Patch

[Boar]

I agree, but but to go from 100 lbs on average to 400lbs I'm not buying it. I also found out today that my skull measured in at 19 6/8. gain fat is one thing, but gaining bone mass like that, unlikely. my bear Id say is closer to 5-7 years.

[smurfy]

11 hours ago, monstermoose78 said:

Y'all know that kid who at fifth grade was almost 6 feet tall and over 180 to 200 pounds and people do not believe you they are 11 or 12. At the same age a kid might 5 feet or not even and less than 100 pounds. Genes play huge part of size as does food available for and when the bear was harvested. It is not uncommon for a bear to put on 2 to 5 pounds a day if they have a good food source.

Even if this was possible still doesn't explain why 2 teeth from the same animal would have a 3to 5 year age difference.

[certified jumbo]

Tooth aging is a guess.  Don't put a lot of merit into it.  

[smurfy]

On 6/8/2016 at 3:27 AM, monstermoose78 said:

Y'all know that kid who at fifth grade was almost 6 feet tall and over 180 to 200 pounds and people do not believe you they are 11 or 12. At the same age a kid might 5 feet or not even and less than 100 pounds. Genes play huge part of size as does food available for and when the bear was harvested. It is not uncommon for a bear to put on 2 to 5 pounds a day if they have a good food source.

Even if this was possible still doesn't explain why 2 teeth from the same animal would have a 3to 5 year age difference. Not sure what's happening here but my  reply is why would the DNR waste our cash and time aging bear with the teeth if it wasn't actually worth some value.

[certified jumbo]

Bear tooth aging has a 75 percent accuracy.  With a 90 percent accuracy it's within a year or two.

The fresher the tooth.  The higher percentage for accuracy.

Thier are variables.  It's somewhat of a guesstimate.   

[Boar]

they used to require an rib oeice and a tooth, now it just a tooth, kinda a pain for something that isn't even close to accurate.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Boar

[x1957x]

On 6/8/2016 at 0:24 PM, Boar said:

I agree, but but to go from 100 lbs on average to 400lbs I'm not buying it. I also found out today that my skull measured in at 19 6/8. gain fat is one thing, but gaining bone mass like that, unlikely. my bear Id say is closer to 5-7 years.

I agree with Boar. I helped get that big bear out of there. If my memory serves me correctly didnt that break your cart with the weight limit of 500lb,s ? Anyway s, I seen the teeth and by as old as they looked I would have to agree with Boar. Definately was around the 5+ year age!

[leech~~]

On 6/12/2016 at 8:27 AM, Boar said:

they used to require an rib oeice and a tooth, now it just a tooth, kinda a pain for something that isn't even close to accurate.

I remember the rib deal. I think it had to do with some kind of marker they put in baits and then checked with a Ultraviolet light to see it. But I can't remember what all the Hub-bub was about back then? 

Found it.

Tetracycline surveys have been used to estimate black bear populations in Minnesota and Michigan since the mid 1990s. Their success led the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to explore using this technique here. Research Scientist David MacFarland, in cooperation with the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association and the Department of Natural Resources, conducted the first Wisconsin tetracycline study from 2006 to 2008. The study found the black bear population to be almost twice as large as previously estimated with the population model survey. The Department of Natural Resources adopted this technique and paid for the first study.

The tetracyline survey involves placing four bait boxes in each township in all counties within the black bear range. The bait packages contain tetracycline capsules embedded in peanut butter and marshmallows. During the bear hunt, successful hunters submit a bear tooth and a two-inch piece of bear rib collected near the vertebrae at the time of registration.

The tetracycline study uses mark-recapture, a well-established tool for estimating wildlife populations, and is similar to duck banding. The technique relies upon two encounters with an animal: the first marks the animal, the second checks for the mark. A population estimate is derived by knowing the number of animals marked and the proportion of marked animals in the second group. For example, if we marked 100 animals in the first group, checked 100 animals in the second, 10 of which (or 10 percent) were marked, we would know that the initial group of 100 represented 10 percent of the total population resulting in an estimate of 1,000 animals.

Edited June 24, 2016 by leech~~

[Boar]

oh yeah i remeber that. glad they dont do it anymore. i dont know how manytimes i had to got back to dump sit to snip a piece off a stinky carcass cause i forgot.