents of hunting another reason to oppose hunting.


----------



## Wildfire_Jewel (Nov 5, 2006)

That You RockPile!!!! He said it folks! If hunting bothers you so much, no matter what type of hunting it is, stay out of the HUNTING forum!!


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

'Scuse me. This is an open forum. If you can't take any disagreement among hunters, go start a forum and screen your members before you let them in. There has been no name calling or uncivilized discourse...what's the problem?


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> Well Steve, I grew up on the east coast and I can tell you that things are a little bit different here â¦ Loggers get laid off â¦ a lot of people do need to hunt to feed their families.


What, is it against the law in Idaho to move to a place that pays a living wage? You know as well as I do that these people choose to live there, and choose the jobs they have. You sound just like my father â âBut heâd have to _moooove_ to get a good job!â



> And I'm sure they _do_ get pleasure out of huntingâ¦


And thatâs the principle reason they do it. 



rose2005 said:


> Steve...I disagree. Deer meat is far superior and better for you than store bought meat of any kind.


Never said it wasnât. I eat a ton of it. 



> Also people hunt on their days off, maybe after work and vacation time.


Thatâs odd, when I was poor, those are the times when I worked second jobs/odd jobs! :shrug: In those days, I couldnât afford to hunt, âcause my time was worth too much. I had bills to pay, and I couldnât pay âem with the money I âsavedâ by hunting. I still managed to eat, though.



> Once the initial cost of equipment is paid for the cost is smallâ¦


Sometimes it is, sometimes it ainât. 



> We process our ownâ¦


So do I. 



> We don't NEED to hunt for meat...


I thought that was MY point! :nono: 



> We also want to have the ability and equipment to hunt.


So do I! But, itâs what we WANT, not what we NEED.

Iâve never met anybody whoâs claimed that he just hates hunting, but _has_ to because it was the cheapest way to get meat. The whole âbut itâs cheap meatâ thing is a justification, not a reason. 

Iâm not saying that people shouldnât hunt, or grow their own food, or anything like that at all. All Iâm saying is that hunting (and gardening, for that matter) is a low paying part-time job, and if moneyâs tight, and you can find other work, do that, âcause itâll probably pay better. Thatâs been my experience, and I hunt where itâs really easy to get deer. 



mightybooboo said:


> Gotta agree with BR, this is a forum for HUNTERS. Period.
> 
> Rest edited out. As Iâm just a lurker here, not a participant, my opinions dont count. But the title of the forum couldnt be clearer.
> 
> BooBoo :gromit:


Iâm afraid I donât agree with you on this, BooBoo. I think itâs more important to have these kinds of discussions than to go on and on about which gun, which caliber, look at my pics, and generally just pat each other on the back.


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> 'Scuse me. This is an open forum. If you can't take any disagreement among hunters, go start a forum and screen your members before you let them in. There has been no name calling or uncivilized discourse...what's the problem?


Way to go, girl. :dance:


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Steve L. said:


> What, is it against the law in Idaho to move to a place that pays a living wage? You know as well as I do that these people choose to live there, and choose the jobs they have. You sound just like my father â âBut heâd have to _moooove_ to get a good job!â
> .


The point of this little argument was that you claim that no one in this country has to hunt to survive. They do here. This is where they live. They hunt to fill their freezers and their children's bellies. Soem enjoy it. I know of a few who don't, but do it for the food.


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> The point of this little argument..


Ok, Dad, I understand.


----------



## KimM (Jun 17, 2005)

Steve L. said:


> I feel that way, too.
> 
> 
> Uhmm, fighting for a ban on âhunting _exclusively for sport_â IS asking people to give up "hunting _exclusively for sport_â. I was using âIâ and 'me' in a rhetorical/general sense. (Reading comprehension down just a little, this morning? :croc: )
> ...


*Ditto on the*  (did we just agree on _another_ thing??)


----------



## jross (Sep 3, 2006)

As much as I do not agree with hunting for sport, I support it because when one foot is in the door regarding animal rights, the door will get slammed open in our faces, and then none of us will be legally able to hunt. Hunting is not a sport, but an excersize in predation. United we stand, folks.


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

beorning,

I personally know a few country folks who do hunt for a living..some of them JUST have to in order to feed their families...many of them just don't want to get on federal dole just to get food stamps..demeaning plus you do have to report EVERY penny you get. Not worth their time plus keeping the animal numbers down keeps nature in check.


----------



## beorning (Apr 14, 2006)

> I personally know a few country folks who do hunt for a living..some of them JUST have to in order to feed their families...many of them just don't want to get on federal dole just to get food stamps..demeaning plus you do have to report EVERY penny you get. Not worth their time plus keeping the animal numbers down keeps nature in check.




The word "need" is critical to my original point. Do I think it's more noble to hunt for your own food versus collecting food stamps? Absolutely. But that decision does not represent a need, it represents a choice. 

I agree that hunters are a critical part of managing game populations.


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

beorning said:


> The word "need" is critical to my original point...


Yeah, people in general just can't differentiate between 'need' and 'want'. 

I know a girl who is constantly late paying her rent, car payment, you name it. She was complaining to me about how she couldn't make her 'rent to own' payments. I asked her what she owed. It was "X dollars for the living room set, Y dollars for the stereo system, Z dollars for the dishwasher, etc. 

I said "Why don't you get rid of the dishwasher? You really don't need it". She responded, "Oh, God no, I _couldn't_ live like _you_!" 

Sheesh, I didn't suggest that she move into a card-board box, for crying out loud! I just thought that maybe she and her live-in boyfriend could wash a plate or two. 

What's the world coming to.


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

rose2005 said:


> _..... I also feel that teaching future generations to hunt and know how to survive should the need arise is important..._


_
You know, Rose, you just touch on an aspect of hunting that probably truly is a 'need'. I, too, believe that it's vitally important for at least some of us to hang onto 'survival' skills._


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

So Kim, since you refuse to kill your meat are you a vegitarian, or do you just hire your killing done?


----------



## KimM (Jun 17, 2005)

Talking to YOU is like talking to a 2nd grader with no attention span whatsoever. 

tinknal = :stirpot: 



tinknal said:


> So Kim, since you refuse to kill your meat are you a vegitarian, or do you just hire your killing done?


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

KimM said:


> Talking to YOU is like talking to a 2nd grader with no attention span whatsoever.
> 
> tinknal = :stirpot:


So you hire it done. I thought so.


----------



## KimM (Jun 17, 2005)

"Thinking" doesn't seem to be your strong point. Neither does reading.
:nono: Let it go already.





tinknal said:


> So you hire it done. I *thought* so.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

KimM said:


> "Thinking" doesn't seem to be your strong point. Neither does reading.
> :nono: Let it go already.


I see that answering a simple question is out of the range of your ability.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2007)

GREAT POST.....  

Alaska has bears. Bears breed. In some areas we have enough that they let people hunt for them. The people that decide this are 'college educated'. They base their decisions on all kinds of numbers like lifespan, food supply, number of offspring etc.... We have so many bears and so many people that want to hunt for them that they have to be managed. Wildlife management is critical or the balance of animals will tip. If it tips then they have to do an emergency order to either stop hunting/fishing or open it up further to add/remove the numbers to keep the population in check. The economic benefits are also weighed.

Some people harvest animals for food, some for clothing and some for sport. This includes all animals, at the farm and or in the wild. If you wear leather, eat Mickey D's fries, or play golf you are effecting the animals in one way or another. 

Bambi was a cartoon. It sold lots of Kleenex. It is not real life. 

This is how to take a nap in Alaska.


----------



## KimM (Jun 17, 2005)

If you insist:

READ POST # 63
I already made the statement that answers your question. If you had taken the time to READ the posts clearly, you might have seen the answer to your question, right there in post #63. I'm entitled to how I feel, just the same as you are but why do you feel the need to keep trying to taunt me into an arguement?? It shows blatant immaturity on your part. Read the below post quote and then put your big-boy panties on, grow up, get over it, and go on.

POST #63 -
"I never said that I kill to eat. I don't. *I raise goats and sell them, I don't kill them, I don't have them butchered.* I would if I absolutely had to and I'd do it as fast and as humanely as I possibly could. I do not like to see an animal die when it doesn't have to. What is wrong with that?" 




tinknal said:


> I see that answering a simple question is out of the range of your ability.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

KimM said:


> If you insist:
> 
> READ POST # 63
> I already made the statement that answers your question. If you had taken the time to READ the posts clearly, you might have seen the answer to your question, right there in post #63. I'm entitled to how I feel, just the same as you are but why do you feel the need to keep trying to taunt me into an arguement?? It shows blatant immaturity on your part. Read the below post quote and then put your big-boy panties on, grow up, get over it, and go on.
> ...


And yet you still refuse to answer the question!


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

bgak47 said:


> IMHO this whole video was Utter & Complete BS!...I saw 2 rifle hunters that never got closer than 200-300yds to a bear & when they decided to shoot with their scoped rifles they muffed the shot & only wounded the boar, then they Claimed that they were in Danger from the''charge'' by the sow from 200yds. .


WOW I dont know where to start . Looks to me like they were substantally closer than 200 yards at first sight
As for the charge at 200 yards If you were correct Id say yes they should be in fear of thier lives with a bear 200 yards away...even before the charge.
I think they were a lot closer It looked closer I think its a downright miracle they were not mauled.
Now as for not eating the bear.
I cant see where that makes any diference I like bear steak but I also enjoy **** and beaver stew, other anamals that are shot for their hides not the meat .Would it be wrong to shoot a moose for the meat and not use the hide?
Personally I think bear hunting with a Bow is insane but if you want to at leastsdo it like these guys....with a well armed force with you.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

KimM said:


> If you insist:
> 
> READ POST # 63
> I already made the statement that answers your question. If you had taken the time to READ the posts clearly, you might have seen the answer to your question, right there in post #63. I'm entitled to how I feel, just the same as you are but why do you feel the need to keep trying to taunt me into an arguement?? It shows blatant immaturity on your part. Read the below post quote and then put your big-boy panties on, grow up, get over it, and go on.
> ...


No where in post #63 did you answer weather or not you are a vegitarian.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

jen74145 said:


> Kim...
> I really hope, for your own safety and that of your livestock, you study up a bit on carnivore behavior.  Once a bear charges, or a mountain lion starts stalking, it's game over for somebody.  They aren't to be reasoned with.
> 
> Please realize this isn't said to be rude, I am genuinely concerned.
> ...



Dang, I'm sure glad I didn't know "this"...
Having worked with the Park Service in Alaska for ten years, 9 in Denali, working directly with grizzly bears on a daily basis, I should be dead, according to the statement you made.

I've been charged by boars and sows with cubs... I've never been rolled, or physically attacked. Hmmmm...up to five foot charges, and no scratches.

When I was the Backcountry Supervisor at Denali, I studied everything written... I was a veritable fountain of information...I could quote you every attack in the state and nation for the last ten years... I had to have this information, because I was required to answer backpackers/visitors questions... I felt safer in the backcountry, with grizzlies grazing in site of my tent, than I did when I went to Fairbanks or Anchorage.

I hunt. I eat meat. I've hunted bear, and eaten bear... but it riles my goat when folks kill grizzers because they were 'charging'... usually the only background information they have is from the hook and bullet mags... (again, I like those mag's too!)

If you want real information on bears, go beyond Field and Stream or Sports Afield, Ted Nugent, etc. Of course, the real information isn't as juiced...

If a person doesn't have a gun handy, they tend to think more/shoot less. Yes, cogent thought is possible. If a person isn't capable of cogent thought, in bear country, they should stick to town...

btw... this isn't directed at jen personally, but to anyone venturing into grizzly habitat


----------



## jross (Sep 3, 2006)

The names Treadwell and Huguenard spring to mind. They were going to protect the bears by being nice to them. Both are now dried out bear scat.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

texican said:


> I've been charged by boars and sows with cubs... I've never been rolled, or physically attacked. Hmmmm...up to five foot charges, and no scratches.


Ok You have bet YOUR life on your veiw, But would you recomend the same to everyone and persoanlly garantee their safety?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

jross said:


> The names Treadwell and Huguenard spring to mind. They were going to protect the bears by being nice to them. Both are now dried out bear scat.


I don't know that you should compare Texican to Timothy Treadwell. That guy was over the top looney tunes. There is a huge difference between being near a griz and behaving like you have sort of spiritual one-ness thing going with them.


----------



## jross (Sep 3, 2006)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> I don't know that you should compare Texican to Timothy Treadwell. That guy was over the top looney tunes. There is a huge difference between being near a griz and behaving like you have sort of spiritual one-ness thing going with them.


Not to the bear, it doesn't.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Really. We had a griz here this past summer and we didn't try to bond with it or make friends with it like Treadwell did. We just let it be and it moved right on. It didn't bother us or our livestock.


----------



## moonwolf (Sep 20, 2004)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> Really. We had a griz here this past summer and we didn't try to bond with it or make friends with it like Treadwell did. We just let it be and it moved right on. It didn't bother us or our livestock.


Most rural people living here are like that, including me. The black bear grazes down in the field while I mow grass on my baby John Deere, sometimes within 50 yards of each other. :shrug: So far living here 16 years I've never felt threatened. My neighbor once shot a black bear to death that invaded his pig roast gathering. Other than that, nothing that earthshattering or know of anyone got hurt except that crazy hunter in the fall once who wounded a bear and tried to go after it at night, got severely face mauled, but he was told by the guides not to do what he was doing. He did it anyway, and paid for it with wounds and expensive cosmetic surgery after.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

fantasymaker said:


> Ok You have bet YOUR life on your veiw, But would you recomend the same to everyone and persoanlly garantee their safety?


When I was working in Denali, I indeed DID recommend, to probably a minimum of 30, sometimes over a hundred or more, backpackers or hikers, each and every day, the techniques to survive a bear encounter. And, I indeed guarantee that if they followed my rules to the letter, they'd be safe! I trained all of the backcountry rangers and supervised them, the last four years I was there, in how to deal with bears, and how to deliver this information to visitors.... in that time, no body got so much as touched. We monitored our bears. More importantly we monitored our visitors, educating them before their visit, and asking certain questions of each person returning. If bears expressed interest (yes, even interest), we'd go out, find the bear and see what was up!

Was I lucky? Were we (the Park?) lucky? Maybe. 

Oh, and lonelytree, is the .44 for you? or the dog. People in the bush would always tell me they saved the last shot in the .44 for themselves, as unless you're awful good or awful lucky, a .44 might kill a grizz, but their adrenaline will let em live long enough to kill you. When I was going after a bad bear, in need of an attitude adjustment, or when I was out on the Seward Peninsula (Bering Land Bridge NPP), I carried a 12gauge with 4 slugs and 3ought buckshot... 

Once again, I have no biggie problems with bear hunting, if it's done right. So much as what passes for hunting is just killing. Such as spring hunts where folks (started to say hunters or sportsmen, don't consider them to be either) will go out on snowmobiles hunting, cross a bear trail, race after the trail and kill the bear... Absolutely nuthin sportin about it.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Hey guys,
never had a desire to get up close and personal with a grizzly bear. The onliest grizz I ever hugged was one I help dart and transfer a hundred miles via helicopter.

I saw the Treadwell movie... that guy was loonie.

And believe it or not, you CAN be charged without dying! Amazing, but true! Go to Denali, and see!!! They have lots of bears. If you screw up and do something the rangers tell you you shouldn't do, yes, you will be attacked.

Just like if you went wandering around New Orleans after dark, (at least pre Katrina) there's a good chance you would be mugged! Or if you go into a biker bar and spit on someones leather, there's a good chance a fresh can of 'whoop..s' will be opened...

I wonder if everyone here with an opinion on grizzlies has ever encountered one. I lost count of my grizzly encounters the first year... there were just way too many...


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Texican While I dont agree with your ideas of how to deal with bears Ive encountered a few and think you have a great point about an adrenaline filled bear being just too slow to die.

A hyped up brown can easily take a minute to die once its heart is shot and its shoulders broken .Think thats a long time? Its only 8 to 12 heartbeats for him.thats just to long to safely deal with it in any reasonable mannor .
Thus I dont hunt browns and never have . Ive delt with them some but it seems plain foolish to me to seek any sort of encounter with them even the hunting kind.

Texican would you in detail enlighten us into your I-bet-my-life-on-it method?
I know that sounds sarcastic but I dont mean it that way .Hard to think of a way to phrase it that doesnt sound that way.It honestly sounds like information vaulable to anyone in the wild country.
Or has NPS got it somewhere you could link us to?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

texican said:


> When I was working in Denali, I indeed DID recommend, to probably a minimum of 30, sometimes over a hundred or more, backpackers or hikers, each and every day, the techniques to survive a bear encounter. And, I indeed guarantee that if they followed my rules to the letter, they'd be safe! I trained all of the backcountry rangers and supervised them, the last four years I was there, in how to deal with bears, and how to deliver this information to visitors.... in that time, no body got so much as touched. We monitored our bears. More importantly we monitored our visitors, educating them before their visit, and asking certain questions of each person returning. If bears expressed interest (yes, even interest), we'd go out, find the bear and see what was up!
> 
> Was I lucky? Were we (the Park?) lucky? Maybe.
> 
> ...


With any wild animal a guarantee is not worth much. You can suggest what people need to do to remain safe but there is no way to guarantee what a wild animal will do. Most wild animals are predictable but that is not always true.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2007)

texican said:


> When I was working in Denali...
> 
> Oh, and lonelytree, is the .44 for you? or the dog. People in the bush would always tell me they saved the last shot in the .44 for themselves, as unless you're awful good or awful lucky, a .44 might kill a grizz, but their adrenaline will let em live long enough to kill you. When I was going after a bad bear, in need of an attitude adjustment, or when I was out on the Seward Peninsula (Bering Land Bridge NPP), I carried a 12gauge with 4 slugs and 3ought buckshot...


The picture was taken 17 miles north of Eureka near Monument. We ride in and take pics of animals and fish for grayling. It is about 35 miles south of the Denali Hwy but from the south side.

That is my poor old desert dog. He was born in Phoenix when I was stationed there. Half mutt and half more mutt. If I shot a round off we would have to chase him down. He is a bit more than skiddish. There is also a 12 GA with 00/slugs in it nearby on my wheeler. Actually, there are about 6 guns within 100 yards of me.

This year was slow. I only saw one brownie and one black. The brownie was at Montana Creek downstream of the trestle at 3 AM while fishing for kings. He came out and watched all of us morons fishing in his hole. I am glad that he didn't come closer as there were too many people armed. It would have been safer with just one or 2 people that know what they were shooing at.
The black bear was pretty big. We saw him while running up the Yentna river. Biggest black bear that I have seen up here. Pretty too. No pics tough. I will try harder this summer to take pics.

I have no need subsistance or mentally to shoot a bear. There are alot of people that eat them up here. 

I watched the video. They made a good decision to not try the bow. Too windy etc... The shot on the boar was not shown after all calmed down so I cannot comment on shot placement. I do know that if a sow was coming at me like that one, I would have shot much soomer. Enough sooner to make another shot or 2 if needed. I do not know what actually set her off. I would have thought that she would have taken her cub and hauled @ss when she heard the first rifle shot. Conditions must have made her think that she was cornered and that her only way to survive was to attack. The hunters made a sad tough choice. They are alive today because of it. 

Alaska laws are tough. If fish and game decided no foul, then I believe them.


----------

