Talk:California grizzly bear

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2021 and 25 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Enmah2001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Phylogeny
The article says "Historically, all North American grizzlies were grouped together as one unique species until DNA testing revealed that they should properly be grouped taxonomically in the same species as the smaller, European brown bears."

This is not correct, does anyone wish to discuss this before I edit it? Raggz (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Range?
What parts of the state were grizzlies found in?--NapoliRoma (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Extinct?
This is confusing. So the California grizzly is extinct, and they are considering attempting a deextinction. On the other hand, the California grizzly, according to the article, only is an extinct population and not a subspecies. So what is there to "deextinct"? Wouldn't that just be a matter of repopulating the region it used to live in, as long as the same subspecies continues to exist in other regions? --93.212.250.204 (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The same subspecies doesn't exist in other regions. The California population was genetically distinct (but not genetically isolated) from other populations of grizzlies. Also, these deextinction plans are pretty shaky science to begin with. Cloning could only work with existing genetic samples from the California grizzly, probably yielding a gene pool that was not viable in and of itself. Back-breeding could never be completely certain of removing all non-California grizzly genes and might produce the same phenotype using a wildly different genotype. Simply bringing in outside specimens would not restore the California subspecies, but simply introduce a different subspecies to the region. Finally, even if you could produce a genetically viable population that was 100% California grizzly by genetics, there would be no actual California grizzlies to raise the first generation leading to probable behavioral differences. --Khajidha (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your points are scientifically entirely correct. (See Miller et al. 2006) The ecosystem that John Muir described is extinct though. It has been argued that the grizzly could not compete in a now segmented landscape and that the black bear is far better adapted now. Then there is the issue of crossing freeways .... 174.50.170.71 (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * pupulation is NOT a sub-species, mind you.

Perhaps this may be a "grizzly" analogy, but one could think of the successful and complete genocide of a human group, to understand the plight of the CA grizzly. Sure, you could re-introduce another group that may even resemble the canonical population, but it won't be the same. Don't think too hard about that analogy please. Noble Metalloid (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Clarification needed
If Grizzly is a subspecies of brown bear, then why the Californian grizzly is a subspecies of grizzly? This don't make sense at all! I'll quote from Grizzly page:

However, modern genetic testing reveals the grizzly to be a subspecies of the brown bear (Ursus arctos). Rausch found that North America has but one species of grizzly.[13] Therefore, everywhere it is the "brown bear"; in North America, it is the "grizzly", but these are all the same species, Ursus arctos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California grizzly bear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130126001258/http://www.californiachaparral.com/agrizzlybearnm.html to http://californiachaparral.com/agrizzlybearnm.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Extinct?
Who can I contact about a sighting of one of these Bears? These are not extinct. I saw a momma Bear and two cubs in Weitchpec, CA. on Hoopa Indian territory in 2011. 2601:380:8380:7CA0:F96C:4794:1C28:E622 (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ??? DeleteMeuse (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: California Natural History
— Assignment last updated by DeleteMeuse (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Historically misrepresented
I am posting a couple of sources here to see if they might be useful in this article. One is a Washington Post story. The other is a scientific research paper that this story cites and that this story is based on. Here is The Washington Post article dated April 25, 2024: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2024/04/25/california-grizzly-bear-extinct-reintroduce/? Science tells a new story about the California grizzly]. I paraphrased the title. The WAPO story says the Grizzly has been historically misrepresented. Here is the scientific research paper url: published by Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Biological Sciences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs) 09:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)