paparock Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Fern Spaulding-Rivers With Her Trophy An urban legend about a young lady and a world-record brown bear has been circulating on the internet. Here is one version: "This 9 year old girl from the Yukon killed the new world record brown bear on the Alaskan Peninsula in October, 2006. Skull size 33 1/16", 11' 9" nose-to-tail. Estimated weight of 1,800 Lbs. No, this bear had not killed anyone. It was the girls first-ever bear hunt!" No, she was not from the Yukon and no, it was not a world record, but the true story is just as fascinating: From "Biggest Bears Of 2006" in the March/April 2007 issue of Bear Hunting Magazine, due on newsstands late February 2007: If the "biggest bear" is determined as a ratio of the size of the bear to the size of the hunter, Fern Spaulding-Rivers is probably setting records that will never be broken. The 10 year-old from Talkeetna, Alaska has already harvested great trophies of most of Alaska's major game species, and she is a handloading fanatic as well. Fern's larger caliber rifles have a muzzle brake and a recoil pad and she also wears a custom-made padded shooting vest from McCoy Shooting Armor to help her withstand big bore recoil. Fern was carrying her Remington 700 Stainless chambered in .375 H&H while brown bear hunting on the Alaskan Peninsula with her father and mother on May 10th, 2006 (when she was 9 years old). As the day progressed she and her father saw 11 bears. At one point, they were charged by a pack of wolves, and they had to dispatch some with the nearest at only 8 paces! Later, they spotted a big bruin in a gully at 32 yards. With all the excitement of the day beginning to show, Fern asked Larry to hold her legs steady while she shot because her knees were shaking. Fern rolled the bear with her first shot, but the bruin regained it's footing and tore off across the tundra. Shooting again from a prone position, Fern dropped the behemoth for good with a second 270 grain Barnes Triple-shock at 112 yards. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service measured the bear's hide at 11'4" from nose to tail. The skull has been officially scored at 29 1/16" Boone and Crockett. What does Fern think of bear hunting? "Do you know how big an 11' bear looks at 30 yds? It's kinda scary! They are about the size of a Volkswagen bus and when they swing their head to look your way they remind you of a T-Rex in Jurassic Park!" Her trophy brown bear now puts her in an elite class. Fern is a tremendous example to young hunters everywhere, and she is a great hunter regardless of her age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishbear Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 So what does she do for an encore??? Â Go Elephant hunting????? Â ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Congratulations on what seems like a good clean kill on dangerous game.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edbassmaster Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 What a beautiful trophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super User roadwarrior Posted January 29, 2007 Super User Share Posted January 29, 2007 That's quite an accomplishment and a great story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
56 crestliner Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Wow that little girl is far braver than me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Water Dog Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 What a great kid and nice family! Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paparock Posted January 30, 2007 Author Share Posted January 30, 2007 The bear was taken in a managment plan to help the species devised by game biologists just as fishing limits are. For everone else here is another pic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassassasin12 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I mean congratulations to the young lady but I guess hunting is just not for me, at least not 1,800 pound bear hunting :-X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paparock Posted January 30, 2007 Author Share Posted January 30, 2007 What is up with the anti-hunting crowd on the forum lately making nasty comments? Hunting is just as legal as fishing and a bear is an animal just as a fish is. Wildlife biologist for the betterment of the species manages both. The reason why larger male boars are targeted is that when bears be they brown, grizzly, or black reach close to carrying capacity in areas the larger older males will kill and eat the cubs of the female bears as that is mother natures population control. I love bears and those that hunt them on a regular basis go to great extremes to help maintain their environment and the health of their species. If it were not for the fees and money, spent by hunters just like fishermen there would be no game or fish management and we would not have the balance of population and harvest as we now enjoy. I always feel sad at the death of any animal because it gave its life for me as my American Indian Brother taught me. Some need to understand that running down others rights will some day come back on you when yours are in jeopardy. Maybe you should educate yourself about the subject before offering criticism. If hunting is not for you then that is fine and that is your right but why belittle those that do as they are fellow sportsmen that fund your Game and Fish Managment? http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=bears.main Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super User Redlinerobert Posted January 30, 2007 Super User Share Posted January 30, 2007 Great bear, awesome story and what an accomplishment by a young lady. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paparock Posted January 30, 2007 Author Share Posted January 30, 2007 Kodiak Brown Bears by Victor G. Barnes, Jr. National Biological Service Roger B. Smith Alaska Department of Game and Fish Mark S. Udevitz National Biological Service Jay R. Bellinger U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Brown bears (Ursus arctos middendorffi) on the Kodiak Archipelago are famous for their large size and seasonal concentrations at salmon streams. Sport hunting of Kodiak bears has been popular since World War II. Their value as captivating subjects to observe or photograph is a more recent development that is increasing rapidly; visitors from around the world come to experience brown bears on Kodiak, adding substantially to Alaska's economy. Adult brown bear on Dog Salmon Creek, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Kodiak Island, AK. Courtesy D. Menke, USFWS An equally important contribution of brown bears is their value as an indicator of ecosystem vitality. Despite high population numbers, Kodiak bears are vulnerable to the environmental effects that have seriously depleted brown bear populations in Europe and parts of North America (Cowan 1972; Servheen 1990). They are long-lived mammals that require large expanses of land to meet biological needs, and their low reproductive rate limits population recovery. Energy development, depletion of salmon resources, and recreational growth are factors that can adversely affect bears and, in doing so, signal a loss of environmental quality affecting many species. Management of Kodiak brown bears is directed at maintaining current density, distri-bution, and habitat-use patterns. This goal is challenged by growing levels of commercial and private use throughout the region. An immediate concern is cabin and lodge development on 121,500 ha (300,000 acres), formerly part of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, that were deeded to Alaska Natives via the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Much of that Native-conveyed land is coastal or riparian habitat especially important to brown bears during summer and fall. Concurrently, recreational use of the Kodiak refuge is increasing about 10% annually (USFWS 1987). Sport fishing, bear photography, and deer and elk hunting often put bears and humans in direct conflict (Smith et al. 1989). Timber harvest on Afognak Island, uncertain trends of salmon populations due to natural or human-caused events (e.g., Exxon Valdez oil spill), and hydroelectric development (Smith and Van Daele 1990) could impose additional long-term effects on localized bear populations. Population Monitoring Sport harvest records, available since 1950 (Troyer 1961), provide the most comprehensive information on Kodiak brown bears. In addition, biologists use aerial surveys to monitor population and habitat-use trends of brown bears on southwest Kodiak Island, an area that supports the highest bear densities and approximately 15% of Kodiak Island's bear population (Barnes et al. 1988). We assessed status of the Kodiak bear population from estimates of density for representative study areas on northern, southwestern, and eastern Kodiak Island. We radio-collared a sample of bears on each area and estimated bear density using ratios of marked and unmarked bears observed from small aircraft (Miller et al. 1987). Brown bear abundance on other geographic units of the Kodiak Archipelago was estimated by comparing those units with the study areas. Status and Trends Sport Harvest Records Excessive and localized harvest of brown bears in the mid-1960's (Fig. 1) prompted biologists to impose restrictions (season length, area closures) that dramatically reduced harvest. A sharp rise in hunting in the early 1970's produced another increase in harvest. In 1976 the Alaska Department of Fish and Game began an area permit system that distributed hunting more equitably throughout the archipelago. Since 1980 the harvest pattern has been relatively stable, with an average annual take of 163 animals (Fig. 1). Fig. 1. Annual sport harvest of Kodiak brown bears, 1961-93. Sex composition of the sport harvest has remained relatively stable despite fluctuations in yearly harvest. From 1987 to 1993 the female portion of the harvest has ranged from 32% to 38%. Age and skull measurements of harvested bears provide further evidence of population stability. Mean ages of males and females taken during 1981-93 (7.3 and 7.4 years, respectively) were slightly higher than during 1969-80 (6.3 and 6.8 years, respectively), but we attribute this difference to sampling variation (Fig. 2). Skull measurements (length plus width) of harvested bears, which generally indicate bear size (Glenn 1980), have remained consistent over time. Fig. 2. Mean age of Kodiak brown bears harvested by sport hunters, 1969-92. Collectively, sport hunting records point to a stable bear population on the Kodiak Archipelago. A comparison of average annual harvest and estimated population size indicates that harvest is at or near the maximum sustainable level (Miller 1990), and managers should closely monitor additional effects on the bear population arising from increased mortality or other factors. Aerial Stream Surveys Adjusted maximum counts from stream surveys ranged from 47 to 87 bears per survey over the past 12 years, but there has not been any consistent trend in the counts during this period (Fig. 3). The stream survey counts are used as an index to population size, but they are affected by many other factors such as timing of the surveys relative to peak bear concentrations and strength of salmon runs. Fig. 3. Maximum counts from aerial surveys of brown bears concentrated along salmon-spawning streams on southwest Kodiak Island, 1982-93. We consider estimates of composition based on the stream surveys more reliable. Annual estimates of the proportion of maternal females have varied little from the overall mean of 24% during this period. Taken together, the count and composition data suggest that the brown bear population in this area remains relatively stable. Population Abundance Estimates of brown bear density on three study areas on Kodiak Island ranged from 0.29 to 0.35 bears/km2 (0.75 to 0.91 bears/mi2). Habitats represented by the areas included precipitous mountain terrain, shrub-covered slopes, riparian zones, coastal habitat, and extensive bog and heathland flats. Extrapolating those density estimates to comparable habitats on other geographical areas provided an estimate of 2,842 bears for the Kodiak Archipelago or about 0.23 bears/km2 (0.60 bears/mi2). Bear density was highest at Karluk Lake (0.42 bears/km2 [1.09 bears/mi2]) and lowest on small, isolated islands (0.04 bears/km2 [0.10 bears/mi2]). Management Considerations Available information suggests that the status of the Kodiak brown bear population is better now than in some earlier periods. In the early 1900's bears were commercially hunted for their hides or indiscriminately killed as competitors of fisherman and ranchers (Troyer 1961; Smith et al. 1989). During the 1960's bears were killed in a controversial control program undertaken to reduce conflicts with livestock on northeast Kodiak Island (Eide 1965), and excessive sport harvest occurred on parts of southwest Kodiak Island. These events undoubtedly affected bear distribution and abundance in local areas. However, future management of brown bears and their habitat will face new problems, including accelerated timber harvest, construction of cabins on bear habitat, and additional hydroelectric development. Added to all these threats is the long-term problem of expanding recreational use. Effective management of the bear population in upcoming years will depend on inventory methods that can detect population change in a timely manner. For further information: Victor G. Barnes, Jr. National Biological Service Alaska Science Center Kodiak Field Station Kodiak, AK 99615 other sources of educational material to learn about bear managemnet are below. http://www.birding.alaska.gov/pubs/techpubs/federal_aid/survey_inven/98brnpm.pdf http://wc.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/techpubs/mgt_rpts/mbr01_sc.pdf http://www.soundswild.alaska.gov/pubs/techpubs/federal_aid/survey_inven/02brnpm.pdf http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/gameinfo/regs/pfindx.php http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/gameinfo/regs/PoliciesIndex.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pond Hopper Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I do not understand how people differentiate one animal from the other. Â Bears provide good meat just as do deer, pheasant, turkey, elk, etc. Â It is something that people enjoy doing and what makes that bear different from a crappie you may catch and keep. Â Great story and what an accomplishment. Â Brown bear hunting is one of my many outdoors dreams. Â Corey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest avid Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 This is a terrific story. Â The courage and confidence that young girl has developed through hunting dangerous game in a wild environment will serve her well for the rest of her life. Personally I no longer hunt, but as an angler/conservationist I see it's value. As an outdoorsman, I appreciate the exhiliaration of a fair chase hunt. Â Nothing makes one senses keener than being in the woods, actually "becoming" a part of the woods, is more accurate. I also think that there is a degree of hyprocisy in decrying killing a "beautiful" bear. Â When a bass you caught dies because your rear trebles buried themselves in it's gills, do you swear never to fish again? Or is a bass somehow less deserving of life than a bear? PS - Bear venison is among the finest I have ever eaten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paparock Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 Paparock u can make as many posts as u want ur not gonna change any opinions. Mother nature can take care of species management herself. woulf you be ok with the bear killing you? We are all animals after all, just because you can talk doesn't mean your any more worthy of a life then the bear. You may be surprised by this fishingJ but "Yes" I would and will be fine with the bear killing me if that happens. I accept that as part of the risk when hunting an animal capable of hunting me back and killing me. Any hunter that has not made that decision has no business perusing dangerous game. In fact, a friend on mine from Colorado (whose name I will not post publicly but if you really want to know so you can check to see that I am telling you the truth, I will PM you) was killed and partially eaten by a bear. Unfortunately, he was more of a naturalist and not a hunter or he probably would still be alive. Yet, I do not hate bears as that bear was just being a bear but the Game Wardens did kill it. I posted the bear education material so those two 14 and 15 year old boys that posted might at least try to read more about bears. Too many schools now teach PETA material that is about as accurate about bears as "The Three Stooges" is accurate about human psychology and behavior. They need facts in order to make intelligent educated decisions rather than emotion based propaganda based decisions. If the management of the game such as bears and fish were left solely up the Mother Nature then most bears, deer, and many fish species would be near extinct over much of the USA. Canada still has a lot of wilderness but the USA does not. That is why biologist mandated management plans have brought back many species like the black bear and dear here in Arkansas from near non-existence to huntable populations. These same plans by artificial reservoirs of enormous size have given us some world-class fisheries from trout to walleye that were never possible via Mother Nature. Therefore, sometimes Mother Nature needs a helping hand but then she takes over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super User Gatorbassman Posted February 1, 2007 Super User Share Posted February 1, 2007 Do some research on the effect hunting and the money from hunting have had on animal populations around the world. Then come back to this thread and tell us what you find. I'll give you a head start. Whitetails, or odocoileus virginiansis (scientific name), have been around for a long time. Approximately 3.5 million years. With a current estimated 25 million whitetails in North America, whitetail numbers were not always so abundant. Since the early 1800's deer populations have experienced several fluctuations. Native Americans killed an estimated 5 million deer per year to supply the fur trade. In the late 1800's, the deer population dropped to an all time low of less than 1 million. In some areas deer completely disappeared. The 1900's would bring some changes that would help revive the herd. Possibly the most important was The Lacey Act. The Lacey Act was first introduced by Iowa Congressman John Lacey in the spring of 1900. The first federal wildlife law was signed into law by President William McKinley on May 25, 1900. The original Act was directed more at the preservation of wild game by making it a federal crime to shoot game in one state with the purpose of selling in another. Another key factor was the organization of state departments of conservation starting in 1908. This along with strategic deer management during the rest of the 20th century brings us to where we are today. Over 10 million hunters chasing the majestic and elusive whitetail deer. This is just one small example. Check out the hundreds of other species that have been saved by hunters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super User Redlinerobert Posted February 1, 2007 Super User Share Posted February 1, 2007 Well written Gene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.