Discussion in 'General Paddling Discussions' started by Andy_Ferguson, Dec 8, 2008.
Charlie and Grizz chillin by the lake
Did you see the NGS special on that? Pretty amazing video filmed in Kamchatka. I have to agree with others though that it isn't truly representative of bears in the wild since the human interaction "contaminates" their behaviour to a degree. Charlie Russell is from this "neck-of-the-woods"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Russell .
Timothy did not fare so well. I assume bears are not a whole lot different than us, most of them will leave you alone.
Pretty low. I've hiked many times in grizzly country and have had several encounters. Only one involved a conflict and it was my fault; I got too close to Mama and two cubs before I realized they were there. Mama remonstrated by charging twice.
I now carefully spray myself with bear repellant (pepper spray) before hiking. :wink:
But seriously, the risk of unprovoked attack is almost negligable. It's just that while the risk is low the threat is significant should the risk manifest itself.
A bigger problem occurs when a bear has had access to food carried by hikers (or kayakers). So its really counter-productive to feed the bears.
I had heard this new subspecies of Island Grizzly prefer nothing better than a properly spiced entree. :lol: They will swim tidal currents for miles at the thought of fine island dining.
Further to your point...they also enjoy shooting Bear Spray, they like a pre-meal breath spray to cleanse their palate. :wink:
In the accounts of Lewis and Clark expedition, they were able to kill grizzlies with their black powder rifles, which carried very little more "punch" than a modern .22LR, with a minimal loss of personel. Personally, I'd prefer to give them their space, and realize that I am the unwelcome guest in the situation. I can remember,as a kid, picking blackberries on the Olympic penninsula, with us on one side of the patch, and black bears on the other; each respected the other's space, and no untoward encounters occured, though I'll admit that we always were the first ones there, and left as soon as the bears showed the least interest in "our" side.
Sorry, Darren, I stand corrected, though I've been told that there have been several improvements in black powder firearms in the last 200 years. I still think I would prefer to adopt a program of peaceful coexistence, or even submission of territory. The thought of wounding a very pissed off grizzly, hoping I can reload a flintlock musket and get off a killing shot without paying retribution, does not appeal to me; nor does the concept of thinking I have more claim to the forest than the bear, simply because I am human.
From an anthropological point of view, keep in mind that homo sapiens is the only species of animal that has the capacity, and the need to blush.
Stumpy, I think you stole this from a great writer: Homo sapiens is the only species of animal that has the capacity, and the need to blush. Mark Twain, I think?
Thanks, Dave! I could not remember who it was that said that :wink: , but it sure applies to my philosophy as well. One of my favorite authors as well.
I dont think there is anyone who does not desire peaceful coexistence but the reality is that we are people and they are bears. We need need smart people to constantly reevaluate our management policies for each regional population in order to keep up with our ever increasing understanding of the species and their health.
I think Charlie Russell can be forgiven for his much publicized human-bear interactions as his work has advanced bear conservation in at least three countries.
I dont think as outdoors people we will ever loose our preoccupation with bears and all the folklore interwoven with their stories of the good, the bad and the ugly. Not one of you haven't at least once in your lives wondered silently to yourself if that faint rustling noises some squirrel was making off in the bushes outside your tent might not have been the worlds largest and hungriest bear.
This is why we love bears and never tire of talking endlessly about them. They add so much wildness to all we love, respect and fear about the great outdoors :lol:
In reality we are food and they are bears (omnivores at the top of the "natural" food chain). Without the years of conditioning that bears have experienced with human "technological" superiority they would still consider us a food source. Think circus elephant - baby elephant big chain results in adult elephant being tethered by light rope.
I do chuckle at our "collective guilt" regarding the environment. We exist therefore we are part of the environment. Personally I try to keep my "footprint" limited, but I also think along the lines of "Desiderata";
Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
some few years ago i took a new stanse against the world as we know it.
"Harm None, Yet, Do As You Will."
The world, heck, you gotta think BIG. My stance is, it's me against the universe.
But take care not to step in it!
-3/4 oz = ~329 grains
-.50 cal round ball = .070 ballistic coefficient
A 3/4 oz. .50 cal round ball with an MV (muzzle velocity) of 1K feet per second (fps) will develop 738 ft. lbs. of energy at the muzzle (ME) and 460 ft. lbs. of energy at 100 yds.
Info from a hi energy .22 Long Rifle (LR) cartridge: "The MV of Winchester's Super-X load with a 37 grain hollow point bullet is 1,280 fps from a 22" test barrel with ME of 135 ft. lbs. The figures at 100 yards are 1015 fps and 85 ft. lbs." ...under 20% of the energy of the .50 projectile mentioned above.
The cross section area of the projectile can have a tremendous effect, however, on how much energy is transmitted to the target. Larger diameter typically = 'harder hit'.
A typical 30-06 cartridge pushing a .338 ballistic coefficient (BC), 150 grain bullet at 2900 fps for comparison: 2801 ft. lbs. of energy at the muzzle and 2300 ft. lbs. at 100 yds. But I still bet the .50 cal muzzle loader above would have at least, and very possibly more observed impact on a bear. I'd still prefer a repeating 30-06, but that muzzleloader, shot accurately, should have little trouble with a 200 lb. bear.
thanks jmden. i used to know how to figure all that stuff out. seems like a lifetime ago. :wink:
Not too long ago kayaks were still being used for their original purpose as mobile weapon platforms. Atlatl propelled darts, harpoon , lance, bolas , sling and guns took everything from birds to whales.
Here is a rare film showing a narwhal hunt from kayak , kayak scene starts about 29 min to 35 min http://www.nfb.ca/film/land_of_the_long_day/
Separate names with a comma.