what if the bear has been eating kobe beef
Don’t black bears dig up grubs?
All bears do IIRC.
Polar Bears just don’t have much opportunity which is kinda not their fault. Anyone know for sure about if there are any for Polar Bears anytime in their habitat?
A good shot and the arrow will almost always exit the other side of the animal. Even shooting all wood old style bows.
They always have to break it off on TV. :dubious:
Make sure to cook the meat thoroughly. Bear is the most common source of trichinosis in the US.
I’ve never eaten bear, but I’m told the flavor varies a great deal depending on what it had been eating. Bears killed in apple orchards taste better than bears that have been raiding garbage cans, they say.
The stunt bears wear a special pad for the arrows to stick in.
Ah!
Thanks, coach.
This. We used to do a demonstration at hunter ed classes of the difference between how arrows kill and how bullets kill by putting an arrow through a pillow-sized sandbag that had just stopped a .44 magnum and a .30-30.
When you archery hunt in the Pennsylvania woods, every arrow you loose you might as well kiss goodbye whether it hits the animal or not. They have a magical ablity to vanish into undergrowth or beneath leaf litter even after passing through an animal. I’m a believer in picking my shots regardless, but losing a carbon fiber arrow with broadhead is a more saddening thing than wasting a .300 Savage cartridge. The .45-70s are so expensive that it is a closer thing.
So there’d be a market for tracking devices in arrows?
Or tie a string to it.
We do that in Pennsylvania --------- for carp and suckers at least. Don’t know that I want to bring a bear back to my bowstring with my old Zebco, though. 
Would an arrow, even one as fierce looking as that, seriously be more damaging than a rifle bullet? My understanding is that a high-muzzel velocity bullet causes massive internal trauma due to it’s sheer kinetic energy. It doesn’t just pass cleanly through, it sends a powerful shockwave through the surrounding tissue. It destroys the whole area of the body, smashing bone, rupturing blood vessels, tearing muscle etc. It’s supposed to be agony.
Depends on the bullet, and the speed at which it hits. Compare the following diagrams of wound channels in ballistic gelatin. All of these are rifle bullets, all of them have velocities above 2300 feet per second, and yet the wound channels differ a lot. The shaded in areas correspond to permanent cavities in the gel, while the black outer line denotes the maximum area of temporary disturbance of the gel. Note how much wider the temporary disturbance is than the actual hole in the gel.
Does this temporary disturbance correspond to significant tissue destruction? In handguns, which typically have muzzle velocities below 2100 feet per second, the answer is no. To
[quote]
(http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf) (at page 5) from the gunshot wound expert, Dr. Vincent DiMaio,
So, they damage tissue through crush and displacement—the bullet shoves tissue out of the way, in roughly the same diameter as the expanded bullet.
In rifles, OTOH, it depends. It depends on the velocity of the bullet. It depends on which type of organic tissue is being subjected to the shear force—livers and brains don’t tolerate shear very well, other tissues comparatively do. It depends on whether the bullet fragments or expands, and when the bullet tumbles in tissue. Bullet fragmentation, at rifle velocities, can lead to tissue destruction beyond the immediate crush path of individual projectiles. See, e.g., these diagrams of permanent wound cavities in gel from high velocity, expanding or fragmenting rifle bullets. If the bullet takes longer than ~12 inches or so to tumble, fragment, or expand, the bullet may exit the target before tumbling, and so the eventual permanent wound channel may only be as wide as the bullet. At .308 inch for the bullets in the last link, this is much less desirable than the multiple inch across wound cavern from the second bullet which fragmented.
Broadhead hunting arrows are wider than even expanded rifle bullets. Pretty much every state in the Union requires that they have a minimum diameter of 7/8 inch, and most IME are greater than one inch in diameter. I am unsure whether a broadhead, like an expanded handgun bullet, destroys all of the tissue within its swept volume, or whether its slices through that swept volume amount to the same thing. By swept volume, I mean the roughly conical volume that the blades on a broadhead move through as the arrow is rotated. Arrows spin, and therefore, so do the blades on a broadhead as they move through a target.
Nonetheless, all else remaining equal, a wound that is one inch across, all the way through the target, will do more damage than a wound that is only 3/10 of an inch across, all the way through the target. And that, I think, is where the idea comes from that, if you had to choose, you could prefer being shot by a rifle than by a modern hunting broadhead.
Thanks for the detailed answer Gray Ghost.
I’ll bear it in mind if I ever have to choose. 
In its most simplistic terms, it depends on the definition of damage. Again, going back to the 300+ classes I’ve taught ------- bullets kill by hydrostatic shock with the force causing massive trauma to the surrounding tissue and organs. Arrows kill by blood loss and damage to the organs directly penetrated. Both can mean either a quick kill or a wound depending on the skill and shot placement of the hunter.
In arrows for bear and large game animals, the hunt for the perfect design combination has been a long road. Somewhere I still have a few of these
http://www.gnwtc.com/vbhb058a.JPG
stuck aside. One other thing that was tried with less success is incorporating blood channels to the arrows. One big game bowhunter I knew had small holes in the shaft near the broadhead and at the nock set allowing the arrow to become (in theory) a sort of straw for blood to flow through. Better thinking is to practice enough to be sure of hitting the heart or lungs first shot every time.
This.
.45-70 will do, also, but it’s a closer-range bullet; slower, much more ‘loop’ in the trajectory - pay attention to your load. Shotgun w/slugs will do for blacks. I know one man who took an Alaskan Brown with .454 Casull, firing a 400gn hard-cast lead projectile out of a Ruger Alaskan - But that was sheer self-defense and muzzle-contact range, and not a choice I’d recommend. I also know a man who took a grizzly with 7mm, but again, self-defense at muzzle-contact range; dunno how it would do as an intentional choice.
Alaskan Daily News recently discussed the topic..
Heh! You’ve avoided CAI import MilSurp rifles, then… 
I believe that I will avoid Alaska at all costs.
“Muzzle contact range”. Damn.