Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Record Moose in Russia

Discussion in 'Hunting' started by Black Dragon, Jan 2, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Black Dragon

    Black Dragon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    186
    Location:
    Lost somewhere in Michigan
    This was one of the last posts on the TFL Hunting Forum.
    If this picture comes out, it's of a Moose said to have been taken in Kamchatka Russia. That's all
    the information there is. Does anyone know anything else??

    Thanks
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Soap

    Soap Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,735
  3. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    I'll second your :what:

    And raise you an egads!
     
  4. Black Dragon

    Black Dragon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    186
    Location:
    Lost somewhere in Michigan
    I found out a little more about the moose for everyone.

    This moose was killed on the Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) in December of 2001. He scored 550ish SCI (Safari Club International).

    :what:
     
  5. Keith

    Keith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,784
    Location:
    Kodiak, Alaska
    I get pretty suspicious of any "record" scored by SCI. If it was a real record, it would be scored by Boone and Crockett.

    Keith
     
  6. Dr.Rob

    Dr.Rob Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    14,650
    Location:
    Centennial, CO
    Quick Natasha! Now we get squirrel!:neener:

    That's a heap big moose, no matter where he was scored.
     
  7. Guyon

    Guyon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    820
    Location:
    Over Yonder, Tennessee
    Looks like something out of the Ice Age. Makes me wonder if somebody has been playing with Photoshop.
     
  8. SIGarmed

    SIGarmed Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    619
    Photoshop or they got a midget to pose next to the moose. :D
     
  9. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,085
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    Moi Bok! Ochen bolshoi zhivothoe, tovarish!

    Protein aplenty. And he got it with?:confused:
     
  10. Keith

    Keith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,784
    Location:
    Kodiak, Alaska
    It's just a typical trophy picture with the guy sitting behind the animal to allow foreshortening to make the rack look bigger.

    The worlds record (B&C) moose is an 80 incher, I don't think this one goes anywhere near that.

    Keith
     
  11. Redlg155

    Redlg155 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,724
    Location:
    NW Florida
    Looks fake to me. It looks a bit unreal.

    But then I've only seen Alaska Moose up close. Perhaps their Red cousins grow much larger.

    Good Shooting
    RED
     
  12. Rangerover

    Rangerover Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    111
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    There may be some photo-trickery going on here...

    But still... :what:
     
  13. cardboardkiller

    cardboardkiller Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    75
    Location:
    Port St. Lucie, Florida
    The Kamchatka peninsula is known for some of the largest brown bears in the world, looks like they have big moose too.
     
  14. Rangerover

    Rangerover Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    111
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    This "Mega-Moose" thread got me to wondering if one can trust ANY fish and game photos one finds on the web anymore...

    Take these two bear photos, for example. I HIGHLY suspect that the photos have been "doctored". According to the accounts I read of it, the guy bagged a big bruin (he claims this monster "charged" him from 30 yards and he gunned it down), but THIS big? The general consensus among my friends is that the paw photo MAY be real, but the other one...well, I'll let everyone decide for themselves. He allegedly bagged the beast on someplace called "Hitchenbrook Island" in Alaska. Oh, and I couldn't find out what kind of cannon he used to dispatch the leviathan. If anything CLOSE to this size "charged" me I think I'd just burst into tears, throw down my gun, and let it eat me...I doubt there'd be much I could do about it.

    If nothing else it's good for a :what:

    http://www.scottstiegler.com/animal/images/Tedbear1_2.jpg
    http://www.scottstiegler.com/animal/images/TedPaw_2.jpg
     
  15. Byron Quick

    Byron Quick Moderator In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,482
    Location:
    Waynesboro, Georgia
    Bear photos were in an Air Force periodical after the airman killed it. Used a .338 Win Mag if I remember correctly.
     
  16. Rangerover

    Rangerover Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    111
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Byron:

    Yeah, from what I could gather, that's what the folks on that other site were saying. But several different people have told me (as the guys were discussing above) that it's not uncommon these days for people to occasionally "pad" the pictures a little to make it look more impressive. I have no idea how to spot something like that.

    If the info I read was correct, the bear in question WAS one huge critter, though I couldn't find out if he was a record setter or not...there seemed to be some controversy over that and the legality of where it was killed, etc.

    Regardless, even if these particular photos aren't EXACTLY to scale, the guy did bag a monster bear, no doubt about it. I can't imagine something like that charging at me out of the trees from 30 yards away. The thing's paw was practically as wide as that guy's body... :eek:
     
  17. Keith

    Keith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,784
    Location:
    Kodiak, Alaska
    Neither of the photo's are "padded" by doctoring with a graphics program.
    They are padded by having the guy sit well behind the animal when the photo is taken making the animal appear larger than it is - or the hunter smaller, depending on how you look at it. Stick your thumb about three feet in in front of your lens when you take a picture and it will look as big as a the subjects head - foreshortening - every guide in the world knows how to take that picture.

    I don't really know how big the moose is because with a side shot of the rack it's hard to tell. The bear pictures are of a fairly standard sized brown bear - a good bear, but no monster by any means. Nothing that would make the record books.

    I can tell on the bear by the shape of the head. A really large brown bear has blocky "squared" head, while the bear in the picture doesn't have that shape. It looks more like a black bears head which is typical of a bear smaller than 9 1/2 feet.

    The attached picture is of a honest ten foot bear which probably exceeds the size (weight) of the bear in the doctored photo by 50% or so. There is no photo tricks used in this picture. The hunter is a friend of mine by name of Dwight Van Brunt. Even though this bear is MUCH larger, it still didn't even "make book".
     
  18. Rangerover

    Rangerover Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    111
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Excellent info, Keith! I noticed when comparing the two photos that the "Mega-Bear" guy in my post didn't have his hand on the bear's head or even seem to be touching the animal at all, whereas your friend was obviously grabbing fur. This certainly allows for a far more accurate estimation of how big the animal really was.

    Now I'll know what to look for when I see an apparently Godzilla sized animal like the bear in question.

    Me and cameras? Get me started taking pictures and that's what I'll most likely wind up with: a photo of my thumb.
     
  19. Keith

    Keith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,784
    Location:
    Kodiak, Alaska
    I wish somebody had a frontal shot of that moose rack. The record is 82 inches (spread) and 72 inchers are taken every year.
    The one in the photo doesn't look that large - an 80 + inch rack would a be foot wider than a mans height.

    Keith
     
  20. Okiecruffler

    Okiecruffler Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    3,351
    Location:
    Del City, Okla
    Mind you, a moose bite can be pretty nasty.
     
  21. bronco61

    bronco61 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    41
    Location:
    Alaska
    It's a nice moose but not obnoxiously huge. One of my student's got a 75 incher 2 years ago here in Cordova but that's not all too uncommon. (where that bear that Rangerover showed was also shot). 79" moose are the monsters here. They are extremely rare.
     
  22. ezoeni

    ezoeni Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    55
    Location:
    USA
    I saw my first moose up close in alaska. We were fishing for rainbows when my friend said "hey look at the moose" So we motor up to this aminal and got right next to it swimming across the kenai.

    I could not believe on how big these criters are. They are huge and the rack on this one was massive. It had to be at least 5-6 feet across.

    An amazing site.
     
  23. BrianW

    BrianW Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    10
    Location:
    Cordova, AK
    That looks like a very nice moose with great palms, but no kinda record. Looks to me like the guy is sitting right behind the far antler, which puts him about 7' from the camera, with the near palm practically in the lens. As long as the guy is touching the game, it's a "fair" photo shot.

    That Hinchinbrook bear was nice, but no whopper as Keith stated. I know several ppl who saw the hide and skull, including the state game biologist, all agree on sizing. Some air force folks got a little out of control in the email sizing of the bear, tho...
     
  24. Keith

    Keith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,784
    Location:
    Kodiak, Alaska
    Brian,

    I hadn't thought about that, but I'm sure you've hit the nail on the head about that Hinchinbrook bear! This was a bunch of Air Force guys from Elmendorf who had never even seen a brown bear before, so when they got this one they freaked out and created this legend.

    Most people, even in Alaska, have never seen a brown bear up close. Verbal descriptions just don't sink in, while photo's are usually out of scale or have no scale - it's just "a bear".

    When I first came to Kodiak, gee.. it must be 14 years ago now... The first bears I saw were at some distance, and may have been sows or juveniles, but in any case they didn't seem to be "that big". The first large male I saw up close was on a deer hunting trip when me and a friend surprised a big boar sleeping on a ridge we had just crested. This big old boy jumped up a few yards from us and I was just STUNNED by the size of the animal! You just don't comprehend how big these critters are until you see one up close.

    An old friend and former bear guide once used the analogy that a really large boar standing up on his hind legs is around 12 or even 13 feet high. That's just a number until you look at the nearest door and realize that 13 feet is nearly twice that high! Picture such an animal waking and standing up in the brush next to you, irritated at being disturbed - picture him looking at you.

    Picture buying new shorts...

    Keith
     
  25. BrianW

    BrianW Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    10
    Location:
    Cordova, AK
    Keith, great story! Years ago, when I first started guiding, I asked the highly-experienced guide I was working for how to judge the size of a bear. He said, "if you have any question how big it is, it isn't that big. But you'll know a huge bear when you see it."

    Bob Reeves' bear, now there's a toad!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page