They were on land, were behind the bear and shot it in the rear, it bled out in its den and they dragged it out and skinned it. Was a home made film my Pastor showed us of the time he was in Alaska doing Salvation Army stuff. He was there for many years with these hunters.
Does this clear it up? They used their heads and know how to kill it safely as they do everything they kill like whales from canoes etc.
None of these hunting tactics have anything to do with self defense. There is nothing safe about shooting a polar bear in the butt with a .22. Hunting whales from canoes definitely is not safe and the Inuit will tell you so.
If you delve seriously into the topic, you will find that the cash strapped Alaskan natives often make do as best they can, not because they think the .22 rifle is the ultimate in hunting, but because it is what they can afford.
You have seemed to really confuse the diffferences between self defense and hunting and the two are not readily compared.
I do find it ironic that you posted contradictory statements.
After my cousin was shot 4 times with a 357 I must say shot placement is king. Dont matter what you shoot him with unless its a 20mm or larger, that if you dont hit the important parts he will not just lay down and die.
Same goes with hunting..... why wouldnt it go with SD?
If you don't hit the important part in self defense, the bad guy isn't just going to lay down and die, but if you shoot a polar bear in the butt, apparently it will after crawling back to its den, but hunting and self defense are the same?
That is some bizarre counter logic.