would an elks antlers be more dangerous then a mooses antlers?
829786
That depends on how you look at it.  An elks antlers have sharper points, but an elk isn't as likely to attack a human.  A moose has fairly blunt antlers, but they are much larger and strong than elk.  Comparing an elk to a moose is like comparing a bobcat to a mountain lion.  They're both big enough to hurt you, but the one is a lot bigger and stronger.
720072
we have em in PA. I saw my first one the other day. it was an old dude in a beat-up pick-up truck. he was picking up deer carcases. he was wearing short sleaves and not rubber gloves. one of the hoofs was sticking out over the side and he was pokeing it back in with an old crutch. very cucky!
767101
i would say b)\n\nbecause new wolves might bring new problems like different diseases or prey on other animals, which would screw the ecosystem over even more! at least with letting the moose reach carrying capacity, you know that nothing new is being introduced into the area, and when the moose population crashes, the plants and things that the moose effect will have some time to recover before the next period of moose overpopulation.
16208
They can eat almost anything, so can Deer.  I had one eat a Satellite meter once that was laying on my back bumper, plastic and metal all gone.  I'm sure it's not good for them and they won't answer when I ask why.
1017360
THE REASON FOR THE "BUSH SHEEP" COMPARISON IS SIMPLE.  A HEARD OF SHEEP WILL FOLLOW IT'S LEADER, BLINDLY WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES.  IF THE LEADER FALLS OFF A CLIFF, THE WHOLE HEARD WILL FALL OFF THE SAME CLIFF.  IN OTHER WORDS, SHEEP ARE STUPID.
780006
The .357 magnum has stopped bear attacks before and killed a bear, in AZ a bear got through a fence and attacked a girl in a camp who didn't wipe the smores off of her face the counselor shot the bear with his shorter .357 magnum, the bear didn't die really fast. \nThe .357 magnum has been proven though not to penetrate the skulls on bigger black bears and grizzly bears. The best gun would be a 12 gauge shotgun, they will stop a bear at closer ranges, they stop lions and bigger and nastier stuff in Africa. My uncle lived in Africa, the shotgun should do it, a rifle is a good choice, better at longer ranges and even close up, but you need a bigger one and sometimes it takes longer for the bear to sucumb to the wound. A rifle is significantly more powerful than any pistol. For black bear a .30/06, .338/06 or .35 whelen or even a .45-70 are good rounds. If it is charging a big rifle at least the .338. The .450 marlin which is a souped up .45-70 is an awesome round and can be found in short marlin lever actions which would help you in bear country and be better for grizzlies. The grizzly definitely would need a shotgun or .338 winchester mag at the least. I would prefer a .50 caliber BMG rifle but they have yet to make them compact and light. \n\nAs for handguns, the .44 magnum is the least minimum I would recommend. It is not the best but is a mild recoiler compared to some other except for the .480 ruger but that has less penetrations due to the heavier bullet but it is still a great pistol round. The .454 casul and or a S&W .500 magnum or whatever they call it would be good except you will pay a premium for the .500. Pistols are a last defense weapon and do not reliably kill but are better than nothing. \n\nIf you do have a bear problem always have someone with you with a shotgun and you yourself carry a .338 winchester mag or higher and or a .450 marlin. The two of you will be alot better off and only one can get charged at a time hopefully allowing the other to get a good shot. The best scenario is the shotgun guy gets charged and opens up with 3 rounds of one buckshot one slug and one buckshot, where the riflemen gets two shots in from the side at the heart while he is preparing to charge as it is difficult when they are moving. The side shot is better for penetration and kill, then a direct on shot, but both can be fatal if hit right. I have hunted bear, it is alot harder with a frontal shot because of the placement of the heart and the uncertainty of the head shot. Plus even at 100 yards I was scared!!!!! In Africa they will have the main hunter with the rifle and a guide with a rifle and then a couple others with shotguns. There are alot of nasty stuff over there like hippos, but they use shotguns and spears at times. \nBears are definitely not something with which I would like to tangle with . If it is just a camp gun, a .450 or .45-70 would be good or a .338. \n\nP.S.\nOf course an m-2 .50 cal BMG machine gun would probably be the best, its rapid rate of fire would ensure the bear would be dead but they are a little heavy and costly and hard to find outside of the u.s. army. \nBut, you sure do feel safer in camp with one of those and that is for just people! If bears attacked in numbers at least a .50 cal m-2 The bears would likely to hear the noise it makes and run away! \n\nExcept for that last part, hopefully this helps you!
951324
You don't have to convert me. However I worship a miniscule polar bear constructed from tooth picks while smoking weed. Will this be of concern? I'm down with the helmet.
925714
Alyss, thank for being brave enough to ask.  You deserve a straight answer.  No such thing as a rabbit/hare/jackrabbit with antlers.\n\nSuch a critter is called a "jackalope" and is fabricated by imaginative taxidermists to confound the gullible.  It is a joke.  Some look quite real, though.  The idea comes from the fact that male rabbits are called...  Bucks!\n\nH
1185858
Yes in Alaska, check out this link\n\nhttp://www.alaskazoo.org/willowcrest/moosehome.htm
775518
(LOL@The One... you should take that as a compliment to your sensuality m'dear ;) )\n\nWell, the venom of a black widow in it's teeny size can kill a man (under the proper circumstances) but I'd wager that one the size of a dog would be very formidable.  The concentration and volume of the venom would probably cause severe tissue damage and disintegrate the flesh at the point of injection, and would be fatal nearly instantly I would think.\n\nSorry, that's not a very humorous answer, but I'm struggling with trying to find a way to make it so ;)
212910
It is possible, but unlikely. Either way, I wouldn't go kicking rattlesnakes in rubber boots.\n\nRattlesnakes are really very docile creatures. Unless you're being stupid, your chances of getting bitten are very low. They know they can't eat you, so they aren't going to specifically go out to attack you. They'll only bite if they feel it's necessary for self defense. They aren't stupid - if they waste their venom on you, they don't get any dinner. They will also warn you any time they are scared. You'll usually have plenty of time to back away from them and give them their space so they don't feel threatened.
850432
They are both dangerous in differnt ways.  With Rugby Union the real danger is not the rucks and mauls it is the contested scrum.  You are much more likely to see a permanent Spinal injury in Union.  The rucks and mauls can be dangerous though.  League however allows you to shoulder charge which can be bad for ribs head etc.  Also for some reason they spear tackle a lot compared to Union.\n\nSo both are dangerous but you are more likely to end up in a wheel chair in Union.  So Union has my vote
218705
Though the fight would be a good match I would have to put my bet on the Grizzley Bear. Although the tiger would be faster and more agile bears can definitly take a lot of crap from a tiger. Also once a bear has a tiger its all over. The sheer weight will crush it and the power is tremendous and will break many bones. My vote...Bear.
411963
The Irish Elk (or Great Irish Deer to give it its proper name) was one of many large animals that went extinct at the very end of the last Ice Age, about 12,000 years ago. It didn't just live in Ireland, and had a territory across Northern Europe. It appears to have been a herd animal judging by skeleton finds, and it may not have been timid in the way current deer are: the threat from humans seems not to have been as big before the current warm-period began. \n\nThese animals were long extinct before written records began, so we can really only speculate how they behaved. Given the size of the antlers, there is a debate as to whether they were used in battle, as they would have been massively heavy and cumbersome.\n\nThe Natural History Museum in Dublin, Ireland contains two very well preserved specimens.
57319
I don't think wolves have better chance at surviving. But I do agree that wolves have advantages in strenght in numbers. A strong group has it's pros and cons. So do solitary pumas or mountain lions.\n\nPumas are physically tougher than wolves. Pumas are bigger, faster, more agile, more adaptable but have low stamina rate. Once pumas have exerted their big blow to animals or preys or enemies, they experience a great loss of energy and have to recover to regain energy. However, their big blow is really, really fatal. A single bite is an incredible bite force. \n\nMeanwhile, wolves have high stamina rate than pumas and can remain energetic for a long period. However, they are smaller, slower, less agile and less adaptable than pumas.\n\nPumas have their secret weapons; retractable claws that are always sharp, powerful muscle especially legs muscle that allows them to jump far, night visions and solitary characteristic which allows them to independantly live.\nWolves have great smelling sensory organs, good hearing and strong family bond which makes them strong and united. Unity makes victory. However, they must live together for the synergy of wolf generations.\n\nWould a puma take on a wolf?\nProbably will happen when a puma confronts a wandering wolf or a packless wolf.\nWho will win?\nAccording to statistic, the puma has the advantage if the puma manages to land the big blow to the wolf. If not, the puma has to pounce the wolf quicker than the wolf since the wolf has no special weapon except for high stamina rate. The puma has to beat the wolf till the wolf drops.\nWell, I find that cats always fight for a long period but dogs rarely fight for a long period.\n\nSo, I choose the puma or mountain lion or cougar over the wolf.\nHow about you?
467758
If you try to shoot anything bigger than a bird or squirrel with that toy, your just going to scare the hell out of it.  \n\nMy suggestion is that you get a real rifle (that is if your old enough to buy one), and learn how to use it.  Then you need to get a hunting liscense that covers whatever it is you want to hunt ie turkey, deer etc.  \n\nIf you want a challenge, kill wild hogs.  They are infesting every continent except for Antarctica.  They are big, smart, very dangerous, and yummy.
565683
Cant get a moose drunk in alaska or take a picture of a sleeping polar bear.\nOr cant push moose out of a plane.