Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska Can this be True?

I got this by email. My questions are:

Is this true about the taking?

Why were they shooting at 200 yards?

Why did the guide Shoot at all?

It seems to me the guide was a overly cautious if not down right afraid of the Bear.



Subject: The Alaska Rules 6/15/03

Please make your readers, viewers, friends and enemies aware of this unbelievable rule.

I went on an Alaska Brown Bear hunt, guided by Spiridon Bear Camp, Unit (16), Kodiak Island, my guide Mark Enneper, Head Guide Fred Roberts. The hunt took place in the spring of 2003. My shot at a brown bear over 200 yards away cleanly and clearly missed the bear and my guide opened up and killed it. They demanded that I put my tag on the bear. I autopsied the only bullet hole to confirm that the shot was not mine, and it was not. The hunt package cost about $16,000. I did not take possession of the bear since it was not my kill.

Disgusted with the out come of my hunt I contacted the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commissioners office.

On June 13,2003, I received a fax from the commissioners office and it reads as follows.

�Central to your complaint is the fact that your bullet did not kill the bear, thus you argue you did not �take� it. However, Alaska regulations clearly state that �take� includes �attempting to take, pursue, hunt, fish, trap, or in any manner capture or kill fish or game� (Alaska Hunting Regulations No. 43, page 21). By taking the first shot, you attempted to take the bear. It�s eventual demise, (my guide shooting and killing the bear), was a direct consequence of your decision to shoot. Thus the bear was yours and you had an obligation to tag and seal it�.

That is right from the commissioner�s office.

This is something your guide service will not likely tell you in advance because you would likely not book a hunt. Booking agents will likely not want you to be aware of this.

I as a taxpaying American have an obligation to let �YOU� the unsuspecting hunter know that your silent hunting partner, that being your Alaskan hunting guide can kill your animal, legally and with no recourse for you. You are out your money and this is the price you pay as a non-resident hunter.

Thank You,
Bill Gentner
(734)-462-2357
E-mail: wdgentner@yahoo.com

Yup, thats what the regs say for "taking" game. I also wonder why he was shooting at 200yards, Different strokes for different folks I guess.



Why did the guide shoot. He probably didnt know it was a miss. Hell at 200yards, I'm sure the guide wanted to get as much lead into the bear as possible in case it disappeared into the brush.



No offense to your friend but it sounds like hes whining pretty bad. Maybe he shoulda done some more research. Thats why the guide is there. If the bear doesnt drop after the hunters shot and he feels the bear could get away, hes gonna shoot. If he fudged the shot, whos fault is that? it sucks and I do feel sorry for him. 16K is alot of money but maybe next time he wont take iffy shots.

Wow, 16 large to have someone else shoot a bear for you. That is pretty tough.

However, when you are playing somebody elses' game you have to play by their rules. You might not like it but that's the way she lays. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

If the guy ever goes again I suspect he might ask about what happens when he shoots beforehand. I would have.

BCR

Gents,

Our very own Sitka Deer has brought up this insane rule here before. But this is the first incident of this sort that I've heard.

It's a travesty of justice in my opinion.

To be sure, I feel that if a hunter hits and wounds an animal, then the tag is filled. No second chances because the animal gets away. Suck it up and try harder next time (year).

But in this case the client missed, and therefore should not have to use his tag. The Guide, while doing his job, failed in a couple areas. He failed to get his client close enough to the bear, and he failed to recognize that the client had missed his shot. The Guide did one thing correct, and that was to anchor the bear before it escaped. That's a Guides job (if needed), but in this case the Guide made a mistake.

This outfit is using the States rule against the client. They should be more concerned with their clients satisfaction, rather than the money from this one hunt. The bad press from this matter may cost them dearly in the end.

I'd like to hear the outfitter/guides version of the story, but if I were looking to book a hunt on Kodiak, I wouldn't use this company right now.

Yup! Those are the regs. Assuming things happened as posted, I can think of 2 things. First, 200 yds. is way too far for any bear, I don't care what anybody says. Secondly, it appears to me that perhaps the guide was a bit too nervous to get the client closer then got excited let fly with his too. Bummer? Yeah, but things do happen in the field. Bear in Fairbanks

Ouch. 16K sure is a lot to pay for a bear you didn't even shoot. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> I'm glad I'm an AK resident.

What about those{ahem} free Groove bullets? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

200 yards it too far to shoot at a bear?????? Are you serious? That is a cake walk shot with any caliber for most guys. In a lot of cases, you can't get closer, due to the lay of the land and the thick brush. I would take a 200 yard shot ANY day. Put the bullet where they live and the range deosn't matter. Just as many guys choke at 50 yards as do at 200. I have seen it all too many times.

Mickey, if your buddy was spending that kind of cash on a bear hunt, he should have practiced more, used a smaller gun that he was more comfortable with, or passed on the shot. How many times did the guide shoot at it? Can you give us more particulars on the event? Flinch

Flinch,

Since I shot my black bear at 170 yards, I feel a bit hypocritical, but I think 200 yards is still a bit too far for bear. At least Brown bear.

It's not that the distance is too great for an average shooter. I think it's more about the fact that a bear may take more than one hit to bring down. After the first shot, the bear may be moving away in a hurry, and that makes all follow up shots 200 yards plus, at a moving target.

I'm no guide, and I don't play one on TV <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />, but I've helped two other guys get their bears. One Brown, one Black. both times I had to encourage the hunters to get closer to the bear. The brown bear shooter finally couldn't take it anymore, and laid down to shoot at about 80 yards. Better than the 150 yards he first wanted to shoot from. The black bear hunter was from out-of-state (I was hunting on my friends boat, and this guy had come up to hunt with my buddy, but I ended up taking the guy to the beach that evening). We saw the bear at an easy 700 yards. I got him within 60 yards, and the bear fed towards us another 20 yards before we decided he should shoot it.

I'll agree that it often depends on the terrain (as in my case.) But I hope it never depends on the hunters 'desperateness' to get a bear.

Flinch

I don't know this guy, just passing on the email. I don't know of the circumstances.

But, I have shot 2 Brownies and 4 Grizzlies, been in on 7 other Grizzlies. 200 yards is too far. If the brush is so thick you can't get closer than it is too thick to have to follow up a wounded bear.

The guide has the responsibility to get the client close enough to kill the animal. Not close enough for the guide but close enough for the client. It is the guides responsibility to know the client and his limitations.

It seems that the client still is not sure of the distance. 'Over 200 yards', where is the guides input?

I have hunted bears with two guides that were terrified of bears. Either one of them would have recommended a 400 yard shot if they could have. Some people are not cut out for animals that bite and scratch.

One guy refused to shoot a Bear that was in camp and had the cook and the helper on top of the cook shack. He came in everyday to grab meat and had destroyed two cabins and one of the boats. The Outfitter shot the Bear with an 06 and fired the 'Bear Guide'

The other guy wanted me to take a 150 yard shot from a boat, rather than land down the beach and stalk up. He said it was too dangerous to get on the beach because the bear would charge if wounded. Sounds like the same thing to me.

I saw this on another site, and I'll ask the same question here as well. Does B&C or SCI a bear shot by a guide a legally-taken bear for the books with your name on it, or will the name of the hunter be the guide. Sure, this guy should not have even considered a 200-yard bear, and to have the guide shoot it and the whole thing is legal according to Alaska regs ... boy, to me that is a major league suck. And if B&C or SCI does not recognize an animal shot and killed by another hunter, I wonder how many "trophies" out of Alaska were actually shot by the hunter, or his guide. If B&C or SCI does not recognize the animal as the hunters if it is shot and killed by a guide, then B&C and SCI darn well ought to have a serious discussion with the Alaska Game and Fish Department board of commissioners. Just my three cents worth. Tom Purdom

Mickey, I understand your yardage concern. Bear hunting isn't for everyone, that is for sure. I guess it all boils down to each person's abilities. I personally have NO problem shooting bears or anything else at 200 yards, even if I can get closer. Too much can go wrong trying to get closer (unseen game, spook the intended game...etc.). I prefer to take the shots that are available when conditions are right. In the same sense, I have a friend that WILL NOT shoot at anything unless he has a dead rest and the animal is standing broud side around 100 yards. He drives me up a wall, because he constantly misses at that range. Flinch

To me the circumstances dictate whether 200 yards is too far of a shot. If the bear is in the wide open and you cannot get closer, then 200 yards is OK by me. But I will agree that in most circumstances that is pushing it.

As for the real question - whether the guide should have shot the bear and should the client be required to tag it - I will disagree with the commissioners office.

First, it is the statutory duty of a guide to take all reasonable means to bring a "wounded" animal to bag. If as the e-mail states, it was an obvious miss, the guide was wrong. I am sure that the guide would not admit this, whether it was true or not.

Secondly, although the definition of take includes "attempting" to bring to bag an animal, it cannot be as broadly interpretted as the commissioner's office does in this instance. Technically, if you leave the tent in the morning with your gun and decide the wind is blowing too hard to hunt, then you have "taken" a bear under the definition given. That cannot be the case. Nor can it be said that you have taken a bear you have missed. If you shoot at 8 ducks and hit 3 and find 2, have you taken your limit of 8? Of course not. It could be argued that you have taken 3, but not 8.

Therefore, in my opinion a guide that shoots a bear clearly missed by his hunter has taken the animal and the client has no obligation to tag it. If the guide "reasonably" believes that the hunter has wounded the bear, then the answer might be different. It is a fine line, but that is where I think it would be drawn.

This is similar to the hypothetical question I raised of who should tag an animal if two people have hit it - the first not an imminently mortal wound, the second one mortal. Do you have a choice? Under the rules, you both have taken the animal, do both of you have to tag it? I think a guide that fulfillls his duty and follows up on a wounded animal is in the clear, but how about the non-guide?

The fact of the matter is it would be impossible to prosecute someone based upon the definition of "take" as it is too vague. Basically, if someone tags the animal, then ADF&G isn't going to bitch too much. In the case of the hunter, the commissioner's office wanted someone to tag the animal. Since the guide had no tag, the hunter was told to tag the bear. That is bull, if the facts are as stated - but the commissioner's office no doubt assumed the guide wouldn't shoot unless he thought the bear was wounded (something that is not necessarily true).

Basically, ADF&G needs to adopt regulations that address these issues as in the sport fishing context where the rule is that the person who sets the hook has to count the fish as his if it is kept.

Rob Reiman

OK, the 200 yard issue aside -- if this yahoo was so shaken (or whatever the reason) that he cleanly missed a target the size of a Kodiak brown bear at 200 yards, he's an idiot.

IMO, the guide can't assume the jerkoff missed. An animal doesn't always "react" to a hit. The guide did the right thing and the client needs to do something other than make whine with his sour grapes. If I was in the guides shoes, I'd of been shooting too. I mean REALLY who would believe a guy would miss a target the size of a friggin' steer at THAT range!!!!!

Flinch is right, he should have spent a few hundred of those free-flowin' bucks on a range membership, a half dozen boxes of shells and a recoil pad (assuming that is why the dude couldn't shoot).

From a man who hunts either in a prom dress or nekkid. He oughta know. No wait, he does have some pink pants. Bob <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> Ummm, actually the pink was the color of my skin on that rather frigid day! I don't own any pink pants and that prom dress was borrowed! (had to buy the shoes with the white bow -- couldn't find anyone with size 13 prom shoes to borrow <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />) Jeeesh, am I ever going to live THAT one down? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Sorry about the rant. I simply don't understand what an "obvious miss" is?

As an example, I shot a bull a few years ago. There were 3 practically identical 5x5's running together. The shot was only 100 yards, there was absolutely NO reaction from the bull (.300 Wby w/ 180 grain partitions) and as I loaded the next round, I lost track of which of the 3 I'd shot at. Do you assume it's a miss? The bull showed NO reaction to the hit, so it must have been, right? Well, one bull peeled off and started downhill while the other two continued straight up the slope. That must be the bull, right? That's how a "hit" animal acts, right? Well, since I wasn't sure, I held off knowing that I might be letting them get away, but also feeling good about the chip shot. -- Good thing I didn't shoot the bull that peeled off because about 5 seconds later, one of the uphill bulls paused and tipped over backwards with a crash. The moral of the story? Many, but one of them is: hits aren't always "obvious."

Of course, you gotta be one tough SOB to hunt either way, right? Especially, if you're hunting an area with thick oak brush or devils club -- OUCH! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Legally, the Outfitter is in the right, but ethically I think he should have offered the guy a deal for a return engagement. Regarding the range, although I've never shot a brownie, I rate them in the same league as the expensive African game ( lion, leopard, buff, bongo, Darby Eland, elephant, etc). Two hundred yards on a A. Dangerous animal B. Expensive animal is farther than I would take( unless it was the last day of the hunt), farther than folks I know that have hunted those animals would take and yeah farther than what I've read in gun rags recommend. There are animals where ranges in excess of 200 are the norm, such as Mountain Nyala, sheep, etc and that is risky enough. I'd be interesting to read what those of you HAVE taken brown bears have to say on both issues. jorge

I have never hunted brown bear nor elephant but recently saw a TV show on the Outdoor Channel of a nimrod hunting elephant.

The hunter and his PH finally caught up with an older bull and two younger bulls standing out in the open. The client and guide moved up until the client made his shot. It was difficult to tell how far they were from the elephant because of the photography, but they were close. Probably inside 30-35 yards or so. The shot was intended to brain the elephant. From where the first shot was taken, the bullet would have ranged into the brain from the right rear. The client had to narrowly miss the high stomach area and drive the bullet into the right rear of the elephants head toward the front, left side of the head. Get the picture?

Anyway, at the shot, it sure looked like the client completely missed the elephant and the photographer was right behind the client making the shot. (how would you like to brag about completely missing an elephant at close range?) The elephant made no reaction as to shock from the bullet impact. Instead, at the hunters shot, the elephant whirled to the left to leave the area and the PH brained the elephant with a side shot. The elephant collapsed.

At the sound of the PH shot you could hear the hunter yell as the PH gun fired slightly behind him but to his close, right side. The muzzle of the PH's double rifle must have been about ear level and within 3 foot of the hunters right ear. Remember the bull whirled to the hunters left and the guide had no alternative but to shoot from slightly behind and to the right of the hunter or not to shoot at all. I'll bet the hunters ears were ringing for a week.

Anyway, the bull went down in a pile and the nimrod did the hero thing and didn't mention completely missing the bull. I'll bet he paid the full price for the elephant. It was certainly not obvious that it was necessary for the PH to shoot to protect his client. Rather, I would guess, he felt his client had a clear shot and took it. He didn't have time to check and see if the hunter had wounded the elephant or not. I assume he shot, because in his judgement the nimrod had fired from close range and certainly could have wounded the elephant.

Of course nobody mentioned the hunter missing the elephant and maybe in fact, he didn't. But, it sure looked like he did.

What would you say in this case, and lets assume the hunter had compoletely missed the elepehant. Should the hunter pay for the elephant ? Should the PH have killed the elephant?

Muley Stalker, your elk experience with the 180 partitians mirrors my own. I quit using them for that very reason. You could never tell when you hit stuff, due to no reaction, although you KNOW the shot was perfect.

I still think a 200 yard shot at ANYTHING the size of a bear, or even a deer is a chip shot. A shot to the vitals is a shot to the vitals, no matter what the range is.

Jorge, you just keep hunting from your arm chair, cuz that is what you are good at.

Flinch