The only thing I question about the story, is if he turned the hide and skull over to the state after taking the picture.
Any bear killed in self-defense is the property of the State, and the hide and skull must be forfeited.
<snipped>
In ABP we have a guy who claims to have shot a bear in a post in which he shows us a couple of photos of a bear hide. That's far more corroboration of a claim than most of us ever post here. I don't see why you want to hold him to some higher standard.
Of course not, the story is just another anecdote. But it's at least an anecdote about a plausible event: A bear tries to enter a home in Alaska, and the outdoorsy guy who lives there shoots and kills the bear. To support the story, we are provided with photos of some bear hides hanging in a log structure, a close-up of a black bear paw, and a photo of a child's hand in a bear print in the snow.Pictures of bear hides don't corroborate his story any more than pictures of some guy trying to measure a fallen tree proves a Bigfoot knocked it down.
Shrike,
The pictures aren't good enough because they have nothing to do with the event. Your version sounds plausible, his version sounds embellished for dramatic effect. I just don't like being played for a fool.
Is that true? I never knew that. Of course, I've never shared land with a bear, though.
Skepticism and obstructionism are not the same thing. You claiming to be skeptical on this point is a bit like climate deniers or 9/11 truthers claiming to be skeptics. To doubt that ABP's photos support his claim is to pretty much invoke a conspiracy that he's making up stories and then digging around for photos that can somehow look like they relate to them.For a skeptics forum I sure am taking a lot of heat for being skeptical.
I agree. Without some kind of surveillance footage of the event, that cannot be corroborated.Yes the hides are a plausible outcome but in no way corroborate the bear standing in the doorway, ABP blasting him in the chest part.
Skepticism and obstructionism are not the same thing. You claiming to be skeptical on this point is a bit like climate deniers or 9/11 truthers claiming to be skeptics. To doubt that ABP's photos support his claim is to pretty much invoke a conspiracy that he's making up stories and then digging around for photos that can somehow look like they relate to them.
The only thing I question about the story, is if he turned the hide and skull over to the state after taking the picture.
Any bear killed in self-defense is the property of the State, and the hide and skull must be forfeited.
Bears exist. Alaska exists. People who live and work in bear country in Alaska exist. There exist people who make their living by cutting trees, guiding tourists to wilderness areas, and coordinating hunts for large mammals, including bears. These people understand that when a bear decides that what it wants is in your house then it's time to kill that bear, and they have both the firepower and the gumption to do so.Come on, Drew, this is just another of his BS stories, and we should call BS when he/she posts such drivel.
Too bad you weren't here for the ABP shooting three brown bears at one time story. You would have been extra shrill then i'll bet.
I hope i'm not going to have to redraw this one, and replace Jodie with Nakani.
[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/903/w60ZPn.jpg[/qimg]