Brown bear killed by Kodiak bunny hunter

[DENALI]

I know that the polar bear is the same critter as the kodiak, whats more in the long long ago and the far far away polars would now and then pop up on Kodiak island. As to what pistol was used, when I lived in Fairbanks and ventured out into the bush I never went with anything less than .44mag or remmington 870'ish and most sourdoughs you'll find to be in complete agreement with that medicine..........

 

[bill2]

true story?

Probably not.

A hiker is getting ready to go into the national park and asks the ranger for some advice. The ranger says to always wear bells on your feet and to sprinkle pepper on yourself so the bear can smell you and move away.
The hiker asks how will I know when there are bears around. The ranger says look for bear scat, which causes the hiker to ask “how can I tell the difference between black bear and grizzly bear scat?”. The ranger says that the black bear scat has little berries in it, and the grizzly bear scat has little bells in it and smells like pepper.

 

[DENALI]

There are no true stories.......Only good and better one's......

 

[TallPine]

I know that the polar bear is the same critter as the kodiak

No - you just thought you knew.

Grizzlies and kodiaks and brown bears are all pretty much the same - just the latter get much bigger due to their rich diet.

Though from the inside I suppose one could not tell much difference

 

[Eyesac]

I was watching the National Geographic Channel last night and saw a documentary about opportunity feeders. In one scene a brown bear chased down and caught a deer

If it's the one I'm thinking of, I saw that a long time ago. Griz chased the deer for like 3mins... Crazy.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Not sure why the cubs were shot, unless they were too young to fend for themselves.

Or they don't want the cubs growing up and avenging their mother's death.

Bears can cover ground seriously fast, I wouldn't want to be in the path of a hungry or aggrivated one. Like a monster truck with hair.

 

[shooter429]

I missed the original source

Nevermind.

Wow, sad for the bears, lucky for the hunter. I want to know what he used.
Shooter429

 

[punchdrunk]

Stories like this remind me that I am part of the food chain. So is the bear. easy to forget that living in the city.

 

[Roswell 1847]

I've read that one of the biggest Grizzly ever killed was shot through the eye with a .22 rifle by a Indian woman as it broke through the door of her cabin.
Totally lucky shot of course.

One old trapper wrote of finishing off trapped and unmoving Grizzly with a shot to the brain stem using a .22.

 

[CryingWolf]

Skin Griz

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FcsXC2xFis4

 

[zinj]

I know that the polar bear is the same critter as the kodiak,

No.

The polar bear is significantly different from a brown bear. The most obvious difference is the smaller, streamlined skull and the lack of the large hump of muscle on the back that the brown bear uses to dig. Both are adaptations away from the omnivorous (with a decided preference for roots) diet of the brown bear to the almost carnivorous diet of the polar.

 

[Roswell 1847]

Genetically theres little difference between Bear Species. They seem to adapt to climate change so well that the Polar Bear genes will survive by cross breeding which other Bears then pop up again as soon as arctic conditions return.
During an Ice Age Brown Bear genes survive by crossbreeding with the Polar Bears then as warmer weather and more vegetation appear the Brown Bear genes express themselves allowing each species to be reconstituted as Climate conditions dictate.

Polar Bear Fossils have been found in Spain, leftovers from a mini Ice Age I suppose.

 

[zinj]

There is some debate on the origins of the polar bear, but it has been suggested that they are related to the ancestors of the modern brown bear. The differences in coat color and physiological construction arose over thousands of years. While the animals can still breed and produce viable offspring that does not mean they are the same species. For example, in captive conditions lions and tigers will breed and produce offspring.

Also, the grizzly bear likely arose because of the ice ages. The ancestors of todays black and grizzly bears were forest dwelling animals. The ice age brought a severe reduction in the amount of forested landmass, replaced by hardier grasses. The grizzly bear is essentially a bear adapted to feed on plains, which explains many of the physiological and behavioral characteristics of the species.

For example, the large size and innate aggressiveness of the grizzly would be a benefit for survival in the exposed grassland, as it allows the animal to compete with and protect itself from other large animals, such as the saber-toothed cats that have now gone extinct. Another trait is the large mass of muscle on the shoulders and large front claws, which allow the animals to efficiently dig for tubers. Grasses are notoriously poor in nutrients, so tubers and rhizomes served as the bulk of the ice age grizzly diet.

Black bears stayed smaller and more lean because their ancestors remained in the forests, where browse is more plentiful and it is easier to escape from predators; by climbing trees for example.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

From the article...

This time, the hare hunter was charged after he rounded a corner and surprised the sow, who was 25 years old or more.

"A rabbit hunter was in the brush and kind of woke them up out of their beds," Crye said. "He felt threatened by the sow, so he shot the sow."

This is what Hererra and others refer to as a sudden or unexpected encounter scenario. Surprising bears is a bad thing because they apparently associate such surprises as a sign of danger and will act aggressively as part of their natural response. The fact that it was a sow with cubs makes the situation that much more dangerous because the sow is also acting in defense of her cubs. Such encounters do not necessarily result in the bear eating the person who is charged. Just because the bear closes on you does not mean it is going to eat you as Geek suggested. Often is the case that the bear neutralizes the threat and moves on with its business, assuming it isn't hungry. Playing dead in such a case is often what has kept people alive during sudden encounter attacks. Given that the sow was thin and out at this time of year, the attack very well could have resulted in a meal for the sow and cubs.

I'm angry at the hunter for getting himself in that position. Sure, bear attacks happen, but most could be avoided by using common sense and staying alert.

Hmmm...care to enlighten us how he might have avoided the bear? Have you ever been to Alaska, let alone Kodiak? Nice of you to judge a situation which you probably have zero knowledge about.

Ya ain't been huntin' much, have ya ..?

Right. Just what sort of common sense do people have to avoiding bears that they don't know are there? How does one avoid a sleeping bear that is out of sight and not making noise except for breathing? What common sense makes it possible to avoid a bear that is around a blind corner from where you are?

I've watched videos showing Grizzly traveling uphill. After a short time they are barely moving trying to conserve energy.
Bears are sprinters not long range broken field runners. Their size works against them.

Bears may be sprinters, but they can sprint at over 30 mph. They can sprint long enough and fast enough to run down deer, elk, and moose, all of which are considerably faster than humans. If you don't think they can run far or fast, check out this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ubM9ZTcLsE

Keep in mind that at 30 mph, bears can cover about 40+ feet per second. Nobody other than the world's best runners are going to be able to run 100 yards in less than 10 seconds, and that is on a flat track, running shoes, lightweight clothing made for running, and without carrying a load. The 10 second 100 yard dash translated into 30 feet per second. So the bear is about 50% faster than human sprinters. Take your average hunter/hiker in their field gear and loads, they would be lucky to cover 100 yards in 20 seconds, or 15 feet per second. At that speed, the bear is 3 times faster than a human. If the hiker/hunter has a 100 foot head start on a grizzly, in four seconds the grizzly will cover over 160 feet and can catch the human who has covered just sixty feet (plus the initial 100 head start for a total of 160 feet).

Grizzlys are faster than humans on any terrain, flat, up hill, and down hill. They have more stamina than humans such that they can last long enough during the chase to catch you.

Plus, if you run, they are very likely to give chase just like many other predators.

If a Bear is enraged you are probably toast, but since Bears normally weigh food value against energy expenditure they won't waste time on prey that they'd have to use much energy to catch.

Um no, probably not. They have never been shown to have the ability to calculate caloric benefit versus caloric expenditure. Bears are smart, but not that smart.

They aren't much interested in Primates as a food source, but will eat you if they are hungry enough, and kill you if you make a nuisance of yourself then eat you to avoid wasting the meat and to replace energy.

Um no. Bears have never been shown to be conservationists and eating a kill to avoid wasting meat. That is just plain silly talk.

 

[Roswell 1847]

Quote:
If a Bear is enraged you are probably toast, but since Bears normally weigh food value against energy expenditure they won't waste time on prey that they'd have to use much energy to catch.

Um no, probably not. They have never been shown to have the ability to calculate caloric benefit versus caloric expenditure. Bears are smart, but not that smart.

Its not a conscious calculation its instinct.

Quote:
They aren't much interested in Primates as a food source, but will eat you if they are hungry enough, and kill you if you make a nuisance of yourself then eat you to avoid wasting the meat and to replace energy.

Um no. Bears have never been shown to be conservationists and eating a kill to avoid wasting meat. That is just plain silly talk.

If they were interested in people as a food source they'd attack any human they caught wind of.
They are going to avoid wasting meat because of any environmental concerns they don't let any source of protein go to waste, they have huge appetites. Why leave food for scavengers after having expended energy on it.

If they don't eat all of you at one sitting they bury the rest to finish off later.

A few victims have survived because the Bear wasn't at all hungry when it attacked them and instead of eating them it defecated on them to mark its property , rolled them in mud and leaves and stuffed them in hollow logs or other out of the way places so it could come back to eat them later.
To the Bear your death is unimportant, they'd as soon cripple you so you die slow and the meat stays fresh longer.

 

[DENALI]

Zinj and Tallpine, hit the books boy's and Tallpine do yourself a favour and don't tell people you don't know and just met what they thought!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Roswell 1847]

There have been rare White Kodiak and Brown Bear, not albino but otherwise exactly like the Brown bear except for the white pelt.
Polar Bear fur is hollow, don't know about other Bear species but the Hollow fur is what allows them to survive in subzero conditons while wet from swimming after prey.
The Polar Bears metabolism is more geared towards a pure meat diet and processing seal and other arctic meat that can be poisonous to other mammals.
There are internal as well as external differences.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Roswell, yes, bears act on instinct, but also learned behavior. Even so, they do not instinctually calculate energy costs versus energy gains as you stated.

If they were interested in people as a food source they'd attack any human they caught wind of.

By that logic that bears aren't much interested in primates, we could also say that bears aren't much interested in meat in general, in this case grizzlies, who get about 90% of their foods in the form of vegetable matter and another percent or two from insects. Grizzlies cross paths with a lot of other animals that the don't eat every time they see one.

They are going to avoid wasting meat because of any environmental concerns they don't let any source of protein go to waste, they have huge appetites. Why leave food for scavengers after having expended energy on it.

Why leave the food for scavengers after having expended energy on it? Once again, you seen to be talking about conscious weighing of energy costs and energy gains. Grizzlies will leave a wounded, cripplied, or dead human behind, not for scavengers, but because either they are not actually hungry or because they the perceive danger of some form, either to themselves or to their cubs.

Bears such as grizzlies can have huge appetites, but just because they kill an animal such as a human does not mean they will eat it. Stephen Hererro covered this fairly extensively in his study of bear behavior of which most of his data were grizzly and brown bear-based. Here is his book listed on Amazon...
http://www.amazon.com/Bear-Attacks-Their-Causes-Avoidance/dp/0941130827

Most of the uneaten human kills were people killed apparently during surprise encounters where the bear acted defensively. While it did happen, it was more rare for a sudden encounter attack resulting in a human death being turned into a food supply than with intentional attacks on humans where the humans were taken as prey. Hererro had various accounts of where a person was taken from a group or pair, or had been otherwise noted as stalking the humans before the attack. Such stalking behavior was for the purpose of food.

 

[Roswell 1847]

Even so, they do not instinctually calculate energy costs versus energy gains as you stated.

I wouldn't be too sure of that, just as your lymph nodes under your armpits measure the CO2 levels in your bloodstream and regulate your breathing the internal organs of Large animals send signals to the brain and spinal cord warning of wasted effort and modifying behavior. Instinct is often more than just pre programmed action, its a form of sub concious thought triggered by input the conscious mind may not even recognize.

Grizzlies cross paths with a lot of other animals that the don't eat every time they see one.

if they are on his internal menu he'll get around to them sooner or later if attempting to catch them doesn't use up too much energy.

Primates, especially humans are not a healthy meal for most animals. They have to aquire the taste.
In general the more Human Flesh they eat the unhealthier they become and find they can no longer catch fleeter prey.

Such stalking behavior was for the purpose of food.

Bear Hunters have reported that Bears they were tracking would circle around to ambush them as they followed their tracks.
One of those hunters was one of the survivors that woke up to find himself coated with Bear feces and mud and a thick coating of leaves inside a hollow log. The Bear Wasn't particularly hungry that day.


Now before this goes further.
I said that if you "have to" try to run for it, and are "Lucky".
Running for it may not save you and if the bear is close and terrain in his favor you are toast. But if theres a really steep slippery slope or rock face or other obstacles you are better able to negotiate nearby you might just reach it and the Bear either not be able to negotiate it or lose interest.

 

[cornman]

Most bear charges are bluffs, but who knows...

 

[brigadier]

If you get charged by a bear unarmed, the only chance you have is to get to some place where the bear cannot get to. You cannot outrun a bear whether uphill or downhill, so don't even try.
A .22LR will kill a bear if you shoot him behind the ear. A shot like that with a pistol under stress is pure luck.

 

[Cosmoline]

I've been eyeballed by the gentlemen, and I'm convinced there's more than mere instinct at work. Those aren't the dim eyes of a zoo animal, they're literally weighing you up and running an analysis. I think they know exactly what we are, and they know there will be trouble if they attack us. Just as they don't attack each other very often while fishing, they don't attack us very often. It's not a formal treaty, but it is the natural equivalent of one. This is the only way to explain how the bear have learned to operate within a city of a quarter million people with very few attacks. Over time each side learns when to avoid the other, and with some exceptions we respect the boundaries. Still, there are always exceptions so it's best to be prepared.

Zinj and Tallpine, hit the books boy's and Tallpine do yourself a favour and don't tell people you don't know and just met what they thought!!!!!!!!!!!

Easy there. Remember there has been a heated debate about how to classify bears for 200 years now. Right back to Lewis & Clark's expedition, they were trying to figure out whether they were running into various types of white/brown/yellow bears or just the same bears with different coats. It's an animal that can range from 300 lbs. to over a thousand depending on food source. The polar bear are related to the brown bear, and are close enough to interbreed and make hybrids. How adaptable they are remains to be seen--though I suspect if the ice continues to retreat we'll get to see just how similar they are to brown bears. If they're just mutated cousins they should essentially merge back into the brown bear population within a few generations.

 

[AirPower]

This story puts the caliber vs. placement to rest. If you hit it right, one shot is all it takes.

With 10yd between hunter and bear, half a second is all the hunter had, and he managed to hit. Now that's a lucky shot!

 

[DENALI]

Thr Brown bear:Father of the Polar bear?

Ah what the hell, once more into the breech as they say. Humpbacked and beer keg headed just who could mistake a Brown/Grizzly for a Polar bear? Why I could I think, with just a little help from some DNA testing. The Brown bears of the ABC islands,(Admiralty, Baranof, and Chichagof) have DNA unique from Brown bears the world over with there closest living relative actually being Ursus Maritimus the Polar bear! The Bears relationship was discovered when two University of Alaska Fairbanks Biologist's were analyzing the DNA from brown bears from all around the globe. The only other possible explanation would be if the two specie's had somehow crossed path's and mated in the long long ago and the far far away...........

 

[TallPine]

Well, the good news is that if the polar bears are just pale furred cousins of the grizzly, I guess it's no big deal if they go "extinct" from globular warming