Crazy big Grizzly

[the-rasta-masta]

Wow that last pic is disturbing. That Grizzlies head looks bigger than most human torsos.

[Looger]

http://urbanlegends.about.com/librar...izzlybear5.htm

i put "alaska grizzly bear 12" in google and the first site hit was:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/librar...rizzlybear.htm

which leads to the first lik.

says the whole thing is a little fake, or exxagerated.

[Flame On]

"We were dressed in camouflage. He might not have seen us." Winnen's weapon was a 338-caliber Winchester Magnum

What a hunter!

[Looger]

just like those guys with the bear trophies, and their stories:

"i waited by the feed barrel, and then i shot him!"

you brave brave man...

[Flame On]

Um, sorry about that

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Okay, Flame on, you go out in the woods with no camoflauge and a .22 and let me know how that bear hunting goes.

Seriously, why is wearing camoflauge and bringing a gun (That still took 5 shots to kill the damn bear), not hunting?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

This is an old picture and has been floating around for quite a while (a couple of years). One of the internet debunking sites, I can't remember which one, has already blown this one to pieces. Another photographer can back this up. The picture is made using a small instamatic type camera (a small auto-focus or throwaway). The fall off from the flash is the giveaway. Based on the hot spot on the bears nose, and fill in the background, you can tell that the bear is no where near the size being represented. A flash on the camera of this type would have coverage of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10-12 feel maximum. If the guy taking the picture were far enough away to get the head of the bear into the picture, and the guy in the background were sitting at the rear of the bear, the equipment in question could NOT have taken the picture presented. Its a big bear, but it isn't the monster represented.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Oct 6 2004, 02:35 PM
Okay, Flame on, you go out in the woods with no camoflauge and a .22 and let me know how that bear hunting goes.

Seriously, why is wearing camoflauge and bringing a gun (That still took 5 shots to kill the damn bear), not hunting?

Okay Bring back Shantz I will. :P
No I'm not saying I would do that, I was meaning it just kinda rung hollow for a "hunter" to say "he didn't even see me". Kinda like the poor guy was plodding along and he shot it on a path after stumbling upon it. More impressive would have been if he'd tracked it for a day, by himself and he didn't know if the bear was aware of him etc. But just "I saw this bear, he didn't know what hit him and I killed it and took it home with mah possums..." seems lame to me. Not to you perhaps but to me.
BTW I'd never go out and kill a bear anyways, but that's a different issue.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Okay, but that is part of hunting. What is he supposed to do, just go and start stalking a bear? How's he gonna know where to start stalking it? You gotta wander around till you find signs of something to stalk, that is just as lucky as stumbling across it. Besides, didn't it say that he was like 10 yards away from the bear when he killed it? To get that close to any animal without it knowing you are there takes some skill.

I probably wouldn't go bear hunting either, so we agree on that one, but sarcastically calling this guy a "Hunter" because he got a little lucky is kinda goofy. Luck is part of hunting.

[Flame On]

Well I guess you're right about the luck and to some degree needing to wander around. But those statements just stood out to me as being a little goofy themselves, even if I was being the same in your eyes. (which I don't necessarily agree with )

[RougeUnderoos]

This snopes article says it's a true story. Sort of.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/bearhunt.asp#photo

It contains the rather alarming picture that fotze linked to above so if you don't want to see something nasty, don't click it.

Basically it says that guy in the picture is a hunter and he shot a really big bear. The photo makes it look bigger than it really was, but it was still enormous. Some other link above says it was actually 10'6 from nose to tail and up to 1200 pounds. Got a tape measure handy? I don't know what that means "standing up" but it must be pretty damn tall The man-eating and the 12' foot tall 1600 pound numbers were wrong.

So it seems it's an internet hoax, but only sort of. I don't know why someone would exaggerate a 10'6, 1200 pound bear, but it seems they did.