Talk:Brown bear/Archive 1

California Brown Bears
This may not be the proper place for this but I live in a remote region of central California and I've grown up seeing black bears all of my life. I know what a black bear looks like very well. To make a long story short, I've read that the last known brown bear in California was in the 1920s. 2 years ago I saw 3 different brown bears; one mother and two cubs, and since then seen the two grown cubs numerous times. They're definitely not black bears. They have bright, nearly blonde fur and are at least 3 times as large as the largest black bear I've seen (and I've seen many). they also feature the prominent shoulders of a brown bear. Who exactly would I contact to report something like this? I'm absolutely positive they are very large brown bears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.204.181 (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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.

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~

Tigers have basically no chance against an adult bear. I think this needs to be clarified in the article that tigers generally prey on SMALLER bears. Even a large asiatic Black Bear is perfectly capable of killing a tiger. Even the boars tigers hunt occasionally kill the tiger. Russian brown bears often top 1000 pounds, and on average even females weigh almost twice as much as male siberians. Bears are so much more powerful and harder to kill than a tiger. Bears can behead a Bull Moose with one paw swipe, and even the smaller inland Grizzlies around Yellowstone, which average 400 - 800 pounds, can break the neck of a bison with either a paw swipe or bite.

I disagree with the fact that brown bears have rear legs weaker than tigers. Here is an example: I am a powerlifter. I weigh about 205 pounds. I can not dunk a bascketball, but a bascketball player of my size can (I know guys who can), so, these guys can jump better than I am, but at the same time those guys can not squat 400 pounds. I can. Whose legs are stronger? It depends on weight a lot, tigers are lighter. Tigers also have different bone structure, favouring jumping. In the exaple of powerlifter and bascketball player, the difference is in how me and bascketball players develop their legs, they develop them for jumping, I develop them for lifting or pushing, a slower movement, which requires less agility, but more muscle strength. I think that difference with tiger and bear is same, their legs are developed for different purposes, tiger's legs are more adapt at jumpming, running, while bear's legs are more adapted for pushing. As for other sources and other information, you indeed provided tons on bears, thanks a lot for it, was a very interesting read and everything is perfectly logical with bear killing tiger head on, I don't know why people argue for the opposite. 99.231.46.37 (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

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)

Ursus arctos stickeensis may refer to Ursus stikeensis described by Merriam in 1914 (according to Wilson and Reeder in "Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference", 2005 3rd edition), but I haven´t done any investigation on the Ursus arctos subspecies. The section also lacks any information on why certain subspecies are recorded within this article and others not. As mentioned in the text, more than 90 subspecies were described in total. Today only a fraction of this is still accepted, but a lot of authors seem to have different opinions on the definite number. Short comments and references should be added.

Besides, no synonyms are listed for Ursus arctos. While this could go beyond the scope of the article a new page concerning the taxonomic history of this species and its subspecies could be created. Below I list all synonyms of Ursus arctos given by Wilson and Reeder and Pasitschniak-Arts (Ursus arctos Mammalian Species 439, pp. 1-10 (1993)):

Melanarctos cavifrons Heude, 1901, Myrmarctos eversmanni Gray, 1864, Ursus absarokus Merriam, 1914, Ursus alascensis Merriam, 1896, Ursus alexandrae Merriam, 1914, Ursus albus Gmelin, 1788, Ursus alpinus Fischer, 1814, Ursus andersoni Merriam, 1918, Ursus annulatus Billberg, 1827, Ursus apache Merriam, 1916, Ursus argenteus Billberg, 1827, Ursus arizonae Merriam, 1916, Ursus atnarko Merriam, 1918, Ursus aureus Fitzinger, 1855, Ursus badius Schrank, 1798, Ursus baikalensis Ognev, 1924, Ursus bairdi Merriam, 1914, Ursus beringianus Middendorff, 1851, Ursus bisonophagus Merriam, 1914, Ursus brunneus Billberg, 1827, Ursus cadaverinus Eversmann, 1840, Ursus californicus Merriam, 1896, Ursus canadensis Merriam, 1918, Ursus candescens Smith, 1827, Ursus caucasicus Smirnov, 1919, Ursus caurinus Merriam, 1914, Ursus chelan Merriam, 1916, Ursus chelidonias Merriam, 1918, Ursus cinereus Desmarest, 1820, Ursus collaris Cuvier and Geoffroy, 1824, Ursus colusus Merriam, 1914, Ursus crassodon Merriam, 1918, Ursus crassus Merriam, 1918, Ursus cressonus Merriam, 1916, Ursus crowtheri Schinz, 1844, Ursus dalli Merriam, 1896, Ursus dinninki Smirnov, 1919, Ursus dusorgus Merriam, 1916, Ursus eltonclarki Merriam, 1914, Ursus ereunetes Merriam, 1918, Ursus eulophus Merriam, 1904, Ursus euryrhinus Nilsson, 1847, Ursus eximius Merriam, 1916, Ursus falciger Reichenbach, 1836, Ursus ferox Temminck, 1844, Ursus formicarius Billberg, 1828, Ursus fuscus Gmelin, 1788, Ursus gobiensis Sokolov and Orlov, 1992, Ursus grandis Gray, 1864, Ursus griseus Kerr, 1792, Ursus gyas Merriam, 1902, Ursus henshawi Merriam, 1914, Ursus holzwothi Merriam, 1929, Ursus hoots Merriam, 1916, Ursus horriaeus Baird, 1858, Ursus horribilis Ord, 1815, Ursus hylodromus Elliot, 1904, Ursus idahoensis Merriam, 1918, Ursus imperator Merriam, 1914, Ursus impiger Merriam, 1918, Ursus innuitus Merriam, 1914, Ursus insularis Merriam, 1916, Ursus internationalis Merriam, 1914, Ursus isabellinus Horsfield, 1826, Ursus jeniseensis Ognev, 1924, Ursus kadiaki Kleinschmidt, 1911, Ursus kenaiensis Merriam, 1904, Ursus kennerleyi Merriam, 1914, Ursus kidderi Merriam, 1902, Ursus klamathensis Merriam, 1914, Ursus kluane Merriam, 1916, Ursus kolymensis Ognev, 1924, Ursus kwakiutl Merriam, 1916, Ursus lagomyiarius Przewalski, 1883, Ursus lasiotus Gray, 1867, Ursus lasistanicus Satunin, 1913, Ursus latifrons Merriam, 1914, Ursus leuconyx Severtzov, 1873, Ursus longirostris Eversmann, 1840, Ursus macfarlani Merriam, 1918, Ursus macneilli Lydekker, 1909, Ursus macrodon Merriam, 1918, Ursus magister Merriam, 1914, Ursus major Nilsson, 1820, Ursus mandchuricus Heude, 1898, Ursus marsicanus Altobello, 1921, Ursus melanarctos Heude, 1898, Ursus mendocinensis Merriam, 1916, Ursus meridionalis Middendorf, 1851, Ursus merriami Allen, 1902, Ursus middendorffi Merriam, 1896, Ursus minor Nilsson, 1820, Ursus mirabilis Merriam, 1916, Ursus mirus Merriam, 1918, Ursus myrmephagus Billberg, 1827, Ursus navaho Merriam, 1914, Ursus neglectus Merriam, 1916, Ursus nelsoni Merriam, 1914, Ursus niger Gmelin, 1788, Ursus normalis Gray, 1864, Ursus nortoni Merriam, 1914, Ursus norvegicus Fischer, 1829, Ursus nuchek Merriam, 1916, Ursus ophrus Merriam, 1916, Ursus orgilos Merriam, 1914, Ursus orgildoides Merriam, 1918, Ursus oribasus Merriam, 1918, Ursus pallasi Merriam, 1916, Ursus pamirensis Ognev, 1924, Ursus pellyensis Merriam, 1918, Ursus persicus Lønnberg, 1925, Ursus perturbans Merriam, 1918, Ursus pervagor Merriam, 1914, Ursus phaeonyx Merriam, 1904, Ursus piscator Pucheran, 1855, Ursus planiceps Merriam, 1918, Ursus polonicus Gray, 1864, Ursus pruinosus Blyth, 1854, Ursus pulchellus Merriam, 1918, Ursus pyrenaicus Fischer, 1829, Ursus richardsoni Swainson, 1838, Ursus rogersi Merriam, 1918, Ursus rossicus Gray, 1864, Ursus rufus Borkhausen, 1797, Ursus rungiusi Merriam, 1918, Ursus russelli Merriam, 1914, Ursus sagittalis Merriam, 1918, Ursus scandinavicus Gray, 1864, Ursus schmitzi Matschie, 1917, Ursus selkirki Merriam, 1916, Ursus sheldoni Merriam, 1910, Ursus shirasi Merriam, 1914, Ursus shoshone Merriam, 1914, Ursus sibiricus Gray, 1864, Ursus sitkensis Merriam, 1896, Ursus smirnovi Lønnberg, 1925, Ursus stenorostris Gray, 1864, Ursus stikeenensis Merriam, 1914, Ursus syriacus Hemprich and Ehrenberg, 1828, Ursus tahltanicus Merriam, 1914, Ursus texensis Merriam, 1914, Ursus toklat Merriam, 1914, Ursus townsendi Merriam, 1916, Ursus tularensis Merriam, 1914, Ursus tundrensis Merriam, 1914, Ursus ursus Boddaert, 1772, Ursus utahensis Merriam, 1914, Ursus warburtoni Merriam, 1916, Ursus washake Merriam, 1916, Ursus yesoensis Lydekker, 1897, Vetularctos inopinatu Merriam, 1918. Another thing I´d like to note is that the whole discussion page is rather confusing and should be revised to get more structure.

Elatrin (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Shouln't the california grizzly be meantioned

( Y ) 18:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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?

Er, no.122.105.217.62 (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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.


 * The above statement is too ill-informed and nonsensical to deserve any better reply than this one.Centrepull (talk)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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. 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)
 * 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.
 * 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&amp;nbsp;mm.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.

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.

Largest wild polar bear, according to Guinness 2006: 3.38m tall, 1960 lbs estimated. The image is here:

http://animalelite.us/ar/t6855.htm

All the weight of Kodiak bears > 650 kg are hunters' estimate. In a word, kodiak bear = polar bear, cannot be larger. Those scources are simply remakes of each other; sometimes 10000 words say nothing. The book Almanac may have incorporated some folklore, that's how books are written: sources + tales. A greater example: Siberian tiger is cited as the largest tiger by 10000 articles. Wrong! Northern indian tiger is! Simple reason: When the weight is extreme, people mostly estimate, not weigh them. If you watch Kodiak bear documentary, straightaway you'll find the 1500 lbs figure ridiculous. Kodiak bear definitely weighs 300 kg on average for male in summer. Inland bears only 135 - 200 kg. In winter, they increase weight for the long slumber; that's all. Bart the bear is 2x as big as the largest wild Kodiak I've seen, and he's 665kg. The polar bear in the photo, far larger than any Kodiak, looks less than half the size of these 1.7 ton indian gaurs:

(link removed ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

So 880 kg is a best estimate, and it might well be between 800 - 850. Speaking of the gaur, it's also a victim of underbilling. 10000 sources say that gaur bulls weigh "up to" a ton. They're all wrong. My point is we should focus on wild weight, captive figs are worthless; they speak nothing. A human can weigh 600 kg, 8 times their normal weight, due to obesity, is that a valuable figure? Likewise for a bear. Wild Kodiak never exceeds 640 kg. Kamchatka dark brown bears are similar, but no more, now they're smaller, because people don't exaggerate them anymore.

You are saying all the estimatesd of over 640 are hunter's estimates? There were 2500 pounds bears brought in to zoos from wild, but I guess this does not matter for you? Bears are WEIGHED using helicopters. and Helicopters can lift up to 3 tons, which means that bears can be weighed in the wild easily, and not just by hunter's estiamates.

And your estimate of Kodiak bears are RIDICULOUS, 750 kg are DOCUMENTED, WEIGHED by helicotper, but for you of course it does not matter. Most of the time what you seeas a Kodiak bear is a mere sub-adult, which does not weigh nearly as much as an adult.

And hey, even 1000 kg kodiak bear is capable of breaking gaur's spine with just one blow of a forepaw, damn it, gaurs are not even the largest horned aniumals on the planet, largest are bisons or bulls.

And of course all 10000 sources are wrong and it is YOU who are right, because you base your judgment on a mere video and attempt a sight comparison of adult gaur and subadult brown bear.

Here are some sources for you to read about bears:

http://www.bearplanet.org/kodiakbear.shtml

quote from above source " The size of the large males exceeds 3 m and their weight can reach a ton."

http://www.kodiak.org/physical_description.html

http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=bears.trivia

"kodiak bear = polar bear"

completely false. Kodiak is much more heavily built, much thicker body, much more massive skeleton, largest kodiaks weigh more than largest polar bears. Kamchatka bears by the way, are the same size as Kodiak, since it is the same species (strudy history of bear migration from asia to north america through Bering Straight), it is jsut that Kamchatkan bears are not being weighed.

all above sources mention up to 1500 pounds for big males, now imagine huge males, then imagine largest males. 74.98.216.68 19:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Pavel Golikov. 24 June, 2007.

This discussion is fascinating, but is becoming troll-like and not good for Wiki reputation. Please sign your entries and remain calm. At a guess, you probably both have a point. It is probable that a lot of references are exagerated, yet hopefully modern techniques are/will establish more accurate figures. Wild weights are more useful, though captive weights might be quoted, but only as captive weights. It is likely that the maximum wild weight is considerably bigger than the average weight.IceDragon64 19:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

OK. Well, the official website should certainly not be refering to the Californian bear as Ursus californicus, since that would make it a seperate species of bear and it was surely a Brown Bear of some sort. This, then leads one to feel that the site is not a very good reference for the existance of even a seperate race/subspecies of bear. However, it is a start. We would really want some kind of description of differences between this californian bear and other bears before we would want it to be put on Wikipedia. IceDragon64 19:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

a few suggestions
A few suggestions for improving this page: "Bears are very powerful; even if considered pound for pound, a large specimen can break a neck or spine of a fully grown buffalo with a single blow". This statement is meaningless. Ursus Arctos doesn't share habitat with buffalo. Over a century ago they hunted bison, but not buffalo. Pound for pound comes in how? Ursus Arctos are powerful because they are big, and it is thought they evolved on the open plains where they needed to protect themselves from other, larger predators. It is also surmised that they have retained their size and biting power for competitive mating purposes (seeing as the last time they needed to worry about being predated was somewhere near 15,000 years ago). Clevername2 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Brown bears have a large hump of muscle over their shoulders, which give strength to the forelimbs for digging". Maybe a little picky, but it is the digging that develops the large shoulder muscles, not the other way around. As a note, this regular digging is in the same direction/manner as a swipe of the paw would be, explaining the increased power of a brown bear paw swat over a black bear for example. I know of no one who has measured anything of the sort though. Clevername2 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * - Unless there is clear proof that the shoulder muscles developed for the purpose of digging, rather than, say giving the animal increased swatting power, the article is correct since it tell the reader what is probably the current most important function of the big muscles without implying the cause of their development.IceDragon64 18:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * - Given that most GB are in the order of 90% vegetarian (except for those catching salmon or insects), I think the burden of proof should lie on the suggestion that their massive shoulders are for swatting power. Any evolutionary textbook covering bears will indicate this. Clevername2 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Unlike the claws of other large predatory animals such as lions or tigers, brown bear claws are not retractable, giving them a dull edge compared to the claws of other predators." Dull claws have nothing to do with retractability. Felids have retractable claws, but black bears, wolverines (and many other mustelids), polar bears do not yet their claws are pointed (not sharp which implies an edge). It is fair to say that brown bears have broad dull claws specialized for digging.Clevername2 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * -whilst it is true that, as you have shown, the two are not always connected, they often are.  Since the two animals comparible to bears which the reader is most likely to be familiar with are cats and dogs this seems a useful enough statement. So, unless we want to explain all that, its probably easier to leave it as it is!
 * However, like much of the Brown bear article (and Wikipedia in general!) the writers have put info in piecemeal without establishing what is particularly applicable to brown bears. This info, if used at all probalby belongs in the Bears article.IceDragon64 18:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Brown bears, like tigers, ambush their prey with force". This comparison is unfortunate. Brown bears are by and large omnivores with strong vegetarian leanings. They are mostly opportunistic hunters (though many exceptions can be found). And what predator doesn't use force to kill it's prey? Stalking is the technique all felids use - no doubt there are examples of bears using this as well, but they are likely seasonal (elk calving for example) and site specific so maybe not so appropriate for a wiki entry describing the entire broad bear experience. Clevername2 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * -It doesn't neccesarily matter what food brown bear usually eats- if they have a distinct/typical hunting method apart from eating carrion, it can be described here: if they don't run their prey down, like cheetahs or pack hunt them like dogs or lions then 'ambushing' them is a reasonable description of general method. It seems reasonable to me that despite their different lifestyle, when compared to other basic types of hunting method, it is similar to a tiger. Although it is true that "with force" doesn't tell us anything factual it further implies that it is not speed or specialised technique which is paramount in its success.  Your comments do bring up useful items for discussion, but unless someone wants to analyse the more common hunting methods of brown bears quite thoroughly, I suggest that the article is OK.


 * - I have to disagree if this site wants to be an encyclopedia and not a grade 6 school project. Brown Bears do not have a hunting technique used by the species as a whole. What hunting they do is completely unlike tigers. Ambushing implies lying in wait for some time. They just don't do it- the suggestion is fundamentally wrong. And besides, tigers generally stalk and not ambush their prey. Though I'm no expert on tigers. It so happens that I am one on grizzly bears, which is probably why this page is driving me nuts! Clevername2 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "In spite of their size, some have been clocked at speeds in excess of 56 km/h (35 mph). Along with their strength and deceptive speed, brown bears are legendary for their stamina. They are capable of running at full speed for miles at a time without stopping." Has anyone found a good reference for someone who actually measured this speed? Not a secondary reference, but an actual paper of someone who got a bear running and clocked it? Why does size have to do with speed? Horses are heavier than bears, and run faster. As are elk, moose... Brown bears are most certainly NOT legendary for running for miles at a time. That's the domain of wolves. Bears may be able to walk for miles and miles but not run. It is not how their bodies are designed. And nothing can run a full speed for hours at a time. Unless a creature exists whose full speed does not put it past the anaerobic threshold. Clevername2 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * -I too find this section dubious! However, although it is true that some of the largest animals are among the fastest, I suggest the writer has a point about size, though not quite properly expressed. Something like "In spite of its apparent bulk" would be better, I suggest.  I think it is generally true that most people do not think of bears as runners and would be surprised that such a  heavily-built animal can run like this IceDragon64 18:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * - that is a good line, it should be used. Clevername2 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "They prefer semi-open country, usually in mountainous areas". Although true today, it is thought they evolved as low elevation steppe/ plains animals. They exist mostly in mountainous areas today due to human influence- mountains are where we are least populous. Clevername2 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * -This may be a very useful snipet to add, providing one can find a suitable referance- however, since they have probably become adapted to their modern environment now, it would be important to leave it clear where their preferences now lie- we cannot be sure that they would 'prefer' to return to their former range now if man dissappeared.
 * In the light of your observation, perhaps 'usual' is better than preferred.IceDragon64 18:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * - If by adaptation you mean evolution, I doubt enough time would have passed for any changes to have occurred. But this is common knowledge among evolutionary biologists. As for preference I agree- the science term is not quite the literal english one; bears in the mountains today might not move out but their offspring would cheerily take up residence in flat areas provided there was food. And historically it was thought that bear populations in the prairies were greater than that of the Rockies. Clevername2 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Ursus arctos has existed in North America since at least the most recent ice age, though it is thought that the larger, taller, and stronger giant short-faced bear, also known as the bulldog bear, was the dominant carnivore at the time." What does the dominant carnivore mean? Greatest numbers? Scariest? Most likely to win in an even fight? Dominance has no place here. The short-faced bear was a pure predator. The grizzly is an omnivore, and mostly a vege one at that. Apples and oranges.
 * Clevername2 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "The giant short-faced bear was a tall, thin animal adapted to eat large mammals, whereas the grizzly or brown bear has teeth appropriate for its omnivorous diet. The giant short-faced bear, on average, weighed twice as much as the grizzly, despite some exceptional grizzly bears in the later Old West that weighed 800 kilograms." Why is this even here? is this now a section for the giant short faced bear? the whole next section discussion on smilodon cats, clovis points and does not belong here, and takes bears out of context. Brown bears never ever were the mythical dominant predator. They are vege-leaning omnivores. Always have been. Clevername2 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * -I think this section has a meaning which is of interest to people, it is just not expressed very well. I imagine people would be interested in a comparison between the two bears in terms of 'dominance' and history tho with better chosen and qualified terms.  I also think that things like their relationship with Smilodons and Clovis points would be OK if properly expressed.IceDragon64 18:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "The brown bear is primarily nocturnal " The brown bear evolved as a diurnal creature. In areas where human activities are controlled and bears are not hunted, they appear active during the day throughtout the seasons. For example; McNeill river, AK, Knight Inlet, BC, Brooks Falls, AK, Khutzeymateen Inlet, BC. All these areas have active bear viewing, and it all takes place during the day. When human activity becomes unpredictable (in many national parks, for example)or dangerous (hunting) bears become crepuscular or nocturnal. In times of food abundance bears can also become nocturnal to extend their feeding times (peak berry crops, for example). What needs to be stressed is that bears become nocturnal only due to human influence.
 * Clevername2 18:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * -This is an important correction to the article. I can hardly imagine that a huge omnivore with no natural predators would 'choose' to be nocturnal.  IceDragon64 18:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)"...in the summer, puts on up to 180 kg (400 pounds) of fat, on which it relies to make it through winter, when it becomes very lethargic. Although they are not "full" hibernators, and can be woken easily, both sexes like to den in a protected spot such as a cave, crevice, or hollow log during the winter months". The reference to weight really should use a % rather than an absolute figure as the majority of a bear population at a given time will likely weight under 400 pounds as they will be females, juveniles or cubs. The important point to note is that it is their evoutionary strategy as vegetarian-inclined omnivores to avoid winter (and a consequent lack of food sources). They do not hibernate (that is, enter a state of torpor), rather they sleep. Physiological changes occur that enable them to not urinate or defecate for months at a time.

-The strategy you describe is surely a normal reason for many animals to hibernate and not particularly true for brown bears, especially bearing in mind that polar bears also (semi?) hibernate and they are carnivores.IceDragon64 18:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * - Funny enough, relatively few animals choose the torpor route and all of them are small. Most large animals just stagger through the winter trying to survive. But bears aren't in torpor - maybe nitpicky but there are fundamentally different mechanisms at work. Again the question comes down to how accurate wiki wants to be- grade 6 or something better? Cool note about the polar bears - their 'hibernation' period is in summer when they can't access seals on the ice. So for a polar bear summer is really winter from a food point of view. And seeing as they are only 50K years removed from the BB we're almost talking about the same animal on an evolutionary scale. Clevername2 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "They are omnivores and feed on a variety of plant parts, including berries, roots, and sprouts, fungi, fish, insects, and small mammals, especially ground squirrels" All true except for the 'especially ground squirrel" part. That applies only in some areas where ground squirrels are present (the Rockies being an example, but where so much of the research has taken place). Coastal bears eat salmon, not squirrels, and there are a heck of a lot more of those bears than interior bears. Clevername2 18:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Contrary to popular mythology, brown bears are not particularly carnivorous as they derive up to 90% of their dietary food energy from vegetable matter.[citation needed]" Again, depending on which of the populations of bears you are referring to this may be true. Coastal bears can eat almost exclusively salmon, and so are rightfully predators. Interior bears in the Rockies can be almost exclusive vegetarians. this is a species that demonstrates enormous variation over the range it is found. Blanket statements are hard to make. Brown bears are omnivorous and will focus on the highest quality food source available in any particular are. Some bears may be almost entirely predatory, eating a diet of salmon and proportionately few berries(measured by calories), while others may be almost entirely vegetarian moving from spring roots, tubers and flowers on to summer berry crops and fall berry and roots again. It all depends on the individual circumstance. Clevername2 18:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Their jaw structure has evolved to fit their dietary habits and it is longer and lacks strong, sharp canine teeth of true predators". Nope. the structure reflects the omnivorous habit; canines are still present for opportunisti predation(or possibly for competitive mating) but the carnassials (the teeth used to shear meat from bones found in the class Carnivora) have become more like molars for grinding vegetable matter. Brown bears retain a high saggital crest on the top of their skulls, indicative of strong biting power. Clevername2 18:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * -Are the canines of bears as strong and sharp as the canines of true carnivores? If not, the article is correct regarding the canine teeth. Otherwise, this is good, useful information.  IceDragon64 18:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * - Bears are 'true' carnivores; they belong to the class Carnivora. They have big-ass canines. Look at ANY picture with an open-mouthed bear. As for sharpness, what does it mean? they are pointy, but I've never heard of a predator mouth being sharp - that is with a cutting edge like a knife. Clevername2 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The information about canine teeth is contradictory--it says they lack strong sharp canines and then "the brown bear uses its sharp canine teeth for neck-biting its prey." I'm removing the statement that they lack strong sharp canines, as it is apparent from looking at bear skulls that they do have pointed teeth.  If someone can provide a better description of how their canines are different from other Carnivora, please do so. Poludamas (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Bears eat an enormous number of moths during the summer, sometimes as many as 40,000 in a day[1], and may derive up to a third of their food energy from these insects[2]. " Again this needs context. If army cutworm moths aren't found in the area, bears won't eat them. Another example is grasshoppers in Bulgaria in Central National Balkan Park, something that used to occur in Glacier National Park Montana, but hasn't been seen since the mid 1860's (and the consequent changes to the Great Plains). the important thing to note is that they will eat whatever presents the highest quantity and quality of food available. Clevername2 18:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Brown bears also occasionally prey on deer (Odocoeilus spp.; Dama spp., Capreolus spp.), Red Deer (Cervus elaphus or American elk), moose (Alces alces) and Bison (Bison bison spp., Bison bonasus). When brown bears attack these animals, they tend to choose young calves or aged, sick adults because they are slow and weak." It should also note that they will opportunistically hunt - that is if they stumble across a large healthy animal they may still try to kill it if they think they can reach it beofre being seen. But they will actively hunt the young during calving season.Clevername2 18:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "The brown bear is plantigrade like all bears, meaning it walks with its entire foot like a human, rather than on its toes like cats and dogs, which are digitigrade. They can stand up on their hind legs for extended periods of time. Bears tend to sit down on their rear with their upper body off the ground." What possible interest is this info? Of all the interesting things to cover on bears, why have this? What does it mean in context with the life history of the animal? Clevername2 18:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * -it is just the kind of information I was looking for when I looked Bears up! I am a writer and I am briefly describing a bear in a short story. With all due respect, you are clearly a well-educated and meticulous person and you appear to have forgotten that encyclopedias are not just about statistics and photos- It gives the reader part of the overall image of what a bear is like. What is wrong with the section is that it is probably no more applicable to the brown bear than most other bears and therefore belongs in a carefully chosen and headed part of the Bear article.IceDragon64 18:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * - Fair enough! But at least adjust the "stand on their hind legs for extended periods of time" bit. I've watched brown bears for thousands of hours and never once saw a bear spend more than 30 secs on it's hind legs. Clevername2 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Normally a solitary animal, the brown bear congregates alongside streams and rivers during the salmon spawn in the fall. Every other year, females produce one to four young, which weigh only about 1 to 2 kg (2 to 5 lb) at birth. Raised entirely by their mother, cubs are taught to climb trees when in danger. Brown bears are also found in the midwest region of the U.S. in the states of Montana, Wyoming, Minnesota, Wisconsin,and Idaho." Why is this in the posture section? Why is it in here at all? Clevername2 18:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * -again, the material is probably reasonable enough, if one can sort out which information is particularly appropriate to Bears or species or subspecies/region etc.
 * Obviously it does not belong in the posture section, tho!IceDragon64 18:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Habituation to human areas" This section needs a discussion on habituation vs food conditioning. they are two very different things, yet when bears are concerned they get jumbled together. Food conditioning is positive reinforcement, meaning a behaviour is rewarded positively, leading to a recurrence of that behaviour (in this case a food reward). Habituation is a progressive lack of response to an insignificant stimulus. For example, bears will not react to birds singing in the trees, as they are meaningless to the bears' existence. Habituation to human-use areas (that is not paying attention to humans because they neither attack it nor reward it), can lead to opportunities for food conditioning. But they are NOT the same thing. People tend to think of negative conditioning, habituation and food conditioning as existing on the same continuum, but this is not the case. Habituation is different, and separate according to animal behaviour theories.Clevername2 18:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC) -yes, the difference is important and thank you for explaining it. As you have shown with reference to the bears the two are connected, so what is required is probably a carefully worded sentence which explains the process whereby one leads to the other, thus defining the meanings as one reads. That is probaly preferable to an actually definition of the words within the Brown Bear article. The two key words/prhses should be linked to definitions in either wikipedia or wiktionary to help anyone who needs to understand what you have explained more fully. IceDragon64 18:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Brown bears retrace their own tracks and walk only on rocks while being hunted to avoid being traced." Why is this here, in the eating section?

- a little information about how bears may behave in response to being hunted is interesting, if it can be properly applied to either Bears or Brown Bears, but not here!IceDragon64 18:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)