Talk:Brown Bear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents 1 Grizzlies 2 Rem text 3 Added section on firearms 4 Doubtful subspecies 5 Queued images 6 California Grizzlies 7 Information Website 8 How to deal with bears 9 NPOV on the photo in Habituation to human areas 10 Taxonomy and conservation status 11 Question about the bear image 12 Title 13 Firearms 14 Problem Bear JJ1 in Germany 15 Grizzly Bear not a "sub-species"? 16 Bears and fishermen in close contact 17 How To 18 Picture of fighting brown bears 19 Brown Bear Peer Review 20 largest bears 21 Notice of import 22 Unsourced material 23 no subject

[edit] Grizzlies

Looks like a non-native English speaker added the fact that grizzlies are known to steal prey (including dead food) from tigers, wolves and pumas. In addition, grizzlies can kill tigers. God only knows where . . . do brown bears and tigers share habitat anywhere? Escheffel 05:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Comment--Borwn Bears and Tigers can be found sharing the same territorial range in Western Siberia.

• brown bears and tigers share habitats in Asia, and 'tigers' might have meant 'pumas', because pumas have so many other names, including 'red tigers'. User:George cowie 17:01, 3rd June '06

Who's doing the math for converting kilograms to pounds? 130 kg = 288 lbs, 700 kg = 1,550 lbs.

[edit] Rem text

Removed text: Brown bears have also been found Robbery the kills of tigers, wolves, and pumas. and Two male tigers were found killed by brown bear in the year 2000. (sic)

I'm not quite sure what this means. It adds little to what is otherwise a well written article, so on balance I decided to remove rather than rephrase it. Andrewa 15:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If it's true, then it is an interesting fact that could be added to a trivia section or something. But I question whether it's true or not. Lengis 04:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, part of it's habitat is in siberia, so it may be possible.

No, it's not. Brown bears are actually opportunists which often spy on other predators, including puma and tiger to usurp their kills. But that does not usually succeed, as tigers can drive off brown bears most of the time. People in the Siberian tiger project has found that tiger's killed carcasses are often surrounded by bear's feces, and they conclude this is due to the bear's frustration against the fact that tigers often carefully guard the kills untill the meat is gone. One radiao-collared male tiger, named Dale, feeds regularly on bear, that's a fact. So, it is the reverse that happens. The siberian project people also assume that only very large brown bears may be able to dispute a tiger's kill, but they never witness that, it is just a thought; but what they agree on is brown bears will choose to attack much smaller tigress, or else they will become another meal for tiger.

Bear's claws are blunt and hardly used for anything other than digging, its jaws are prolonged and weak, as an adaptation for its omnivorous diet. . The only advantage of bear against tiger is its size, 300kg-600kg, more than twice the weight of typical tigers. But, considering the fact that Siberian tigers kill preys even bigger and more dangerous than bears such as the moose, the size alone does not matter much. And, because of this huge size, bear's speed is slow and it quickly overheats and wears out. In the article, they say that bear is capable of running at full speed for miles, this absolutely cannot be true. Bears of all kinds, are notorious for their overheat problem when running for long, they just can't afford it. An example is the polar bear, which cannot chase after musk ox or caribou due to the same problem.

Please sign your posts on talk pages. I still think the grammar of the removed text is so poor that what it means is guesswork.

Andrewa 04:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I am not suggesting to put it back or something. I just give and answer to your question. I agree that the removed text is indeed some sloppy writing without any solid ground. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.15.122.35 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, I have some comments here, according to Amur Tiger (the page can be seen here: http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/Lion-Tiger/14f54bde.jpg), Tigers only predate on Brown Bears at a smaller size then themselves, however, the very fact that Tigers do ocasionally predate on Brown Bears is extreemly impressive. Now, some comments I do have is that according to this site: http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/article.cfm?issueID=18&articleID=143 (or: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1169/is_n4_v36/ai_20925079), Bears steel a total of 26% of a Cougar's food requirement, and, although Black Bears have been tooken into account aswell, cosnidering the Grizzly's larger size, and higher levels of aggression, it is likely to have tooken up a decent percentage of that number in Yellowstone (Black Bears mayvery well have taken a higher number of kills, due to the fact that they are much more common, as I'm not sure what te exact numbers are for each Bear species). There are also many instances mentioned Bears steeling from Wolf kills, which many Grizzlies became extreemly succesful at.. Even if they where of the same size, a Brown Bear would have stronger fore-limbs and shoulder muscles then a Tiger (although most likely weaker rear-limbs), as the Bear has a build designed to optimize strength, whereas the Tiger's is one more for speed. I have sources for this aswell if it is requested (for the Bear's higher strength for its size), though, a Tiger can bite harder for its size, though, this may not play much of a role in a conflict. In general, both animals may want to avoid a real conflict, as the animals wouldn't want to get wounded needlessly (specially if the Bear can instead eat some berries), meaning that in general, the Tiger simply staying by its kill may be enough to keep the Bear from attacking, unless it is really large, and knows it doesn't risk much. As more comments to you: 1) the size for the Brown Bears living with Tigers is drastically under 300-600kg on average, as, even the largest Bears, those on Kodiak Island, and the Alaskan Peninsulas, that have access to protein rich salmon "only" have males averaging at 389 kg, and females at 207kg (according to this site: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Ursus_arctos.html), meaning these Bears that do not have access to salmon would likely be sugnificantly smaller; more around the size of the Bears of Montana or similar regions. 2) California Grizzly mentions an account of a Grizzly "scalping" a Human with a single paw swipe, meaning that its claws may not be as sharp as a Feline's, being non-retractable, but they aren't exactly dull either, as from that they apear plenty sharp enough to do damage. 3) a Brown Bear's jaws may be weeker then that of a Tiger, but they aren't exactly week either, as they have to chew very tough roots, etc, with them, and also ocasionally eat bone. There is also a short video of a Bear picking up another similarly sized Bear and shaking it with its jaws (here: http://content.bbcmotiongallery.com/wmv/26/60/2660-3_LO.wmv), and California Grizzly also mentions a pit-fight in which a Grizzly broke a Bull's back by bitinh it, both pointing to the Bear's jaws not really being week. 4) This site: http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/yell/vol14-1-2a.htm mentions once instance of a Bear running for two miles at an average speed of 25mph, and another Bear going two miles at an average speed of 28mph. Bears may look asthough they are "fat", although, they only really are a couple of weeks before hibernating, and at other times this aparent "fatness" is only caused by their thick furr. 67.142.130.38 00:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

67.142.130.19 23:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Brown bear everywhere in the world, do not go above 500 kg in their normal condition. They gain up to 1/3 of their body weight to reserve fat for winter. I'm sorry, but in the video, if you see it clearly, u will see how the bear fights, a picture is worth a thousand words in this case. And what u see is really 2 Kodiak bears in their normal state. If you have watched "Life of the mammals", you'll be so suprised to see how these 2 small bears grow to intimidating sizes in winter. I don't need to comment any more on what a few sources, both written(I read) and on the Net, as they are essentially the author's opinion. You may not believe, but I know the way writing books and articles work. And I have watched too many documentaries about Kodiak bears, they fight the same way in the video u just give me, no surprise at all, by teeth. The bear's jaw is alright, but, relative to tigers', it's weak. This is obvious, can a bear kill moose with its bite, does it use it every so often??? Bite force measuring reflects very little about an animal's true power. And strength relative to size, the tiger holds the advantage. A tiger can drag the carcass of a Great Indian wild ox away, that 13 men can't move(after it's partially eaten by the tiger). Tiger can hold a pig 50 kg and jump out of fence 3 m high. Can a bear do something similar? The california whatever is some kind of urband legend, when something passed, people can say whatever they want about it. They say bear kills with a paw, ridiculous,prove it!? The only time a bear can kill a tiger is when the tiger itself is hal-dead already. But siberian tigers do not hunt brown bear normally, as brown bear is considered dangerous by the big cat. However, if they fight, the outcome is obvious, unless the tiger is, yes, half-dead. The bear is just an omnivorous anyway, it has no quality of a true predator, much less in comparison to the most skilled predator. brown bear sometimes steals wolf's kills, but again, wolf packs also drive off the bear from kills. --S--

Oh yes, not being a true carnivore really makes it a crappy fighter, thats why clearly a Bull African Elephant would lose to a Spotted Hyena every time in a fight. And for Tiger being stronger then Brown Bear at equal sizes? In the rear legs, that would be true (and it is the rear legs used for both of your examples, jumping, and pulling a carcass), however, the Brown Bear's fore-limbs, something that would actually be used in a fight is much more powerful, and even at equal sizes has a significant advantage in strength. Several sources for this include Dale Miquelle, a leading Siberian Tiger researcher, who comments on how the collar bone design of Bears favors strength, while that of the Tiger favors speed and agillity.

"Steve, in regard of Amur Tiger ferocity (comparison with other Panther) all i can say is, the Amur can be highly ferocious, and i would consider it more than usafe to assume otherwise. In regard strengths (relative) The bigcats have reduced collarbones when compared to Ungulates and Bears, which increases flexibility and speed, while comprimising ultimate strength potential, however, the Amur is least lacking, among Pantherines, in this department. Finally, the Amur should attain the greatest weight potentials under Bergmans rule but is now Challenged by the movement of Tigers into higher elevations due to the influence of man. Here we might get other Pantherine species facing similar increases in body size. I hope this is of some help....Dale Miquellle"

Brown Bears fore-limbs are also visibly much thicker for their size, and their shoulders are also much more massive for their size as well, and they are also less long-bodied, being more compact in build. Lets see a 320lb un-mature Tiger bash a 400lb Steel Door off of it's hinges: "He's better looking than your average bear but, at only about 145 kilograms (320 pounds), Boo is still only half the weight he will likely be as a fully grown grizzly. By now, many readers will have heard the story of Boo, the gallivanting grizzly from Kicking Horse, B.C.

Raised in captivity after his momma bear was reportedly shot by a poacher four years ago, Boo escaped from his well-appointed pen at a bear refuge — not once, but twice — last month when his adolescent nostrils picked up the musky scent of a lady grizzly sauntering along the mountain byways.

In his first adventure, Boo tunnelled his way to freedom, then spent nearly 19 days on the lam before wildlife officials recaptured him and returned him to his refortified pen, adjacent to a wilderness resort.

But manmade walls proved no match for Boo's love. Within a few days, he had bashed, wiggled and climbed his way past a 180-kilogram steel door, a couple of 10,000-volt electric barriers and a fence standing nearly four metres high. This time he was out for 13 days before wandering back last weekend, bedraggled and a little worse for wear, like any young teen returning to the parental home after his first live-out relationship. " From here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/realitycheck/sheppard/20060714.html

Or howabout a 120lb Tiger cub flip a 310-325lb rock with a single paw, back-handedly (okay, I know that this is a Black Bear cub in this account, but, Black Bears are quite similar to Brown Bears anatomically, except actually having less muscle bulk):

"Strength and power are not only the attributes of large bears but also of the young. The author observed a yearling American black bear, while searching for insects, turn over a flat-shaped rock (between 310 and 325 pounds) "backhanded" with a single foreleg. The bear was captured the following day in a management action and weighed 120 pounds."

From: http://www.bowhunting.net/bearhunting.net/bear2.html

To put it bluntly: "Bears are far stronger than other carnivores, and their limbs are more flexible and agile." From: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572258/Bear.html

I think these sources, including a leading Siberian Tiger researcher himself, all out weigh your biased gut feeling (as well as "the most extreem", which first of all was a kid's show, and second of all, I'm only referring to fore-quarter strength, not rear leg strength, where Tigers are indeed superior). I have more, if you want, go ahead and just ask.

For a fight, the fore-limbs are by far more important then the rear limbs.

"Brown bear everywhere in the world, do not go above 500 kg in their normal condition."

Is this supposed to counter something I've said? I've specifically said that even the largest of Brown Bears don't average above 389 kg...clearly this means that your typical Brown Bear wont get above 500kg.

"I'm sorry, but in the video, if you see it clearly, u will see how the bear fights, a picture is worth a thousand words in this case. And what u see is really 2 Kodiak bears in their normal state."

Is that supposed to be un-impressive or something? You try to pick up some guy just as heavy as you are in your jaws and shake him... And about the state of the animals, and what you said about the accounts and websites being written "in a way" sounds like one of the dumbest refutements of a source that I've ever seen. Your saying that my various websites, and reports from researchers are all wrong, because you beleive they may have been written in a way to obscure the truth, but, oh, your own interpretation of events is a fact, because your all knowing or something? Your only source is "Life of the Mammals", and them growing fat in the winter doesn't seem to mean much, considering they tend to only start gaining lots of fat a month or so ahead of hibernation; in fall....meaning during the summer they are still fit. Your arguments lack a basis.

And for the bite force, the Tiger has a mesured BFQ (bite force quotient) of somewhere around the area of 127, and the Brown Bear of somewhere around 78, meaning yes, the Tiger does hold the advantage here (by a good bit too). However, I don't exactly see how much that means, considering that felines in general tend to only bite, whereas Brown Bears often bite and chew (as well as shake) ultimately cause much more damage in the form of lacerations, and also pain and shock, then a bite. And, for the famed killer bite, the Tiger is capable of applying it to much larger animals then itself, such as the Moose like you said...so clearly, the Bear with over half the bite force of the Tiger would be able to kill an animal over hald the Moose's size...such as the Tiger, meaning as far as a killing bite is concerned, they are both capable of doing it, so I don't see much of a difference here. Though, the Brown Bear is much more capable of dealing (and taking) damage, so, as far as getting to the point of being able to apply the killing bite, the Brown Bear is much closer.

"The bear is just an omnivorous anyway, it has no quality of a true predator, much less in comparison to the most skilled predator. brown bear sometimes steals wolf's kills, but again, wolf packs also drive off the bear from kills."

What does being a predator matter in a fight? The Tiger is much more skilled at stalking, and pouncing (as well as running and accelerating quickly to catch prey); none of this is advantagous in a real fight, where strength is by far more important (thats why you don't see the same people that win 100 meter sprints winning the boxing championships...as surprising as that may sound to you).

Look at the record of Wolf-Grizzly interactions at Yellowstone National Park; the Grizzlies by far dominate.

As for the accounts from "California Grizzly", they where tooken from the historical records of the fights, as in, what the people wrote while the animals (and the practices of the fights) where still going on, and since it wasn't discredited then, its probably safe to assume that they have some degree of credibillity (more then you do anyway). Unless of course that guy, after falling into the pit with the Grizzly, got a knife and scalped himself because he thought it would be funny to make the Bear look like it could do that? Or another guy cut off his testicles while the Grizzly was running past him, because he wanted to get into the newspapers or something?

Also, a Brown Bear is much stronger (even for its size in the forelimbs) then a Tiger, and with the fact that it can also stand up, letting it utilize it's fore-paws much better allows it to be able to use them to much greater effect. However, I myself don't beleive that they can kill a similarly sized, let alone larger, animal very often at all with a paw swipe, unless getting extreemly lucky and hitting (and subsequently braking) the vertebre of an animal, or grabbing its head and wrenching it to brake the spine. According to this website: www.notfrisco.com/calmem/bears/bell.html that (broken neck), is how many of the cattle that where so frequently predated on by Grizzlies where found (cows aren't fast enough to run, as most animals are, letting Grizzlies actually hunt them).

And once again, on the topic of their "fatness", the fact that they can run as fast as they can for as long of a time as they can, despite their bulk, clearly shows that they aren't exactly as fat as you claim... And, I really don't think anyone of any intellegance at all is going to beleive your own feelings on this issue over verrified incedents recorded by scientists/researchers that is considered credible enough to be displayed by Yellowstone...specially considering the fact that they obviously didn't except everything (they mentioned numerous reports of 35mph, which didn't have proper verrification, and theirfore they didn't present those accounts on the website).

And for the killing abillities of Bears, this female Grizzly, about half the size of the Caribou shes killing, doesn't appear to have all that much trouble: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SqqG_LUss0

Aggression, or, more specifically ferocity, is something that the Brown Bear is definately more renound for, or possesses more of (just ask for the sources if you want any), so it clearly has the advantage here.

At the end of the day, I really don't see how any of your arguments cary any more basis then me saying "the Brown Bear will win because it looks cooler", though, I haven't exactly said that, but presented real arguments...

As a final three comments: here is something that someone has presented on another forum reguarding the two animals: "I talked on russian forum about book "Ruler of jungles " A.A. Sludskogo

[img]http://upload.revolucja.pl/images/44600292.jpg[/img]

www.npupoda.spb.ru/hunting/n-p_literat/files/0292.htm

Conclusions from book about 150 kg tiger vs about 150 kg bear - 50/50 Tigr more than 150 kg it's very experience hunter Which will over-throw definitely ussurian bear <= 200 kg.Ussurian brown bear <= 200 kg usually is not very adult and i still enough weak structure of the body Tigers over 200 kg lose with the bear the same weight. Bears are more strenght body - that gave him an advantage

One Russian man told of his granfather which was a tiger's hunter in Siberia. The grandfather said that when the tiger and the bear meet in Taiga - the tiger died as a rule.The bear eats the tiger"

And, you may say that you don't think that this experienced out doorsmen, and Tiger hunter, who would be more inclined to favor the animal he hunts, doesn't have any credibillity, but, once again, I would have to say that him having actually been experienced out doors would undoubtably have more credibillity then you who has only watched videos of "fat Kodiak Bears".

and two, if I'm not right here, then how come is it that I can find so much evidence favoring the Brown Bear, yet you can't seem to find really any? Possibly its because your not right.

and finally: http://www.dropshots.com/day.php?userid=134646&cdate=20060709&ctime=213602 for a real Brown Bear vs. Brown Bear fight (not a mere scrap over a fish). ~Ursus arctos~

[edit] Added section on firearms

I've added a short section on which firearms are considered minimum for defending against a brown bear attack.

[edit] Doubtful subspecies

Is anything more known about the Ursus arctos subsp. stickeenensis ?? Where does it live etc? Thanks GerardM 07:21, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

All the Google references appear to be Wikipedia-generated. A-giau 18:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aha! Yes, I've just stumbled onto this too. Suspect a joke. Alternatively, it may be a vestige from past over-division. Some old papers listed literally hundreds of subspecies, some others just list dozens.

Some sites that don't list it and should if it were genuine:

• omne-vivum
• Lioncrusher
• San Francisco State University

Unless we can come up with some verification, I propose to remove the references. Andrewa 01:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed text:

• Ursus arctos stickeenensis

from the list of subspecies as a probable joke with no verification. Andrewa 14:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Probably not a joke. Stickeen seems to have been a common spelling of Stikine Territory, so it probably describes a bear of that territory. RPellessier | Talk 06:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queued images

[edit] California Grizzlies

Out of curiosity, have there been any proposals to reintroduce the grizzly to California? It would seem only right, given that its image appears on the state flag. Funnyhat 23:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The California grizzly is extinct as the article notes. There are no major plans in the works for other subspecies either. Here is one person's personal campaign. Rmhermen 14:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Brown bears do have populations in California, but they are not the original Californian subspecies User:George cowie 17:03, 3rd June 2006

[edit] Information Website

Cool, I like this website, Its got a lot of info!

[edit] How to deal with bears

I have here a leaflet from the Algonquin park in Ontario, Toronto telling me how to deal with the black bears there. It says make noise and try to scare the bear. Do NOT lie down and play dead. Fight the bear off the best you can in the rare case it does attack you.

Apparently bears wouldnt attack if the person appears bolder bigger, noisier and like a difficult catch. Which makes sense.

I think playing dead is quite dumb... its jaws are huge and a hungry bear will easily pick your arms and legs apart, if it does attack you with the intention to eat you. Ideally you'd INCREASE the cost of the hunt by being or looking difficult. A dead fresh meat on the ground would be good for it.

The suggested way of dealing with black and brown bears is different, due (I think) to the different behaviour of each species. What you describe is suitable for black bears, as if they decide to attack it's likely to be for food, so playing dead won't help. A brown bear attack is more likely to be in defence of territory or cubs, so playing dead will probably give the bear the impression that you aren't a threat. --Batneil 15:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The simple rule of thumb is; if it's a Black Bear, your best shot is to fight back as they can easily be intimidated. If it's a Brown ( Grizzly ) bear, fetal position. http://www.nps.gov/kefj/trip_planning/Safety/Bear%20Safety.htm this is just one of the many references on the subject. Quoting from the page "If a bear actually makes contact… In rare instances black bears perceive humans as prey – if you are attacked by a black bear fight back. Try to focus your attack on the bear’s eyes and nose. If you are attacked by a brown bear, surrender! Chances are it is only trying to neutralize a perceived threat."

The 'dealing with bears' advice here and in the article is pretty spotty. Modern bear encounter management involves different responses based upon the bear's behavior. If someone plays dead in front of a hungry bear, they could well become bear food. An aggressive shout at that bear and raising arms or standing near companions may scare that curious bear away and end the encounter. Playing dead in front of a startled, defensive bear is generally not advised, but assuming a non-agressive posture and backing away may limit the bear's defensive counterattack. Appearing big and scary to a startled defensive bear may result in provoking an attack.

An Alaskan F&G biologist says that "most people would manage their bear encounters pretty well if they hadn't heard or read some half-truths about bear encounter management." He illustrates this with stories about people who backed away from a curious bear until the bear lost its natural wariness of humans, and then after backing for a hundred yards, the person plays dead, becoming an almost irresistable object for a curious bear's attention.

He explains good bear encounter management as intuitive, and similar to strange dog encounter management. If you accidentally step on a Rottweiler, or somehow find yourself face to face with him over his food dish, it would be wise to not provoke attack and to leave the location. But if a strange dog were approaching you, it would be better to stamp your feet, make noise, and scare him away.

Also see:

• http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/safety/safeconduct.htm

RPellessier | Talk 17:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV on the photo in Habituation to human areas

This photo is from the Sierra Club's magazine, and in my opinion is clearly meant to be propaganda, especially with the caption inserted.

Anyone else agree?

Sdr 09:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taxonomy and conservation status

First up, from my reading, the name Ursus arctos only appiles to the Mexican grizzly bear, all the other types of brown bears are subspecies of U. arctos. So the lead on this page needs adjustmet to reflect this.

Also isn't a bit misleading to list the conservation staus in the taxobox as lower risk, when the status of different subpspecies varies from secure to endangered?--nixie 01:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

All subspecies are part of a species. Gene Nygaard 01:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

All brown bears are Ursus arctos, the binomial name of the species. The extinct mexican grizzly bear were Ursus arctos nelsoni, with "nelsoni" as the subspecies name.--Menah the Great 23:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Can Brown bears really grow to 13 feet tall and weigh 3000 lbs?

[edit] Question about the bear image

What subspecies of brown bear is that? A kodiak? Lengis 05:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Chubby fella... 惑乱 分からん 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Shouldn't the article be Brown bear instead, in keeping with the Manual of Style? --日本穣 Nihonjoe 00:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be, yes. Andrewa 04:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has voiced any objection to this, I've gone ahead and moved it. Does anyone have a bot that could go through and fix all the double and triple redirects? There are a lot of them. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 20:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it souldn't, in accord with WP:TOL naming guidelines, which support caps for animals. See also Category:Bears

[edit] Firearms

Wikipedia is not a how-to. Some work went into it, but I'm wondering if the elaboration on firearms to kill a Brown Bear is warranted in such detail. Marskell 21:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this new section is valid. I elaborated on the misuse of Pepper Spray like an insect repellant. Removed warning shot, bear defense classes coach not to do this, unless another bear defense means is pointed AT the bear. RPellessier | Talk 06:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit much with this: In the past decade, a number of high-powered handguns have been produced in the United States for use in handgun hunting and bear defense. These include the .454 Casull revolvers produced by Taurus and Ruger and the .500 Smith & Wesson produced for that company's supersized "X" frame revolver. While these cartridges, properly loaded, are sufficient to kill any bear, their enormous recoil and weight make them difficult to deploy quickly in the field. Their utility in defense against brown bears is still a matter of great controversy. There are so many similarly powered guns in the world.. is it an advert? -- maxrspct in the mud 17:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a How to. I removed the section. 64.236.245.243 14:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem Bear JJ1 in Germany

Germany can't decide whether to kill or sedate a problem bear that wandered in from Austria. The bear is described as killing livestock for fun instead of for food.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,419807,00.html

THE BEAR IS DEAD. They killed him. --maxrspct in the mud 19:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is really great. Now europe can really tell the Indians that they have to protect their tigers and the Africans their rhinos. Hypocrites!!

Good point! but don't put this on the article unless there is a piece written on the comparison out there. --maxrspct in the mud 12:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that the Indians and and Africans have a greater population density than all developed countries, except Japan. Therefore, if a bear does enter our home in our land, it shouldn't because there's plenty of space to go elsewhere. But in the developing countries, its humans who are expanding into the animals territories. They need to control their populations the way the developed world has.

[edit] Grizzly Bear not a "sub-species"?

According to the Grizzly bear page, grizzly bears are not a subspecies based on the latest DNA evidence. Instead, grizzlies and Brown bears are the same species, and differences in appearance are the result of habitat, diet, etc., not sub-speciation.

Whichever view is correct, these two pages Grizzly bear and Brown bear should at least both be saying that "There may be some dispute about whether grizzlies are a separate subspecies, etc." At this point, these two articles are simply in conflict. Comments? NorCalHistory 21:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is "sub-speciation" supposed to mean? Differences in habitat, diet, etc are what CAUSES sub-species to diverge from the parent species through gradual evolution. Grizzlys are a sub-species of brown bear, this is a known fact. 64.236.245.243 17:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This topic were addressed more clearly in the article. It's not common knowledge that brown bears and grizzlies are the same species. And what about the California grizzly? Lagringa 20:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the word sub-species, scientifically doesn't really mean anything. Its a term devised to fill a hole in the theory of phylogeny. A "sub-species" is a small part of that species that is on its way to becoming reproductivey isolated. When it is reproductively isolated, then it is a new species. In a way, all animals are sub-species of something because we are constantly evolving differences and could become reproductively isolated at any time. Gene flow, counters this and often a Grizzly bear may reproduce with a brown bear, thus preventing speciation and at that, sub-speciation.

[edit] Bears and fishermen in close contact

A few recent news stories:

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/bears/story/8021983p-7914996c.html http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/bears/story/8021984p-7914998c.html

RPellessier | Talk 21:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/bears/story/8027397p-7920595c.html

RPellessier | Talk 06:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bear bites power cable, electrocutes self:

http://www.adn.com/front/story/8067062p-7958666c.html

Lots of bear photos, photo of electrocuted bear was second photo on August 15:

http://www.adn.com/photos/wildlife/bears/v-photo_gallery_0

RPellessier | Talk 01:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How To

This strikes me as a bad idea, unless we can cite sources on how to safely ward off bears when they attack. Desertsky85451 18:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of fighting brown bears

This is my own picture, do you think it's interesting enough to warrant a place in the article or is it too blurry? I noticed there are two pictures of Kodiak bears, maybe one would suffice? And this picture can be put in it's place? Let me know what you think. Mackan 16:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brown Bear Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.^[1]
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.^[2]
• Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[3]
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.^[4]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. ^[5]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Rlevse 15:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Rlevse 15:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] largest bears

Someone writes: The largest Kodiak bear, according to the Gary Brown's Great Bear Almanac, weighed over 1100 kilos (2500 pounds). Can you give me a quote of what the author did say in that book, as this weight is too extreme for the Kodiak, which only averages 300 kg - 360 kg for a male?

Saying this weight is too extreme for Kodiak is wrong, terribly wrong, Kodiak bears are much larger than grizzlies. Some weigh 1500 pounds. Numbers you stated are for grizzlies, inland bears, definitely not Kodiaks.

The author lists a table there, in which he ranks all species, this table has been on internet for a while:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/bear.html

There is a lot of evidence actually that Ursus arctos beringianus might be even larger, for a example tracks 14 x 10 inches, I will find a link and post it as soon as I will find it.

Also, there is russian source stating that the bear weighing 1200 kg was brought in to Berlin zoo (I suspect it is same bear as Almanac is talking about)

One more thing: Almanac also states that some Brown bears in russian Siberia, especially Kamchatka (far east), easily match Kodiak bears, it says there were some 2500 pounds bears estimated there.

THe size of the bear depends directly on the amount of food avaliable, and since Kodiak bears have much more food (and this food is very nutricious), namely salmon, they get roughly twice as big as inland bears.

[edit] Notice of import

A copy of this article was moved to wikibooks using the Import tool (with all revisions). If this article was marked for copy to wikibooks or as containing how-to sections, it can now be safely rewritten.

If contributors are interested in expanding on the practical information that was in this article, please do so on the wikibooks side. For pointers on writing wikibooks, see Wikibooks:Wikibooks for Wikipedians. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 11:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced material

The following unsourced statement has been moved to the talk page for discussion:

" Ursus arctos californicus – Golden Bear (extinct)"

I am unaware of an official reference to a North American (or California) "Golden Bear" or a subspecies entitled "Ursus arctos californicus" which is officially referred to as a "Golden Bear." If you have a reputable source for this information, please post it here. NorCalHistory 07:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The official "State Animal" is the "California Grizzly Bear." The following is the quote from the official State of California website about the State Animal:

"The California grizzly bear (Ursus californicus) was designated official State Animal in 1953. Before dying out in California, this largest and most powerful of carnivores thrived in the great valleys and low mountains of the state, probably in greater numbers than anywhere else in the United States. As humans began to populate California, the grizzly stood its ground, refusing to retreat in the face of advancing civilization. It killed livestock and interfered with settlers. Less than 75 years after the discovery of gold, every grizzly bear in California had been tracked down and killed. The last one was killed in Tulare County in August 1922, more than 20 years before the authority to regulate the take of fish and wildlife was delegated to the California Fish and Game Commission by the State Legislature."

See Official State website

In addition, the following is the quote from the official State of California website about the California state flag:

"On June 14, 1846, a small band of settlers marched on the Mexican garrison at Sonoma and took the commandant, Mariano Vallejo, prisoner, They issued a proclamation which declared California to be a Republic independent of Mexico. This uprising became known as the Bear Flag Revolt after the hastily designed flag depicting a grizzly bear and a five pointed star over a red bar and the words "California Republic." The grizzly bear was a symbol of great strength while the lone star made reference to the lone Star of Texas. The flag only flew until July 9, 1846 when it was learned that Mexico and the United States were already at war. Soon after, the Bear Flag was replaced with the American flag. It was adopted as the State Flag by the State Legislature in 1911." (Emphasis supplied.)

See Official State website. NorCalHistory 07:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no subject

~brown bears are what people talk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.151.125.58 (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC).