After watching the Cameron Hanes video last night, which was linked in the "Once We Were Wolves" thread, I began contemplating the precarious task of following up wounded dangerous (grizzly) bears by professional guides and (sometimes) their clients and DIY Alaska and Canadian hunters after a shot. I've watched with great interest videos of highly experienced hunting guides like Billy Molls and others in these situations and what fascinates me most is not so much the decision to pursue the wounded bear (an ethical obligation), but the timing of that pursuit. Regretfully, it is difficult to determine from a video if the hunter waited 20 minutes or sixteen hours. Virtually all hunters want to responsibly end an animal's life quicky after the decision has been made to kill it. Especially after the animal has been hit with a bullet or an arrow. As we all know, hunting is not a linear equation and not every animal we want to drop in its tracks follows the script. I fully realize that sometimes outside factors (heavy rain that can wash away tracking blood, distance from shelter, scheduled extraction flights, etc.) will weigh on the side of an immediate/timely pursuit. My question is: why does the hunter need to pursue a wounded dangerous bear into the infamous "alder patch" soon (within the first few hours) after its wounding? Our GPS technology can guide us back to the location where a track was left with great certainty - one hour or 24 hours later. Why don't we let blood loss be our ally vs. risking a potentially life-threatening charge at close range? What are the factors that influence that timing to pursue and what makes one conclude that "now" is the time to take up that track?