Bear Weight--Need Your Help

[Timberstalker]

In all seriousness, this thread is pretty cool.  I'm simply joking with my #402 & #505 bears.  Those bears are average, and both were under 200#

I've killed a couple above average, and packed out a few above average bears in WA.  I have seen one that I could solidly say was 300#.  It squared 6'-7" and the head and hide weighed 115#.  He was a giant.

These measurements are cool.  Maybe we can get a solid formula for the pieced out bears.

[tlbradford]

In all seriousness, this thread is pretty cool.  I'm simply joking with my #402 & #505 bears.  Those bears are average, and both were under 200#

I've killed a couple above average, and packed out a few above average bears in WA.  I have seen one that I could solidly say was 300#.  It squared 6'-7" and the head and hide weighed 115#.  He was a giant.

These measurements are cool.  Maybe we can get a solid formula for the pieced out bears.

It is pretty cool to see someone put together a length girth chart.  That should get folks pretty close.  I wish they reference spring vs fall bears because that is probably a 10-15% range in body weight.  I was joking earlier, I will pack a scale and tape.

[Timberstalker]

I just thought of a new invention:  Ultralight scales.
 

[fillthefreezer]

I just thought of a new invention:  Ultralight scales.
 

does it make my gear lighter tho 

[Timberstalker]

I see what you did there.

[DaveMonti]

As much as it would be nice to have a formula, it's just not very reliable. 

For example, 2 women I dated were 5'6" tall, both had a 38 inch bust.  One was 115 lbs. and the other was 165.  They both had blond hair. 

[Timberstalker]

 

[hunter399]

As much as it would be nice to have a formula, it's just not very reliable. 

For example, 2 women I dated were 5'6" tall, both had a 38 inch bust.  One was 115 lbs. and the other was 165.  They both had blond hair. 

What kind of formula are you looking for weight or should you keep them , but will say bust has to be in the formula.

[high country]

As much as it would be nice to have a formula, it's just not very reliable. 

For example, 2 women I dated were 5'6" tall, both had a 38 inch bust.  One was 115 lbs. and the other was 165.  They both had blond hair. 

What kind of formula are you looking for weight or should you keep them , but will say bust has to be in the formula.

Agreed. This bear has a bigger head than my last and the height is close to the same, chest I didn't measure so no comment there.....but I know that I made at least 60lbs of sausage with nothing added to the last bear. We'll see if this one can compete.

[Rufous]

Gents, I am the guy that came up with the 4 legs (minus hide and feet) multiplied by 3.25 as an estimate of live weight. I came up with that figure by weighing the 4 legs of a couple bears and getting length and girth measurements of those same bears. I think it is close and will at least give a hunter a better clue than their wild ass guess. Of course we could also just report the weight of the legs since those do come out of the field and can easily be weighed on a bathroom scale. The 4 legs from my first bear, taken August 1 of 1997, weighed 104 pounds. I did not get the girth off that bear unfortunately. My biggest bear was taken in May of 2001 and its legs weighed 120#. It was a 13 year old boar with a 20" skull. The hide measured 77" nose to tail and 88" front claws to front claws. I do not remember the exact girth measurement but I do remember that from the chart I had figured it to weigh real close to 400# so the girth must have been 51". So if live weight based from the chart is 400 and the 4 legs weigh 120# then the formula of 400/120=3.33 in this case. So 3.25 would be conservative.

My brother's biggest bear had a girth of 48" and it was in the 66-78" length category so the chart would put its live weight at 350#. The 4 legs from that bear weighed 107#. So 107*3.25=347#

This formula I think is in the ball park.

Basically what we who care about such things would like to see happen is for bear hunters to measure the length and girth of the bears they shoot and then weigh the 4 legs and get more feedback on the veracity or lack thereof of this formula.

The cinammon bear is my biggest bear with 120# legs and the chocolate bear is my brother's with 107# legs. Thanks, Brian.

[Timberstalker]

Awesome information Rufous.  Those are a couple of real monsters.

[high country]

There's going to be guys that take a lot of #150 bears. It's still important to get the data from those and to understand that bears over #350 are extremely rare and that #150-250 are your 4 and 5 point whitetails of bears. Don't be afraid to upload your numbers, be proud of your hunt and enjoy the memories.

[fillthefreezer]

well said guys. i am not trying to take anything away from anyone. i worked backwards on this bear, taking the packweight of two backpacks (a known number) and then subtracting the gear, an estimate on the hide, and came up with very similar numbers

[CarbonHunter]

Gents, I am the guy that came up with the 4 legs (minus hide and feet) multiplied by 3.25 as an estimate of live weight. I came up with that figure by weighing the 4 legs of a couple bears and getting length and girth measurements of those same bears. I think it is close and will at least give a hunter a better clue than their wild ass guess. Of course we could also just report the weight of the legs since those do come out of the field and can easily be weighed on a bathroom scale. The 4 legs from my first bear, taken August 1 of 1997, weighed 104 pounds. I did not get the girth off that bear unfortunately. My biggest bear was taken in May of 2001 and its legs weighed 120#. It was a 13 year old boar with a 20" skull. The hide measured 77" nose to tail and 88" front claws to front claws. I do not remember the exact girth measurement but I do remember that from the chart I had figured it to weigh real close to 400# so the girth must have been 51". So if live weight based from the chart is 400 and the 4 legs weigh 120# then the formula of 400/120=3.33 in this case. So 3.25 would be conservative.

My brother's biggest bear had a girth of 48" and it was in the 66-78" length category so the chart would put its live weight at 350#. The 4 legs from that bear weighed 107#. So 107*3.25=347#

This formula I think is in the ball park.

Basically what we who care about such things would like to see happen is for bear hunters to measure the length and girth of the bears they shoot and then weigh the 4 legs and get more feedback on the veracity or lack thereof of this formula.

The cinammon bear is my biggest bear with 120# legs and the chocolate bear is my brother's with 107# legs. Thanks, Brian.

So are you just weighing the legs?  Wrist to shoulder or top of ham?  Does this mean backstraps, tenderloins, neck and rib meat is not weighed?

[Rufous]

Correct, just weighing the legs. What one would normally cut off the carcass in order to bring out the meat on the bone.