Post by: Ridgerunner on January 24, 2008, 12:36:37 PM
Post by: Bofire on January 24, 2008, 12:47:10 PM
I have a 7'2" it is the biggest my taxidermist has done. I think anything over 7 foot is pretty big for here.
But I have no data to prove that!! LOL
Carl
Post by: T-ROY on January 24, 2008, 01:29:13 PM
Post by: GoldTip on January 24, 2008, 02:26:35 PM
Post by: T-ROY on January 24, 2008, 03:26:56 PM
Over 6' bear in Washington I would compare to shooting a 145" whitetail, they are certainly around, but your not necassarily going to get one every year, or even every other year. A 7' black bear(measured nose to tail) south of the Canadian line is a pretty rare critter, that would equate to a 180" whitetail in my opinion. Most guys never see one.
well put, I was gonna say the same thing about the seven footer. I have never seen one, but a friend of mine killed one 2 years ago that field dressed at 525, and that was on a scale, not guessing. we never measured it but had to be close to 7 in not better, it was a brute as far as the average goes the taxidermist i use says his average bear he get is 5' 150 pounders.
Post by: actionshooter on January 24, 2008, 08:47:26 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on January 24, 2008, 08:57:56 PM
Average on the westside would be about 5 - 5.5 ft, 180-200lbs for males.
Post by: russ on January 24, 2008, 09:01:47 PM
Post by: actionshooter on January 24, 2008, 09:07:26 PM
Thats a good bear Billy, My brother in law took a 6-6 a couple of years ago, my biggest has been 6-2. I seen a blonde/red in the NE about 5 years ago that I was sure was 7' and I saw a dead 6-11 (close enough to 7) in the back of a truck come of the coast.
Post by: cohoho on February 06, 2008, 08:33:39 PM
Post by: SHANE(WA) on February 07, 2008, 12:20:19 AM
Post by: T-ROY on February 08, 2008, 11:38:29 AM
Post by: GoldTip on February 08, 2008, 12:29:06 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 08, 2008, 12:37:00 PM
Post by: Michelle_Nelson on February 08, 2008, 12:44:59 PM
I know a lot of people like to measure their bear rugged out, but if you want the true length it should be measured off the animal.
Take 2 bears for example. both are 6' measured from the whole bear. Bear #1 has a 40" girth while bear #2 has a 50" girth. When you skin both bears out Bear #2 has the potential to be longer when measured.
Make sense?
Post by: GoldTip on February 08, 2008, 01:28:13 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on February 09, 2008, 02:19:25 PM
Thats why I do not "square" a bear when I measure them for bragging rights. I also don't care much for skull measurements.
Then how do you "measure" them for bragging rights? By color phase?
Post by: RubblesPH on February 09, 2008, 02:37:09 PM
The thing I run into most is that people tend to over estimate the weight. We took four bears last year and three of them were over 6', but all within three inches of each other. Most people guessed the largest one to be approximately 450lbs. We weighed (Cabela's field scale) the bear with a field scale and it went 283 lbs with a full belly. We weighed ourselves after the bear just to make sure the scale was close. It had a 19" skull.
The 6' 2" bear was only an inch shorter but almost 50 lbs lighter and had a 17 3/4" skull. Just a younger bear that was going to have great potential.
I shot a bear the year before that was 7'3" and had a skull that just missed 20" (broad head but unfortunately had a short snout). The bear was unbelievably fat and measured 61" across the belly, skinned. Based on a published article that had a length/weight chart for bears (similar to what pig farmers use), the bear was estimated to weigh 628 lbs. I laid down next to it and it made me (6ft, 245lbs) look like a high school DB next to a professional O-lineman. Wish I could have gotten him on an actual scale.
All bears were measured from the tip of nose to tip of tail with the hide on the animal. Some people measure from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail. Never did square any of them out.
My opinion is that if it is over 6' and around 250lbs, you've done something in WA.
Post by: billythekidrock on February 09, 2008, 11:08:49 PM
Quote
My opinion is that if it is over 6' and around 250lbs, you've done something in WA.
Yep. :chuckle:
Post by: RubblesPH on February 10, 2008, 02:04:12 PM
the 6'3" bear was 330
the 6' bear was 300
Went back and checked my records since I thought those weights seemed a little low.
Still think the 6'/250+lbs is a bench mark in WA though.
Post by: shawnrdavies on February 10, 2008, 07:10:05 PM
Post by: RubblesPH on February 11, 2008, 09:25:10 PM
Post by: Outfitter on February 14, 2008, 03:16:53 PM
Post by: actionshooter on February 14, 2008, 04:20:53 PM
Post by: T-ROY on February 14, 2008, 04:36:41 PM
Post by: SHANE(WA) on February 14, 2008, 10:26:43 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on February 15, 2008, 06:24:36 AM
Quote
looks like a fat sow, no shoulders and a large rump, small gap between the ears very small skull, a large head on a bear the ears will appear to be small and almost look like they are on the side of the head.
I agree that it looks like a sow, but I think it is a very fat boar. There is nothing in the image for real size reference, but it looks to have a deep chest, fair sized frame and an extreme amount of fat. So unless someone wants to lift a leg and take a peek we shall never know.
Post by: Outfitter on February 15, 2008, 09:16:51 AM
Post by: Outfitter on February 15, 2008, 03:47:18 PM
Post by: PacificNWhunter on February 15, 2008, 07:10:09 PM
Post by: beardown on July 10, 2009, 04:26:34 PM