Bear season knife options

Just to get some movement on here And to really see what others would take I as usual can’t decide on which to take. Honestly will probably take both and carry one at a time and give both some love. The #3-5 always goes but I was able to buy back my model 23 and so thinking it should go this year as it’s been a few years since I’ve owned it back and feel it should go this year. So which would you take in a bear hunt up into the mountains if given a choice? I’ll be in a cabin at night so I can take
Both and split the trip up and use both which is likely.

the original bear??

:-)Rocky

Skinned a bunch with my #23.

Use one for skinning and the other for butchering.

Pap

Curious, what do folks shoot bear for? I personally have not eaten bear, but the hunters I know that have said the meat sucks.

heard that also

Hi, There was a restaurant that served game and exotic game in Chicago, Cafe' Bohemia. I met the chef and he told me that he cooked Bear and it was better than Prime Rib of beef. I never had any or was at that restaurant, but that is what I was told. I can say if you don't treat your Deer meat well it will not taste so good, Regards, Mike

Bear meat must be cooked to 160 because of tricanosis(?), because they eat so much rotten meat, etc. I know of many that keep their bear meat, make sausage or cured ham out of it, but most, like me, give the bear meat away. I won't eat it. However, a fat fall bear has the purest clear tallow you can imagine. I render all of it for cooking and mix with mutton tallow, bee's wax and a little pine pitch, to make remarkable boot grease.

Pap

It seems no one eats the meat, even the guys here that hunt. So I ask again, what is the point? Simply to shoot something? It would seem to me deer, elk, antelope etc. hunting would be a better use of time with some actual food benefit.

The money states make from selling hunting licenses and animal tags are a primary source of funding for wildlife management. Keeping the population in the right range will help the population to be healthy. With all animals, f nobody hunted them they would overpopulate and be forced to compete with each other for food and territory. I personally have never hunted bear or ate bear but my brother in law hunts bear and eats it all the time. Says it makes good burgers and Chorizo. Same concept with shooting wolves, coyotes, fur bearers, etc. More to hunting than just meat. It's about conservation. Just my outlook on the subject.

Personally, I look at bears as predators, just like a wolf.one doesn't eat wolf meat, but they tan the hide, etc. In the spring, bears consume more elk calves than any other predator and in some areas of the west,they represent the major decline of elk populations.
Consequently, I get a bear tag, a wolf tag and mountain lions tag every year, in case I see one. I understand those that say, if I shoot it, I must eat it, and that's fine. I will shoot a bear, but I won't eat it; won't eat a wolf, and won't eat a lion either. But I have no problem in hunting them.

Pap

with that said, missouri just started a bear season (too many of them) , missouri is loaded with guys who will shoot anything , after all it's (The Outlaw State)

Apparently predators are necessary to keep the natural balance and control the grazers. Many years ago, a friend of mine was a game warden in Michigan, and he told me the predators had been wiped out, thus ruining the natural control of the deer population. The result, the deer population exploded and there was not enough available food in the winter to support the unnaturally high population and the deer would drop dead before his eyes due to starvation.

The moral of the story seems to be "predators" get a bad rap, and because they are evil predators, killing them for no reason other than killing them is ok. Kinda lame.

Another friend of mine father owned a place down here years ago called the Aquatarium, a sister to the Miami Sea Aquarium tourist attraction. Dolphin shows, huge aquarium with a myriad of sea life. There was a conservation component to the place, but still a tourist deal with the dolphin shows the main attraction.

When the tourism industry began to change, and more zoo type places seemed to be the rage, the Aquatarium, added displays of some of the big cats. While the cats were in larger containment areas than had typically been found earlier in the 20th century, ultimately it was not sufficient with places like Busch Gardens providing "natural" habitat for most of the animals, animals of all kinds. The Aquatarium had had its time and was torn down to build condos.

The point for me is, after spending time with the big cats, and particularly two young black panther cubs, it is beyond me that anyone could shoot a big cat. IF, and that is a big IF, it was somehow a threat or had been proven to have injured or killed someone, then it is understandable. Even then, you are in their world, and caution should be used at all times. Once you see them in the wild, it is unfathomable to me to shoot them. There are so few of them left in the wild, it is a shame some folks get off on killing them.

In my world, I spend a lot of time on and in the ocean. We "hunt", but use fishing poles. We also spear fish. Never take more than we can eat, and don't kill what we don't.

I dive and surf with sharks in the water. That is simply the way it is. Florida is the shark attack capital of the world. Guys get bit every year, with a fatality very, very rare. I know there is a risk, but I choose to take the risk. What I don't do is kill sharks because they a "predators". If I was threatened and believed I was in imminent danger, say spear fishing, of course it would be considered but unlikely I could kill one but could ward off an attack. I do always remember tho I am in their world and don't knowingly push the limits or look for trouble.

So, I am trying to wrap my head around the concepts that it is ok to kill a predator for what seems to be no real reason other than some perceived threat that the hunters put themselves in.

FYI - i did some searching on wolf populations in the US. Many have been reintroduced into areas after being wiped out. Part of the reason was to maintain the balance as previously mentioned. That being said, the wolf population in mainland US is nil. In 2016 Michigan had a population of 618. Wisconsin 866. Oregon 77. Washington 48. New Mexico Arizona had a combined "experimental" population of 113. Doesn't appear that wolves are huffing and puffin and blowing that house down. So the story that wolves are the cause for the major decline in elk populations doesn't seem to hold water. A myth. It is more likely, that since predators have been wiped out, and over breeding relative to the human encroachment on habitat , the remaining habitat cannot not support the population.

Here is a link to an article that addresses your statement and corrects the record.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2013/06/study-wolves-not-cause-wyoming-elk-decline/

Oddly enough, a couple of articles address hunting as a cause for the herd population decline.

Kirko, who exactly determines what is the "correct" amount? What is the criteria and/or data used to come to the conclusion? I have never understood how this works. it seems to be such an arbitrary undertaking.

We have agencies down here that do the same thing with fish populations. I don't think many of the guys that come up with numbers ever leave a desk much less get out on the water.

Our local elk population in the Isaho Sawtooth Management area has gone from 8,000 elk to less than 2,000 in 5 years, all because of wolves. Some other Management units have lost 80% of their elk population. The State of Idaho now has basically no limit on wolf tags hunting or trapping. Also a bounty on them and, the Idaho Wildlife Association gives $750 for each wolf harvested. Yellowstone and Teton National Parks now have 80% loss of moose and deer, with elk barely hanging on. The bison are maintaining but not by much because of inherent Bangs disease plus wolf depreciation. To each their own as far as hunting for meat, trophies, or predators, or don't. I choose to take a predator if I get the chance. One wolf needs many kills to live times 2500 wolves equals no elk, moose or deer in not too many years. Even without outright killing them, the animals get stressed by running them in deep snow and they soon perish. I've seen many so called studies that are so biased in favor of predators, it's ridiculous. I stand by my 60 years of hunting in the west and mostly Idaho.
Plus this discussion should not be on the Randall Knife posts, but on another one below.
Pap

straight from the wild life guys , https://mdc.mo.gov/newsroom/mdc-announces-first-black-bear-season-missouri-run-fall

Since we’re on conservation

Fall bear is best. You should cut as much of the fat off as you can and if cooking a roast, use a raised rack to let the fat drip off. Pappy is correct about the temperature when cooking. I had a lady that always wanted a hind quarter. She made the best Black Forest ham with the quarters I gave her. One of my buds would make some incredible sausage. Give it a try. Bear is like any other wild game, if you cook it wrong it will be bad.

For those that answered the question thank you your input.

In my area bears are rare, but in the east there are many of them and people sometimes hunt them when there are quotas. Small indigenous peoples hunt without quotas. One of them once treated me to a bear stew baked in foil, quite tasty.

If I had the opportunity to hunt, I would take #13-12 just in case, if for cutting carcasses, then a hatchet and 11-4.5 or 20 Ward Gay

In general, the problem of maintaining the balance of predators and herbivores is very difficult, unfortunately.