What a mess...

[CorbLand]

You can shoot a brown bears heart and completely destroy it, and it will still have enough adrenaline to stay upright for 30 seconds. I’m certainly not trying to pick a fight with anybody here, but until you’ve seen the raw power these bears have, it’s hard to understand that the equation to kill these big bears includes much more than bullet weight and velocity.

I’ve watched a sow soak 8 rounds from a 45-70 and a 300 win mag at 100 yards and watched her tumble around and be pissed off for over 40 seconds (actually got it on video).

It’s very dependent on terrain, backup shooter, bears proximity to cover or water, rest, etc., but I know my hunting partners and I put every effort to stalk within 100-150 yards when we’re getting ready to shoot a brownie.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not trying to start a fight either but basically you admit that they are tough animals that can absorb a lot of lead before giving up and dying? It has nothing to do with caliber, distance or anything other than they are tough animals.

If you can destroy a bears heart and it can live for 30 seconds, what difference is 200 yards and 470 going to make?

If a sow can take 8 shots from a 45-70 at 100 and still live and they can live with no heart for 30 seconds, my ass wants to sit back and shoot them from 500 yards because thats a lot more distance for a bear to cover than 200 yards is.

 

[Wigeon kryptonite]

Not trying to start a fight either but basically you admit that they are tough animals that can absorb a lot of lead before giving up and dying? It has nothing to do with caliber, distance or anything other than they are tough animals.

If you can destroy a bears heart and it can live for 30 seconds, what difference is 200 yards and 470 going to make?

If a sow can take 8 shots from a 45-70 at 100 and still live and they can live with no heart for 30 seconds, my ass wants to sit back and shoot them from 500 yards because thats a lot more distance for a bear to cover than 200 yards is.

Then I encourage you to sit back at 500 yards and shoot at one. Hope you’re as good a shot as the folks in question were, and hope the bear is in a wide open snow field like they had. Cause if the bear runs out of sight and hides in an alder patch, it’s your ass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JohnJohnson]

I don’t really understand the support for the long range shot. Seems like it’s from people who haven’t actually hunted and killed giant brown bears.

It's not so much support for the shot as an unwillingness to condemn it based on arbitrary standards that seem to change with every thread. I'll re-state his question, what is the maximum distance you consider ethical to shoot a brown bear and why? Is it related to just ballistics? Or having to demonstrate hunting prowess to get in close enough? Does it change based on the long-range ballistics of one cartridge versus another? I just want to know why, I'm not being hostile about it. No one seems to want to articulate why they're criticizing the distance.

 

[CorbLand]

Then I encourage you to sit back at 500 yards and shoot at one. Hope you’re as good a shot as the folks in question were, and hope the bear is in a wide open snow field like they had. Cause if the bear runs out of sight and hides in an alder patch, it’s your ass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wouldn't shoot one at that distance because I am not that good of a shot.

My point is this, it has nothing to do with the distance but everyone is fixated on it. People act like if the bear would have been 50 yards closer everything would have been different. Maybe it would have but they stuck well within the their capabilities and the capabilities of the rifle. They put the majority of the factors in their favor, the only thing they didn't do was stick within some arbitrary line in the sand on distance. You yourself have admitted that it has taken multiple shots to kill one within 100 yards.

 

[Wigeon kryptonite]

It's not so much support for the shot as an unwillingness to condemn it based on arbitrary standards that seem to change with every thread. I'll re-state his question, what is the maximum distance you consider ethical to shoot a brown bear and why? Is it related to just ballistics? Or having to demonstrate hunting prowess to get in close enough? Does it change based on the long-range ballistics of one cartridge versus another? I just want to know why, I'm not being hostile about it. No one seems to want to articulate why they're criticizing the distance.

The standards aren’t arbitrary, but more so dependent on the variables present at the time of the shot. I cant speak to other threads, as this is the only one I’ve commented on for shooting brown bears. I was fortunate enough to be taken on 1 guided hunt before I moved to AK, and the guide said absolutely no shots beyond 100 yards. My own threshold after taking part in the killing of multiple brown bears is slightly further than that, but not much, and it’s totally dependent on the variables at play at the time.

I guess the best way I can put it is this: when you’re hunting in the AK bush, you are in the food chain, not on top. When you’re shooting at a brown bear, you’re trying to stack every possible odd in your favor. Shooting a brown bear is not like shooting an elk in that if your shot is anything less than perfect (at any distance) and you have to track him, the worst thing that will happen is that you bump him off his bed and you lose an animal. A wounded brown bear is one of the most dangerous animals in the world. They’re known to lead you through thick alders and then circle back behind you and flank you, or to lay up in an ambush in the thickest part of the alders. Even with good shots on target, a bear can still stay upright and charge. Even with a good shot, it can take a while for a bear to die, and in that time that bear will do everything it can to exact revenge on you.

Our typical MO is to get inside 100-150 yards and stay hidden. Shoot the bear and have someone backing you up also shooting the bear, and you stop shooting once the bear stops moving. If the bear sees you, it can and likely will, charge you even after being shot.

I feel like the folks in question experienced my example above first hand with the way the bear came at them when they got close.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[silasbowhunter]

As far as Alaska is concerned they could each have 100 rifles. Alaska’s the most gun friendly state in the country. Alaska let’s felons have guns or at least they don’t prohibit them from having them.

Just listened to this part again Tana “I talked to the Troopers before I went and they said you’re tagged out. You can’t back him up. Most guides can back up their clients whether they’re tagged out or not. It’s totally legal for them to start shooting as soon as their client puts a bullet in it. In my mind I can’t even shoot it? No, not unless you’re in danger you can’t. Well Trevor had a bow, a rifle, and pistol. What’s the point in me bringing an extra rifle if I can’t shoot it anyway since I’m tagged out.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AKBorn]

Just listened to this part again Tana “I talked to the Troopers before I went and they said you’re tagged out. You can’t back him up. Most guides can back up their clients whether they’re tagged out or not. It’s totally legal for them to start shooting as soon as their client puts a bullet in it. In my mind I can’t even shoot it? No, not unless you’re in danger you can’t. Well Trevor had a bow, a rifle, and pistol. What’s the point in me bringing an extra rifle if I can’t shoot it anyway since I’m tagged out.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She could not back him up on hunting and initially shooting the bear. Once the bear "charged" them, the rules of defense of life and property come into play, which are different than the rules for hunting a bear in AK.

 

[silasbowhunter]

She could not back him up on hunting and initially shooting the bear. Once the bear "charged" them, the rules of defense of life and property come into play, which are different than the rules for hunting a bear in AK.

I get it. But sounds like he was planning on getting on with his bow and she’d have the rifle as backup then. Obviously not ideal, just glad they made it out safe regardless.

 

[Sourdough]

This is worth emphasizing. Getting into the holier than thou crap that people online spew is dangerous. The chain of purity testing and projecting in the hunting community is toxic and not helpful.

I feel the Hunting Community ended roughly 20 or 30 years ago. What passes for hunting today........is disgusting.

It was roughly 25 or 30 years ago when if someone asked me if I was a hunter........I would answer, "No....not by current concept of being a hunter". I think the "pride" of being a hunter is gone. Now the "pride" is in bragging about the kill, bragging about success. It is about the end "Result" not about the hunt or hunting. It is now a "Social Competition" for a social acceptable standing. That is "not" what hunting is. Hunting is not a completive endeavor.

Yes.......I know there are some hunters today. But most are in a competition for the result, the priority is the result......the priority today for many is not about the hunt or hunting........it is about the result.

 

[wind gypsy]

In related news, a quick watch of the shot on this vid makes a guy pause before defending Stuck 'n the Rut when it comes to shot selection.

 

[JohnJohnson]

In related news, a quick watch of the shot on this vid makes a guy pause before defending Stuck 'n the Rut when it comes to shot selection.

I've been consistent in saying that I'm trying to get people to actually put their standards (and reasons for them) in writing as far as ethics on shot distance for bear. All of that assumes ethical shot placement as well. It's never been a blanket defense of the hunters in question. I could be missing something but I don't see any defense for the shot in that video, though it's also not the bear hunt from the OP.

 

[wind gypsy]

I've been consistent in saying that I'm trying to get people to actually put their standards (and reasons for them) in writing as far as ethics on shot distance for bear. All of that assumes ethical shot placement as well. It's never been a blanket defense of the hunters in question. I could be missing something but I don't see any defense for the shot in that video, though it's also not the bear hunt from the OP.

I agree and didn't intend to infer this was the same situation that spurred on this thread. Two separate issues. It does diminish the some thoughts that the experience of this group precludes them from taking questionable shots though.

I haven't seen a convincing reason why a 470 yard shot with 338 rum in the wide open by a competent shooter is a poor choice beyond the notion that it's harder for a primary and backup shooters to pump it full of follow up shots at that distance.

 

[dla]

Look, I know I suffer from OFS*, but I don't understand why this is so hard to understand: if your bear comes back to you from 1/2 mile away after you made your shot - you screwed up.
I don't care about your long distance shooting theories, your mythical medical knowledge about bears living without hearts, notions about bullet failures, etc.

You can get away with doing a lot of stupid stuff when shooting Elk cause they want to flee, not fight.




*Old fart syndrome

 

[AKBorn]

In related news, a quick watch of the shot on this vid makes a guy pause before defending Stuck 'n the Rut when it comes to shot selection.

I get that this is not the same bear, just the same hunter. This doesn't portray his "experience as a hunter" in a very good light. A 470 yard shot into the ass end of a bear that's running away from you and close to thick brush is a boneheaded shot, even if the result was lucky this time.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I get that this is not the same bear, just the same hunter. This doesn't portray his "experience as a hunter" in a very good light. A 470 yard shot into the ass end of a bear that's running away from you and close to thick brush is a boneheaded shot, even if the result was lucky this time.

Yeah what bugs me the most about that video is him saying the bear was about to get away so he had to take the butt shot. No, you don't have to take a marginal shot just because an animal is about to get away. That's not ethical in any way.

 

[Sourdough]

In related news, a quick watch of the shot on this vid makes a guy pause before defending Stuck 'n the Rut when it comes to shot selection.

That entire video........has vastly most similarity to military "sniper" recon, then any semblance of genuine sport hunting. Again one more disgusting example of "So-called" hunting experience.

 

[Sourdough]

Yeah what bugs me the most about that video is him saying the bear was about to get away so he had to take the butt shot. No, you don't have to take a marginal shot just because an animal is about to get away. That's not ethical in any way.

It simply supports the shift from "hunting" to the current paramount goal of, "Get the kill and the bragging rights".

 

[wind gypsy]

It simply supports the shift from "hunting" to the current paramount goal of, "Get the kill and the bragging rights".

Right. Since no time in bygone years had a hunter ever rushed after an animal and took a suboptimal shot. Folks like Jack O'Connor would have never lobbed questionable shots at game and written about it in revered magazine articles (sarcasm)..

 

[idelkslayer]

I get that this is not the same bear, just the same hunter. This doesn't portray his "experience as a hunter" in a very good light. A 470 yard shot into the ass end of a bear that's running away from you and close to thick brush is a boneheaded shot, even if the result was lucky this time.

Not that it changes much about the current conversation but this is not the same hunter as the one being discussed from the OP. The video linked is the oldest of the 3 brothers. The shooter in the OP is the youngest of the 3.

 

[AKBorn]

Not that it changes much about the current conversation but this is not the same hunter as the one being discussed from the OP. The video linked is the oldest of the 3 brothers. The shooter in the OP is the youngest of the 3.

I missed that...thanks for the followup and clarification. Still a goofy shot, but not the same person as in the OP's post.