Record Moose in Russia
- Thread starter Black Dragon
- Start date
- Status
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
I'll second your 
And raise you an egads!
And raise you an egads!
Black Dragon
Member
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).
This moose was killed on the Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) in December of 2001. He scored 550ish SCI (Safari Club International).
Keith
Member
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
Keith
Quick Natasha! Now we get squirrel!
That's a heap big moose, no matter where he was scored.
That's a heap big moose, no matter where he was scored.
Guyon
Member
Looks like something out of the Ice Age. Makes me wonder if somebody has been playing with Photoshop.
El Tejon
Member
Moi Bok! Ochen bolshoi zhivothoe, tovarish!
Protein aplenty. And he got it with?
Protein aplenty. And he got it with?
Keith
Member
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
The worlds record (B&C) moose is an 80 incher, I don't think this one goes anywhere near that.
Keith
Redlg155
Member
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
But then I've only seen Alaska Moose up close. Perhaps their Red cousins grow much larger.
Good Shooting
RED
Rangerover
Member
There may be some photo-trickery going on here...
But still...
But still...
cardboardkiller
Member
The Kamchatka peninsula is known for some of the largest brown bears in the world, looks like they have big moose too.
Rangerover
Member
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
http://www.scottstiegler.com/animal/images/Tedbear1_2.jpg
http://www.scottstiegler.com/animal/images/TedPaw_2.jpg
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
http://www.scottstiegler.com/animal/images/Tedbear1_2.jpg
http://www.scottstiegler.com/animal/images/TedPaw_2.jpg
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Bear photos were in an Air Force periodical after the airman killed it. Used a .338 Win Mag if I remember correctly.
Rangerover
Member
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...
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...
Keith
Member
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".
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".
Rangerover
Member
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.
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.
Keith
Member
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
The one in the photo doesn't look that large - an 80 + inch rack would a be foot wider than a mans height.
Keith
Okiecruffler
Member
Mind you, a moose bite can be pretty nasty.
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.
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.
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.
BrianW
Member
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...
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...
Keith
Member
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
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
BrianW
Member
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!
Bob Reeves' bear, now there's a toad!
- Status
