that was just one instance..where a circus lion got loose and mixed it up with a BLACK bear. There were other well documented cases where an African lion and a BLACK bear were intentionlly put together to fight...each time the BLACK bear made short work of the lion.
I do not have the data before me but remeber reading it somewhere. TSJ said he knew of it as well. possibly he could post where the data could be found.

Here's one guy's opinion:

http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict13.html

Grizzly bears - the ultimate carnivore:

Almost all queries received on this topic request answers to the lion versus tiger question. Oddly, few people simply ask which is considered the Ultimate Carnivore.

This honour is held by an animal the tiger does not often have encounter; it is the grizzly bear.

The grizzly bear is a poor predator, taking down a caribou only when the opportunity arises. This, however, shifted his evolution in favour of the job in hand, namely as a digger of hard barren ground for roots, tubers and den building. The grizzly bear subsequently evolved enormous bone and muscle density; roughly ten times our own for a given size. They have developed into huge and enormously powerful animals.

Big cat biology is very different. They have evolved powerful elastic muscles over a low weight, low density bone structure to suit their purpose of chasing down prey.

Grizzly bear pit fights:
The Californians of the late 19th century staged well-documented pit fights with grizzlies and spanish bulls. The grizzlies, using their paw as a club, shattered the unfortunate bull's skull or shoulder bones so easily that the betting became poor.

Eventually, and at considerable cost, African lions were brought in to raise the stakes. The most fierce of the adult males was sent in whilst the grizzly was already waiting in the pits. The lion was known for bravely charging straight in and looked good for the money, but the grizzly killed a male lion almost as easily as he'd killed the bull.


The Californians never understood why. We now know that it was enormously strong bone density meeting a low density skull. At a range of 4 feet the blow crashed in before the lion could apply the wind pipe lock, which is lion and tiger learnt behaviour for taking down prey animals.

The ferocity of this animal easily matches that of an unsettled African lion.

The polar bear:
There is obviously no way tigers and polar bears can conflict, however comments regarding the grizzly usually lead to inevitable questions about the power of the polar bear.

The polar bear is a larger, but less robust creature than other bears.


Compared to the grizzly, it has a thinner, longer and more delicate skull, along with narrower forequarters. This streamlining is an adaptation for an aquatic life style.

The grizzly has a shorter, thicker neck, heavily built skull and more powerful shoulder structure. Despite being a good foot shorter, the grizzly has a trump card.

Their claws, having evolved as digging tools, are also unmatched at opening body carcasses. Claws of 6" aren't uncommon (9" record) while the polar bear has small hook-like 2" claws.

Sometimes, when the ice melts, polar bears have been known to be driven off by grizzlies, when they move south into the grizzlies feeding area. A grizzly will defend his barren ground patches jealously as he races to pile on enough fat for the end of summer denning.

AlF!

Well stated in your last post and I agree with your conclusion. The only comment is that for Cape buffalo you gave a range and for bison an average weight. The average will always be less then then the high number of the range.

465H&H

Rangerbob,

I concur, the grizzly is the king. Long before the California crowd did it, there was a little event in Roman history called Circus Maximus. As the big brown bears killed everything, they soon chained one leg and they still won the fight.

The only thing a grizzly can't take is an elephant and that's only because they are too tall.


As far as Lion vs. Tiger, old time "lion tamer" Clyde Beatty is known to have staged such fights and as I undestand it, the Lion won every time.

I've read some of the Roman stories also.

Have you ever wondered who got the job of chaining the brown bear's leg?

quote:

Originally posted by RangerBob:
I've read some of the Roman stories also.

Have you ever wondered who got the job of chaining the brown bear's leg?

actually a bear can be stretched fairly easily with a noose around his neck another around a paw then pulled between two horses. With that said I wouldn't want to be the one doing the placing of those chains myself.
I have watched my hounds stretch a black bear several times when I kept hounds. One would clamp onto the snout of the bear as others grabbed a hind leg. They worked together to do it. Some packs get very proficent at it...quickly or they are dead.

Thank you all for fascinating reading this Sunday morning!

I have guided for Elk and M deer 20 years ago and seen Elk heart shot with the first round and double lung shot with the second and continue to run up hill nearly 100 yards. I beleive the difference in African and N American animals is like trying to compare a NFL line backer with a Heavy Weight Boxer. They both are tough and can be knocked out with one blow or it may take 15 rounds.

Harvesting game requires 1 of 2 things: Deprive the brain of oxygen (cut off the blood supply) or major trauma to the central nervous system (break the neck or spine or destroy the brain). The weapon becomes secondary to the point of impact and the reaction of the projectile, as Saeed, jorge and Nickudu have stated.

Moose according to the Alaska DF&G

quote:

Killing Moose
Moose, although large and powerfully built, are not particularly hard to kill with a well-placed, well-constructed bullet.

Shot Placement – I always recommend a lung shot. By aiming toward the rear of the shoulder about 1/3 of the way up from the bottom of the chest, you will hit the lungs on a moose standing broadside. A high shot may hit the spine and a low shot may hit the heart. The lungs are the largest lethal target on a moose, reducing the potential for wounding loss. Also, a moose hit through both lungs will bleed out all of the muscles through the damaged lung tissue as the moose dies. You don't need to shoot again if your first shot into the lungs is true. Often times a lung shot moose hit only once will calmly go back to eating and will sag to the ground after a minute or two.

Hunters who advocate head, neck, spine or heart shots are kidding themselves. The targets (brain, spinal column, heart) are small and hidden from view. The potential for wounding loss is much higher than for the lung shot. Also, all blood will remain in the blood vessels and the meat, increasing the chances of spoilage. Heart-shot moose also can run a long way before going down, and not leave much of a blood trail.

A shot that misses the heart and only nicks the lung will result in a very long tracking session. It has nothing to do with toughness of the game. The animal is simply bleeding too slowly to result in a quick kill.

Let me give a perspective perhaps not mentioned here. Most serious deer hunters here in the States have the mental picture of a deer's vitals drilled into them from a very young age. I was no exception. A few hundred deer later, bringing the gun up and taking the shot is second nature, I never really think about shot placement, I just do it.

Since the vitals are a little further forward on most African game, I had a great deal of difficulty forcing the adjustment on my first safari, especially in those "quick take the shot" situations. When I did make the mental calculation (or just got lucky), I found the game (plains) went down just as easily as what we have back home. In fact, I took lung shots on a Waterbuck and Kudu with my .270 and they ran less than 100 yards each, about what I would expect.

This may account for some of what appears to be toughness on African game. A lung shot a few inches rearward will give the animal another 50 yards or so. Add that to the excitement of being in Africa and I think this explains a lot.

G.L.Krause:

I read your post with interest (and was delighted to read that you used a 270 to drop kudu- a beast I saw on my one and only trip to Africa -and to this day don't understand why magnums are spoken of for use on plains game in Africa)

However, your reference to "vitals are a little further forward on most African game" did leave me a little puzzled. I saw impala (by the hundreds), kudu, sable and zebra. (My hunt was for buff only -by choice) I admit that I did notice that impala and zebra seemed to have their chests out in front (when viewed from the side) Is that what you mean? I agree that we American hunters look at deer and aim by pure built in knowledge - but isn't it always a matter of holding high behind that left leg right at the point of the "bulge"? Or high and forward from the other side? Just curious about what you think.

on exact broadside PG the best shot is straight up the middle of the front leg 1/3 up the chest cavity.
Oddly we long time deer hunters should be shooting the EXACT same place not behind the front leg on Whtails and MD...look at a skeleton chart of a deer, then look where the shoulder blade is. i think you'll find that the scalpula is much farther front than many think it is. an the heart lies behind the leg not to the rear of the shoulder muscles.

Not to disagree, but if you look at any of the internal diagrams (can be found in a number of books on Africa), you'll see that the heart/lungs are further forward than a whitetail. There are a few species that this doesn't hold true for such as Wildebeest and Warthog, but as a rule this is true. I'm not saying that placing a shot on African game the same place as a deer won't kill them, I'm just saying a high heart/center lung shot is in a different spot. If I can find some diagrams I'll post.

I guess I never had the good fortune of being taught to shoot behind the shoulder. I've been shooting everything ON the shoulder (whitetails, bear, PG) for fifty years with good results save hogs. I shoot them behing the ear or between the eyes. I guess the behind the ear/ between the eyes shot is what I'm also supposed to do with the croc. this fall.

if you listen to some posters here on AR all you need is "458 big bang wackum rifle" lobbing a 3 lb chuck of lead at as 300# animal. Then you can brain shoot and drop them right where they stand....yeah right!! If I had a 30-06 with 220 gr good bullets I'd hunt any animal in Africa including buff,hippo,and ele (if legal) and not be scared shitless of the dreaded charge so many read about.

quote:

Originally posted by cats:
If I had a 30-06 with 220 gr good bullets I'd hunt any animal in Africa including buff,hippo,and ele (if legal) and not be scared shitless of the dreaded charge so many read about.

Awesome - imagine what you could do with a 30-06 and Woodleigh,s new 240 gn .308 projectiles!!

What I have seen while hunting is that it differs from animal to animal of the same species. I have shot a blesbuck ram in the boiler room, both lungs not touching the heart or arteries and it went straight down. The only bone hit was ribs. Later I shot a blesbuck ram in the top of the heart and hitting both lungs,breaking his front leg and he went about 50 yards. Both were shot with my 338 Lapua with 250gr Rhino bullets. (Yes over gunned for blesbuk ) Why did the one run and the other just fell over?? I do not know but I guess it has to do with the temper of the animal. Like two rams of equil weight and horns, if they get in a fight it is the one with the most determination that will win. I guess that it will also be tghis ram that will not die as easy.

Wimpie

Cats:

I smiled reading your comments about shooting 300lb animals with the equivalent of a cannon - and am inclined to agree with you. HOWEVER, much as I love the 30-06, a caliber I knew in all its forms ("It is a US Rifle, caliber 30, gas operated, clip fed, M1, Sir!") and used the 180 gr. on the south end of deer going north -which was why I was using it) I have to part company with you about using it on a Cape buffalo. I really can't explain it because I'm not an old buff hunter. (I only shot at one buff in my life) I happen to think that the 30-06 is one of the deadliest calibers to use on really big animals (like a Kodiak brown bear) - but only if you have to! I'm with the old timer in the old joke who was asked why he carried a 600 Nitro Express (at the time, there were no Weatherbys). The old timer replied: "Because I can't get anything bigger". African DG are simply awesome and this "old timer" would be happy to carry a 20mm cannon next time!

mimi poll-how many of you believe that African critters have quicker and more aderinaline that critters from other continents? This may be but it sounds like one of those things that has no base for truth by if spoken enough it becomes true. Just the kind of stuff I want to find the truth on. This nice fellow Sieed thinks that all well shot critters fall over. Why the difference and please give objective reasons. this water is muddy for me but I only have n. america experience to judge by. Take care

G.L. Krause:

We are not disagreeing. I think it's a matter of perspective. I'm not questioning what you say. I have had an instinctive lifelong kind of "memory programming" that had me automatically set up for a behind the shoulder shot (where available) because I was a North American hunter.

Now, (and I must seem like I'm all over the map) I read Texas Hunter's post about shooting ON the shoulder. That's exactly what I did with my one and only buff. The 375 H&H solid shattered his shoulder and sent fragments of bone into a lung ( as I saw in the butchery in camp that night). The buff lost all interest in me. I saw this huge beast stagger under the impact almost to his haunches. The argument really was over at that point. I can well understand Texas Hunter's preference! So why was I a shooter behind the shoulder before I got to Africa? Probably because I only shot at white tail deer and black bear before then. My PH had said to me in camp beforehand in a "prep" talk; " Break bones". I'm here to say that I think he was 100% right!