[22-rimfire]

Watching Outdoor Channel this morning. I didn't see the entire episode as I was working. But here is the deal.... hunter was using a compound bow for grizzly, in Alaska I assume.... that suggests very close range to be effective. They sight a bear and stalk it. Bear charges toward hunters and guide shoots it with his rifle.

Now, I'm all for hunting with a compound bow, but this program left me with a distastful taste in my mouth. I know bears can charge and they are unpredictable, but I think the hunter should NOT have gone out with only the bow. What are your thoughts?

It is easy to be an armchair quarterback and make comments after the fact, but I probably would not have aired that show in the first place. When I hunted with a bow, it might well have been the ultimate challenge to do this hunt.... but should you?

[Shawnee]

The hunter didn't go out with nothing but a boy. He took a guide with a rifle too - and is likely glad he did.

The bear is no more dead from the guide's rifle than it would have been from the hunter's rifle (if he had been armed with one).

The difference is only who killed the bear. All the hunter has is a bearskin rug to remind him that he failed.

Now if the hunter didn't put his tag on the bear and went off with his bow to find another - I would feel that was 110% wrong.


Local opinion may vary. :)

[22-rimfire]

My view swings both ways. I don't know what to think ultimately. The show just bugged me and I hunt.

Would I have preferred the hunter get hurt or worse? Heck NO. And the same thing could have easily happened with both the hunter and guide armed with rifles.

It is sort of like using a 22 magnum for deer or a 243 for a big bear. The difference of course is the bear can kill you. You can do it, but should you?

[AntiqueCollector]

Not sure about the rules for that hunt, but in VT if you carry a gun (any gun) while bowhunting in the bowhunting season, you could be fined.

[Shawnee]

I hear Ya, .22.

There just seems to be something tacky about going on a hunt where you have to take a back-up shooter with a rifle. It's like a tacit admission that you aren't prepared - either with skill or equipment or chutzpah or all of the above.

Even in Africa where a rifleman hunting large dangerous game is often required in many places to have an armed pro along - there is (imho) a sort of "cop-out" element involved. Seems like if I don't have the skill and nerve and equipment to do it on my own, I porbably don't need to be doing it at all.

Again, local opinion may vary.


Here in Buckeyeland it is illegal for bowhunters to carry a firearm too.


:cool:

[MCgunner]

I don't bow hunt anyway, can't shoot the damned things, eye dominance problem, but if I did, I wouldn't take on a brown bear with one at spitting ranges, dumb. :rolleyes: I'd damned sure want back up with me with a .375 if I was that stupid. Bears KILL people, let alone morons pestering them with a stick and a string. I mean, picture yourself as the bear. Some mouse is shooting you in the nipples with a string firing little sewing pins with feathers on the back. Me, I'd squash the danged mouse. :D At the least, couldn't you use an atlatl?

Alaska ain't VT and bear ain't deer. I don't reckon there is a "bow" season for brown bear up there, just a hunting season.

[AntiqueCollector]

Guides are required in Alaska for non-residents hunting certain animals, Shawnee.

[koja48]

To each his/her own. When hunting dangerous game (big bears, African beasts), where insurance in the form of a back-up rifle is used (whether required or not), availing oneself of that option is prudent. Never hunted bears larger than black bears with the bow & carrying a firearm during bow season was illegal. Harvested several with no close calls, but would have felt a bit more at ease had I been backed-up. Criticizing fellow hunters for their choice of tools is self defeating to all of us. Bring enough bow/gun/whatever . . . more importantly, bring enough proficiency to use it. To some, stand-hunting, feeders, using dogs, handgun hunting, etc may not be appealing; to others these different types of hunting can be. Doesn't make anyone right or wrong, just confirms that we are all different and are blessed with the freedom to make choices.

[22-rimfire]

I think I'd feel better if the hunter actually took a shot with the bow. I would also feel better if he used a rifle, even a 30-06. I don't think I'd have that "rug" in my house. I'd probaly sell the mount to a store if I went to the expense of having it mounted. There must be a market for such things.

Added: I believe the guide is required in Alaska for non-residents as mentioned. I would not have attempted the hunt without a backup rifle. That would be a little crazy as deerhunter mentioned below. Everything happened so FAST that perhaps the impact is lost to most who have never hunted dangerous game. I have not. The show just left me scratching my head and thinking. I believe the encounter scared the hunter "xxxless" and perhaps that does have merit on the Outdoor Channel.

[deerhunter61]

You have to be kidding....

"There just seems to be something tacky about going on a hunt where you have to take a back-up shooter with a rifle. It's like a tacit admission that you aren't prepared - either with skill or equipment or chutzpah or all of the above."

The guy was hunting a GRIZZLY BEAR and you say it is tacky to have someone with a gun....Wow....to me not to have someone carrying a gun in this situation would be utterly stupid.

[koja48]

I think I'd feel better

And this is the key point . . . the hunter didn't book that hunt for you to feel better. He booked it for his benefit & experience. Shake it off, don't watch such shows anymore, and enjoy the outdoor pursuits you prefer in whatever manner makes you happy. There were several references in this thread to "stupid" . . . driving a wedge between diverse hunting groups and criticizing the legal hunting methods others may employ eminently qualifies as "stupid." "Hang together or hang separately" . . . it's our choice.

[22-rimfire]

Point taken. I like to watch hunting and fishing shows. No wedge intended.

[koja48]

Peace; and I would imagine the bowhunter experienced two gut-wrenching sensations . . . elation for being alive & unharmed, as well as disappointment in the way the hunt turned out. God Bless . . .

[rswartsell]

I think the root of this dilemma is a conflict between the ethos that requires a hunter to strive always for the clean one shot kill and the "adventure" seekers that want the trophy and a story to go with it that "I took that one with a sharpened salad fork from a wrist rocket at 2 yards".

I have no beef with anyone and certainly not an accomplished bow hunter practicing his avocation, but there is a matter of degrees to be observed here and native Americans had sense enough to give up the bow for powder and as much lead as you can sling when the idea of tangling with 'ol silvertip came up. Many would still use the bow for stealth even after the gun came along, but I'm quite sure not with a grizzly by choice.

I too get queasy about the ethos of this story. I am inclined not to second guess a man who does his diligence and is honest about his capabilities, but my opinion is there is a loss of dignity of the sport if taken to the extreme in seeking adrenaline rushes.

P.S. If when you see silly, then you call it silly there is likely to be a little less silly for us all (hanging together) to get tagged with.

[MCgunner]

He should give up the bow and get him a .223.........:D

Couldn't resist. :D

[22-rimfire]

Yeah, when I first typed the caliber reference, I typed in 223 for deer. Then I edited it to 22mag as I didn't want to create another caliber war as it was not the central issue of the thread.

[Shawnee]

"Deerhunter"...

Like I said - local opinion may vary.... but - for myself - if I didn't think I could meet the challenge (and survive) by myself, I feel like I shouldn't try it at all.

Someone else may be perfectly fine with that sort of thing - and that's their business.

But it isn't for me. I don't know that I could even kill a grizzly anyway except under the most dire of circumstances. They are just too awesome.

:cool:

[Jst1mr]

by this whole thing... is the "bad taste" due to the hunting party protecting itself? As I understand it, they were charged during the stalking phase, and some find distaste that the bowhunter did not get a shot off? Newsflash- a bow and arrow is NOT a knock down, high-impact weapon. It kills, like it or not, by cutting tissue and organ with razor-sharp blades, then we wait while the animal bleeds to death. A well-placed arrow will kill just as surely as a well-placed bullet, but certainly not as quickly. 99.999% of the time a bear hit with an arrow will turn and run, but one needs to be equipped to deal with the possibility of a charge. In this case, the hunter's scenario did not turn out as planned, but I applaud his courage in pursuing this magnificent animal with a bow. Anyone who doubts it can be done should sit and watch hour after hour of Fred Bear videos (with recurve bow, no less). Perhaps it is more noble to pursue this animal in this manner than placing a bullet in his vitals from 300yds while he sleeps on a mountainside, after the guide has wiped the condensation from your 14X riflescope, and the only stalking involved the use of your $2,000.00 binoculars? Now, STOP- I am an enthusiastic rifle AND bowhunter, and support both means of hunting 100%. What I find hard to take is off-the-cuff criticism of another hunter's legitimate pursuit of an animal that has required considerably more preparation and use of true hunting skills than most rifle hunts. In this case, backup was required, and the hunter used his tag and I'm sure was truly disappointed that it worked out that way. Perhaps someday those using the ancient technology of the rifle will be sneered at by the users of the next generation of weapons as crude and ill-prepared, and somehow immoral...but wait, isn't that how the anti's see all of us?

[koja48]

Reckon I don't see anything silly about bowhunting, even though I don't do it anymore. When I did, it was a passion because of the challenge presented . . . it required exceptional stalking skills, a high degree of shooting proficiency, and allowed me more time in the outdoors during a great season of the year. Fred Bear successfully harvested the big bruins, and I doubt many folks view him as silly, either. When the thrill associated with hunting, shooting, fishing, any of my pastimes vanishes, I guess it'll be time to find something else to do or be placed in storage. To me, it's the complete experience, and the "thrill" is a part of that experience.

[22-rimfire]

Newsflash- a bow and arrow is NOT a knock down, high-impact weapon.

I agree completely.

I assume hunting grizzly with a bow was perfectly legal, hence perfectly legitimate.

truly disappointed That is probably putting it mildly after spending thousands of dollars for the hunt. I might use another phrase myself to describle the hunter's "feelings" afterward. I just wouldn't have put the whole thing on TV.

Bow Hunting is a great sport. I loved to be in the woods during that time of the year and looked forward to it every year.

[Cosmoline]

Guides are required in Alaska for non-residents hunting certain animals, Shawnee.

Bingo. Including brown bears. That's whether you're hunting with a selfbow or a mountain howitzer.

[redneckrepairs]

I know bears can charge and they are unpredictable, but I think the hunter should NOT have gone out with only the bow. What are your thoughts?


I think the Guide did his job , and if i am not mistaken the Bear counted againstthe hunters tag , now that he can say " This is the carnivore that i froze on when he charged " . Or if he realizes this this is a trophy the guide can hang up the skin and say " this is another idiot i saved " . Myself I would love to take a Kodiak with a handgun ( tho this has got easyer than when the dream started and .44mag was king ) . I however still want a guide with a " slap down gun " standing over my shoulder in case i fumble ( hey i like adventure , not the possiblilty of suicide ) . Were it possible i would take the same bear with my .308 without the guide , it is enough gun , and i am enough hunter . ( see above , I must be an idiot too lol )

[rswartsell]

Sorry guys, we have to agree to disagree. When you state yourself that;

1. "It kills, like it or not, by cutting tissue and organ with razor-sharp blades, then we wait while the animal bleeds to death."

2. Assuming the accomplished bow hunter will get within effective range before taking their shot.

3. Then, being able yourself to point to the dubious nature of going to the OTHER extreme,- "placing a bullet in his vitals from 300yds while he sleeps on a mountainside, after the guide has wiped the condensation from your 14X riflescope, and the only stalking involved the use of your $2,000.00 binoculars?"

I just don't get good judgment being a part of the total. Hell, men killed mammoth with stone spears. I don't feel the urge to reproduce the feat at the risk of life limb and the poor guide that is trying to earn some money.

Do what you want and my blessings to you. Don't expect me not to say you look a little silly, when in my opinion you do, out of some misguided sense of obligation or distorted loyalty. You'll still get along just fine without my agreement and perhaps others won't get the impression that such nonsense is required to be an accomplished hunter.

[redneckrepairs]

I don't feel the urge to reproduce the feat at the risk of life limb and the poor guide that is trying to earn some money.

That is fine , i dont feel the urge to take a bow to hunt so much as mouse myself .

You'll still get along just fine without my agreement and perhaps others won't get the impression that such nonsense is required to be an accomplished hunter.

I agree that the folk who choose to do this can do it without my agreement , or for that matter my support . However i dont think its about being an " accomplished hunter" . I think its about personal best in hunting . Mine i defined , as a " personal best " . It would not make me an " accomplished hunter" It would make me another fool who took a bear ( hopefully cleanly ) with a pistol . I have taken herbivores up to and including buffalo cleanly with a pistol . If i go carinvore with a tag why not go for the gusto , especially if i have a good guide who can help if needed . Now i agree that the guys who poke bears with sharp sticks are a bit nuts ( no matter how said sticks are propelled or tipped ) , Ill defend them as its thier hunt . Fools i may consider them , however i recognise them as talented fools lol .

[rswartsell]

I handgun hunt myself, 6" 686 .357. I won't do it if I'm not at the top of my game for shot placement, and midwestern whitetail is the largest I see it as appropriate for.

I have no beef with any handgun hunter given the tools available to choose from today, as long as you are using judgment and selecting the right one for the job.

My difficulty is making this connection between full grown grizzly and a compound bow. As previously stated, a matter of degrees.

The slug barrel recently purchased is in part a responsible admission of diminishing eyesight. To quote Clint, "A man's got to know his limitations".

To be very clear I don't use the word silly until we get to grizz vs. broadhead.

[Shawnee]

On the VERY outside chance that I were inclined to challenge a grizzly to the death, I suspect I would be inclined to do it with a handgun.
Insane as it sounds, I think I would feel safer with a handgun - probably because I know I can fire multiple aimed shots faster with a handgun than with a rifle.

But I'll never know because I have no intention of bearding a Grizzly.

:cool:

[JImbothefiveth]

( hey i like adventure , not the possiblilty of suicide
+1.
If he hadn't brought a guide, this wouldn't have turned out so well.

[TCB in TN]

I hear Ya, .22.

There just seems to be something tacky about going on a hunt where you have to take a back-up shooter with a rifle. It's like a tacit admission that you aren't prepared - either with skill or equipment or chutzpah or all of the above.

Even in Africa where a rifleman hunting large dangerous game is often required in many places to have an armed pro along - there is (imho) a sort of "cop-out" element involved. Seems like if I don't have the skill and nerve and equipment to do it on my own, I porbably don't need to be doing it at all.

Again, local opinion may vary.


Here in Buckeyeland it is illegal for bowhunters to carry a firearm too.

Not during "firearm" season!

[caribou]

In Alsaka, it is "Law" that you bring,( or get brought by) a hunting guide to hunt Brownbear and Mt.Sheep, Goats.

Part of the challange of hunting a Brown is the fact that the animal CAN kill you if you screw up. ..... LOL!

Dont hunt Browns if your not willing to take that chance. Stay home and watch the hunting chamnnel and tell the screen all the mistakes you noticed and rewound to watch again with TVO......

Myself, Ive shot more than a dozen Browns with a rifle, and none with an arrow, but is still a matter of "Shot placement".

.243Win with 100grain soft points is an excellent BrownBear killing round. Totals the Neck bones and one shot kills are the norm, but then again, you must shoot it in the right spot.
A bigger, faster bullet will not help you at all if you do not place it right. ......EVER.
I use a Mosin Nagant rebuilt by Sako, and Czech LPS FMJ's with 100% great results.

The guy was not an idiot, more likely a bad shot.....and probly glad his Guide was 'Cool" when most needed.
I take my kids Brownbear hunting, and we "flip" to see who take the shot. Gotta show 'em myself, I figure and I have had great results with watching them catch Bears themselfs.

Nobody got to contemplate over the skin...the state takes them, if they were shot in self defense, poached or shot by the Guide.
They will auction it at the Fur Rondy, and use the $ to fund the Fish and Game programs.

Hunting Brown Bears is like swimming..., certainly you may drown, but that shouldnt stop learning to do so, or getting good enough to be cautious while having fun.

[buck460XVR]

sounds like to me that the guide was only defending himself and others from a charging bear....not just shooting the bear for the bowhunter that couldn't get the job done....saving one's self from obvious harm, IMHO is not distasteful, but smart.

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

If you plan the hunt for a dangerous animal, planning to use a bow/blowgun/throwing star/fists, *in a place and under such conditions where use of a gun in the hunt is illegal under the rules*, solely with the idea that you'll cause a charge, and have justification legally to shoot with a gun - in essense, just a subterfuge to hunt with a gun - then that's wrong and unethical and stupid. But otherwise, I have no problem whatsoever with people using whatever minimalist weapon they choose to, and have a backup/guide with a lead-spitting hammer of thor, in the event that it goes bad. If you're successful, then you took that griz with a bow. If you're not, then you didn't.

Having said that, I'm for truth in advertising. If you get the animal with a bow, then you should make the disclosure when telling the story that "and by the way, my guide was there with .500 eargasplitten loudenboomer". You will get respect, but deservedly, you won't get *as much* respect as the guy who actually shoots the griz all by his lonesome, armed with bow only (in which case you're fair to partly insane unless you're up in a tree stand, and even then...).

Sidebar: Get this - quite a coincidental story, considering this thread.... Went to lunch with a friend last Thursday. Couple of his buddies from his motorcycle "gang" (that's what they call it) show up to eat with us. One of these guys tells a story related to him by his brother in law (which he apparently accepts because he repeated it as gospel truth with an "aren't you impressed?" tone to the story). Seems that his BIL was hunting for "bear" with a bow in Canada (somewhere - he didn't know where - I asked). Evidently the hunt was for either/or black or brown bear (possible?), because the BIL got a 600-something lb black bear one day, then on the next day, he and the guide run across a brown bear at 15 yards. The guide proceeds to start yelling "shoot it now!" and so the BIL obeys and manages to get off either 5 or 6 arrows, from a compound bow mind you, into the griz before it drops 5 yards from them. And get this, all 6 (I think it was - but maybe 5) arrows hit the griz's vital zone. I believe the griz went over 850 lbs. Whew boy; I had to roll up my pants legs! :)

[koja48]

Thanks for the enlightenment . . . I never realized that what, when, & how I hunted was done primarily to earn the respect & approval of other hunters. Silly me, here I thought that I hunted in the manner of my choosing because I actually enjoyed it. I stand corrected.

[rswartsell]

Look, do what you want and for your own reasons. My disagreement was that even if it looked silly to me, I still owed my support and should defend the action because of the "us" and "them" created in the national debate about guns and gun control.

Believe me I am enough of a "Libertarian" to be against controlling what another man is able to do (within reason, lets leave murder illegal if we can see eye to eye on it being wrong). I would be very much opposed to governmental control to the extent that a man cannot decide for himself.

On the other hand I don't feel handcuffed to every action a pro- gunner or sportsman might take even if he leaves his common sense on the porch at home. If we collectively are against excessive governmental controls, in my mind we are not likely to be in favor of creating a de facto control based on peer pressure and the fear of the opposing viewpoint.

Let every man to extent humanly possible and reasonable make up his own mind and feel free to express it in appropriate ways.

There is a Darwinian self correction that will take place amongst our number who feel compelled to take on grizz with razor blades.:evil: