That is not all that Phill stated especially in his posts about the charge on 24 hour and AR web sites.

Nuff said

Posted on 24 Hour campfire by Phil Shoemaker

458Win Offline
Campfire Guide

Registered: 01/05/05
Posts: 2941
Loc: AK peninsula
In the past 33 years of living and guiding on the Alaska peninsula from our families homestead I have never had to kill a bear in defense of live or property. DLP as the state refers to it.
Two days ago I was guiding a married couple and we bumped into a bear at close range on our way to the fishing stream. We yelled and it ran but circled around and then charged. The couple were 10 or 12 feet behind me and the bear came out of the brush so close it was within 3 feet of my clients before I could shoot. They both intentionally fell to the ground just before I shot the bear behind the shoulder. It immediately spun and I continued shooting, all the while keeping the position of my clients in perspective. After six quick hits the bear turned and ran 20 yards and died .

We were planning on a quick couple hours of fishing and rather than packing my normal S&W 44 Mtn gun I was packing a S&W 3953 dao auto with 147 gr Buffalo Bore 9mm ammo.

Edited by 458Win (07/23/16)
_________________________
Phil Shoemaker - Alaska Master Guide
NRA Benefactor
Alaska Hunter Education Instructor
http://www.grizzlyskinsofalaska.com

Anyone who claims the 30-06 is not effective has either not used one, or else is unwittingly commenting on their marksmanship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads..._S#Post11326672

I didn't make it up that is Phil's own words

I think that was just getting to the truth. Thats not an argument! Articles misquote. Editors edit what you write and sometimes screw up important details. What he posted is basically from his own mouth, unless its an email written by hillary clinton. Then its made up by Putin.

Good Lord.......it was a JOKE!

So was mine!

I took a round about way to bring in hillary here

I did pick up on that plug.

Don't you go insulting my no good horse by calling it a hillary!

How many times are you going to post this? How many times are you going to ignore his clarifications on web sites? When someone on AR stated that the bear was not charging Phill stated that he knew when a bear charges and that this bear definitely charged.

Do I need to find that post and quote it as well?
Phill is not a professional writer and his words were such as some may take exception in the little short story about the incident. You are proving to be quite obtuse.

Sez the pot to the kettle......

Hope, because I read his posts and his clarification, something you obviously have not done.

Not sure where you came up with this but here is the write. Up that Phil wrote for American Hunter

"I have been guiding brown bear hunters and fishermen and bear photographers from our homestead within Becharof National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for 33 years and have had numerous close encounters with bears. Until now, I have never had to shoot an unwounded bear to protect either myself or clients, but the other week an event occurred and my good fortune changed. When it happened, I was fully aware of what was going on and how big the bear was. I also managed to stay aware of where my clients were, even when the bear was directly between us. The woman I was guiding said that while she did not remember smelling the bear?s breath, it was close enough to her face that it could have bitten her!

I have killed enough bears to know how important shot placement can be, even with large-bore rifles. I was well aware of the limitations of my 9mm pistol, even with Buffalo Bore ammo. I was aiming for a vital area with each shot; because it all took place between 6 and 8 feet, they were not far off. But hitting the head and brain of a highly animated and agitated animal is a difficult shot.

The two photos shown here tell a pretty good story by themselves. The secondary photo (embedded at the bottom of this story) was taken from the point where the charging bear first erupted from the brush. I am on the left and Larry, my fishing client, is on the right. The bear was within 2 feet or less of Larry and his wife when I shot it. You can see the dead bear to the left of Larry. The main photo (embedded to the right) shows Larry and me with the dead bear and shows its size.

Larry and his wife were fishing with me, and because we were going to a small stream I had fished before, which had numerous large male brown bears, I decided to take my Smith & Wesson 3953 DAO 9mm, rather than the S&W 629 .44 Mag. Mountain Gun I have carried for the past 25 years, as the larger boars are usually less of a problem than sows with cubs.

Before we reached the stream, while we were walking through dense brush and tall grass, we heard a growl and deep ?woof? of a bear approximately 6 feet to our right (behind me in the secondary photo). We had been talking loudly but must have startled a sleeping bear. It sounded like it made a movement toward us, and I shouted loudly and the bear ran back through the brush to the right in the photo. Within 15 seconds, we could hear it growling and charging through the dense brush from the opposite side.

I had my pistol out by then, and the bear first appeared from where the photographer in photo No. 2 was standing. It went straight for my clients; Larry and his wife fell backwards in the deep grass. She said the bear?s face was close enough to hers that it could have bitten her!

The bear was highly agitated and standing within 3 feet of my clients when I decided I could take a shot without endangering them.

My first shot was at its neck, and then it began growling and spinning toward the impact. I wanted to hit the head but the bear was moving so fast I simply began shooting each time I could hit a vital area. I hit it six times before it turned to run off, and my seventh shot was into its pelvis area as it ran. When it dropped within 6 feet of the last shot, I checked my pistol and found I had only a single round left in the chamber so decided against walking in and finishing it.

My pistol was loaded with Buffalo Bore 9mm +P Outdoorsman 147-grain FN hard-cast loads that have a muzzle velocity of 1100 fps. I had previously tested, compared and proven such loads with my .357 and .44 mags., and I was convinced they would work."


http://www.handgunhunt.com/forum/ubbthre...at&fpart=17&q=1

From what I read of that, the bear had charged them for sure. But as it reads, he was done charging, and was standing still when shots were fired. I think that's what Rod is getting at. The next sentence after the highlighed part says the bear was standing 3' away from the clients, and that's when he felt like be could shoot safely. I don't think he shot while the bear was active in its charge. That's how I read it anyway.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think both sides are right. There was a charge, and the bear was shot afterwards while it was standing in front of the clients. Anyway, off to the range and some more time with the flintlock!

If the bear was no longer charging, then that makes it a bluff charge and with 38 years of experience with these bears I'm sure Phil knows the difference.

Yeah, I agree, and think there is a difference. There is a bluff charge, a charge, and then the physical attack. From what I read, the bear never hurt the clients, so the attack never happened. The bear was shot while it wasn't moving. He had his pistol out as soon as he heard the noise, but didn't fire at that point. Only when there was clearance between the bear and the clients. To me, that says there was no attack. No physical harm to the clients pretty much solidifies it to me. For whatever reason, the bear stopped short of attacking after putting on a seemingly full on charge. Doesn't happen often, but for some reason, I believe that's what happened here.

Just my interpretation. Nothing more. I'm bowing out now.

Ding, ding, ding. Winner winner, chicken dinner!!!

If you aren't bitten or gored it just didn't happen, appears to be the logic here.

Not entirely, but there were some good points made.

Choosing to focus on Phil's choice of a word in one place only and ignoring not useing that word in multiple posts, being the good point I assume.

If the bear was not charging, then why wasn't Phil sighted by F&G for shooting bear?

This thread has gone a bit off topic, don't y'all think?

Yeah it has but i liked the part where we got into super troopers. One of my favorite movies

I started to insert my favorite quote and then realized it wouldn't fly. T`was the part where the police addressed the faux bear-fornicator.

Then there was the chicken reference......

I got this reply from Phil,

Not my concern.

"The bear was highly agitated and standing within 3 feet of my clients when I decided I could take a shot without endangering them."

I don't doubt that there was a charge by a bear at some point but that bear was not charging at the time of the first shot as you continue to suggest. If that 900 pound grizzly had been in the midst of a full on charge (your words) with adrenalin on high and a target it it's sights the end result would have been different, IMO. All three of those people would not have emerged unscathed and if the only man in posession of their "protection" had been in it's path they all may have been killed. They were lucky, very lucky. To suggest otherwise makes no sense.

Meanwhile big game hunting outfitters across the Alaskan frontier are trading in their big bore Guide Guns and 870's for short barreled single stack 9mm pistols........

Ya, a little ;-)

I'm not afraid to admit when I am wrong, but you are. I had a high regard for you but you have proven me to have been incorrect you are simply obtuse.

The reply I just received from Phil states extremely clear that the bear charged

Well i guess the guy there was wrong and the implication that posting story was to assert that we would be better off w a 9mm than 45/70 was not made anymore than ernie was saying to pack up your 460's and just use a 357 for long distance handgun hunting. Its just an account of what happened and sparked some good discussions and i for one feel better about it when i hike with my glock 20 stoked with underwood 220's

Also, i dont think razor dobbs didnt post his 10mm buff to say ph's should turn in their 458 lotts either. It does, however, give me a good starting point when a ph has doubts about me using a 454 for buff.

Not my words Phil's words. Phil said the bear was charging and has 38 years experience with bears.

HOW MUCH EXPERIENCE DO YOU HAVE. This is a pertinent question as to your opinions validity.

Once more the repiy from Phil today,

_________________________________________________________________

#4592653 - Today at 12:04 PM Re: Bear With 9mm
458Win Offline
Campfire Guide

Registered: 01/05/05
Posts: 2942
Loc: AK peninsula
I havn't written up my story and the one the NRA published was not written by me, although it was written like it was. Scott Olmstead called me after I had written Tim Sundles about how the ammo had performed and asked me a couple questions, which I answered and then I sent him two photos.
It was a fairly accurate report though.

I don't know how many bear charges the guy you are argueing with has ever been involved in but the bear seemed to be agressive when we startled it in the heavy brush, it circled around downwind and then most definately charged !!!! It soundls like the guy is saying that since it had stopped it wasn't charging ? So once it is mauling you the charge has stopped ?

What difference does it make ? A big boar had circled, charged and was literally standing over my clients and highly agitated.
_________________________
Phil Shoemaker - Alaska Master Guide
NRA Benefactor
Alaska Hunter Education Instructor
http://www.grizzlyskinsofalaska.com

Anyone who claims the 30-06 is not effective has either not used one, or else is unwittingly commenting on their marksmanship.

Jwp, if I may... I don't think there is any disagreement with you that the bear charged. Not trying to stir the pot here, but I think it is also clear the bear was standing still when the shots were fired. Both of these "events" happened. I think that's all that is being said. Rod is just talking about the events after the charge. I'm not going to speak for him, but I don't think he is arguing that point. Just "when" the shots were fired. Both of you are correct in the points you are making. Phil's last sentence is what Rod is referring to. The bear was "literally standing over my clients".

Oh yeah, forgot.... I bowed out.

Don't forget the "highly agitated" words. I think if you read evert thing that he posted, he is minimizing the situation. He implies the adrenaline rush had dissipated and implies that the outcomme would have been different. I have not the experience with bear that Phil has but the experience that I do have leads me to believe the bear lost the whereabouts of the clients when they hit the ground.

Let's. Not forget this post that was rentersted multiple time

Keyword "charging"

The bear was not charging, it was standing when first shot.

Big difference.

Why can you not acknowledge this fact, jwp? That's all I ask. If you just removed the word charging from your post it would be accurate. But as it is written it gives a false impression of the reality of the situation, and therefore is misleading.

Time to get this thread back on track now ;-)

Big difference how? Bear was highly agitated and full of adrenaline rush.

Again give your bear experience as to give some credibility to your assertion.

Since you do not answer about your experience with bears ilogic seem to dictate you have none.

The big difference that you claim is to minimize the situation.

s4s4u, keep ignoring these words, they are Phil's words.

Choot um

So, how bout those World Series games.....