Bear Hunter

[Shotgun Steve]

Bear hunter in the wilds of the American West. Circa 1890-1900.
This all the information I could find on this photograph.

 Shotgun

[River City John]

Now why does Elmer Fudd come to mind?

"Shhhh!
Be v-e-w-y, v-e-w-y qwiet."
 

RCJ

[Texas Lawdog]

That's sure not a Wascally Wabbitt!

[Advertising]

[Tjackstephens]

Not a very big bear either. But the small bears are much better eating. Bear is actual very good. Except the old very large ones. Their meat is just a little tough. Its better beat, chopped, and process and cooked in a BBQ sauce. Or even cooked in a stew. But the young bear is better as a steak. Of all though what ever size are better when treed by two or three of my little black dogs(Stephens Stock Mtn. Curs) .  Tj 

[Stillwater]

It looks like his lever gun has a thirty inch barrel on it.

For him to carry his bear like that, it has be a pretty light weight animal.

Bill

[Rowdy Fulcher]

Howdy Pards
Maybe the bear aint so small just the hunters so LARGE 

[Ol Gabe]

Just for the sake of discussion...
The rifle looks like a Henry with the twist line on the bottom tube a few inches back from the muzzle and it appears to have been 'added' later to the pic as it has a different tint to it than the rest of the pic, outdoor lighting wouldn't necessarily give it that level of reflection. The way the hunter is carrying the rifle also gives us another possible solution in that the positioning of it would have the stock seen behind his right arm on that long of a rifle.
Not dissing the photo but only looking at the position of the rifle as that with how one would be carried when holding a bear which would probably be in the 100-plus poundage range even if it had been gutted.
Curious if anyone else has the same thoughts.
Best regards and good hunting!
'Ol Gabe

[Deadeye Dick]

OlGabe,
I think you're right, it does appear the rifle has been added to the picture.
Deadeye Dick

[Stillwater]

I don't think the rifle has been added to the picture. Which would have been a hard thig to do in the 1890 - 1900 photographic technoogy.

Why would the hunter be bear hunting without a rifle?

From the angle of the photo, and the angle of the rifle, the stock of the rifle could be hidden by the riflemans back.

Look at the angle of the hunters wrist and hand, he is holding the back of his hand up against the forend of the rifle.

Bill

[Delmonico]

Gabe I think you are right also. 

I don't think the rifle has been added to the picture. Which would have been a hard thig to do in the 1890 - 1900 photographic technoogy.

You had better guess again, lots of photos from that era were edited, cut and past, for real and then take a picture of the picture.

I don't think the rifle has been added to the picture. Which would have been a hard thig to do in the 1890 - 1900 photographic technoogy.

Why would the hunter be bear hunting without a rifle?

He wasn't, that's why he got the bear, provided it ain't added also which I'm now not sure of.  Very simple, they ain't way out in the deep woods, the picture was most likey taken right behind the photo studio, cameras were real big then, There were a lot of photo gimicks back then.

[Marshal Deadwood]

The National Graphic been around a long time, eh ?

 

[River City John]

Actually, The National Geographic has been in publication since 1890.
For some reason that was one magazine that was a favorite of my Grandfather. Don't think he was a charter subscriber, but he had to be pretty close. He had the complete bound volumes from 1890-1970, the year of his passing. Spent many an evening pouring over the older bound years looking at photos of far away lands.

RCJ

[Marshal Deadwood]

OOPs,, I meant, "the National Inquirer'

Shotgun Steve does an incredible job posting interesting stuff,,,only to have it fretted to-death.