Talk:Kodiak bear

Claim
Someone had claimed that Kodiak Bears stand 19' tall and that even larger bears had been worshiped by the Alutiiq people. They claimed that small children were sacrified to the alleged monster bear, but gave no citation. I brought things back to planet Earth. I very much doubt a Kodiak would be interested in human children as a food source. There is no recorded attack on children by them, and few on adult humans.

Re:--Kodiak Bears do not grow to 19 ft tall. 9-feet-tall, yes. The tallest Kodiak Boars can stand over 10-feet-tall. The Giant short faced Bear of the ice age, is estimated to have been much larger, averaging around 11-feet tall when standing, and weighing from 1300 to 1800 lbs. However, it is thought that some indivudal giants among this species likely exceeded 12 and even 13 feet in stature, weighing as much as 2,000 lbs and more, with a 14 to 15 foot vertical reach.--71.222.54.25 21:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know this is old.The only place you find 19 ft tall Kodiak bears is in the monologue God's Own Drunk.--Khajidha (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Skull-length
The article says the skull of the biggest Kodiak was 78,1 cm! That seems nearly impossible to me. The biggest Kamtschatkabear, which is nearly as big as the Kodiak, but with a bigger skullsize, had "only" 43,6cm, which is still a huge skull. 78,1cm is nearly double the size, which means, that must have been double the size and 8 times the weight of the biggest Kamtschatka. That really sounds like nonsense to me, just like storys of 12m long white sharks or stuff. That should be removed, the source seems to be not very believable... --2003:89:2F54:2D01:A14C:9A2:F662:2347 (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The method of maesurment (length + width) is very strange and gives no real information when compared to the size of the skulls of other bears.--2003:89:2F54:2D01:7092:6504:745:126 (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Kodiak Brown or Polar Bear; which is larger?
Both the Polar Bear and Kodiak Brown Bear pages and linked articles describe the same upper limit (10+ ft. 1,500+ lb.).

The Polar Bear page describes the Polar Bear as the largest land carnivore, while the Kodiak Brown Bear page list the Kodiak Brown Bear as the largest land omnivore. This is only a crafty way of not having to say outright which is larger. Incognitum Poinete, ede ede; tachu tachu! (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See "The polar bear is the largest member of the bear family, with the exception of Alaska’s Kodiak brown bears, which equal polar bears in size." . They are the same size. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

edits on size
(Meh, there are always problems with the size thing). Can someone explain these edits? I looked at them, but I can only see two sourced sentences one sourced sentence and one unsourced sentence about the average weight of bears being replaced with one unsourced sentence saying "between 800-900 kg, but sometimes up to 1000 kg"? Is there something I'm missing? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Who is putting all this crap on this page about how big these bears get? 3000 pounds and 14'? I'm removing it - if someone puts it back in there, they had better back it up with a citation Dukeford (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For the largest Kodiak bear in record, how about exploring mammals from Marshall Cavendish "The largest bear ever recorded was a Kodiak Bear killed in 1894 that weighted 1,656 pounds (751 kg). Other specimens may be larger, but while bears are alive it is very difficult to weigh them and find out for sure". Notice that the 1903 Annual report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution has the same bear but says 1,756 pounds. The correct weight must probably be 1,656, since the 1955 Guiness Book of Records gave that weight and so did the 1992 edition, and all other sources use that weight. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Enric, I would take references like this with a grain of salt. The likelyhood of anybody in 1894 taking the trouble of hauling a bear carcass from Kodiak Island to a scale large enough to weigh it is pretty remote. Plus, two separate sources can't agree on the weight, and Guiness is hardly definitive. Dukeford (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I clean up the weight stuff some more. Really some primary source are need for this.--J2000ca (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rounded the average values (Kilogram precision on an average of something that is rarely weight is unlikely)
 * Removed reference to the weight of Clyde (the source was talking about a different bear and I could only turn up one questionable page about it)
 * Changed the ranges to be consistent
 * Removed a reference that quoted it being larger then the polar bear


 * Why did you remove the "Size relative to other bear species" section? Being the second largest bear is surely notable. The polar bear thing is sourced to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service, which is a reliable source for the sizes of animals. Searching in google books gives many references of Kodiak being either larger or same size as polar bears.


 * I do think it's notable. I just think it needs to be nailed down a little better. There are a number of U.S. government sites that all list different sizes for the bear 1 2. This study puts the average size much smaller http://www.stoller-eser.com/RMAteachers/Grizzly_Chapter.pdf (page 4). I also thought the extra section was a little superfluous, none of the other bear articles have it. --J2000ca (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess a short paragraph under "size" could be enough. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have found a reference for "largest kodiak bear", it was a bear in a zoo which died in 1955. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Language?
Article claims that bears have evolved a complex language. I'm not sure what is meant by this exactly. Have edited to request a source. ~Jeff Soules

The bear's language consists of a complex array of verbal and physical ques. Bears rely on these to avoid fatal conflicts, express needs, and interact with other bears and people.

Larry Van Daele, PhD Alaska Department of Fish and Game Kodiak Alaska

Kilo and meter?
some 50% of the world or so dont understand inch and pund, and i am to lazy... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.26.249.174 (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Tried to fix your concerns. If I missed any, let me know.

Larry Van Daele

Is it possible, that there is a mistake done in the measurement of the skullslength in cm? 78cm is nearly double the length of the biggest Kamtschatka bears, who are only a little bit smaller than Kodiaks. That seems impossible to me, especially because that would mean the biggest Kodiak were double the size of the biggest Kamtschatkas and would weigth 8x more! 2003:89:2F5C:5F01:4C17:D963:8CB3:100D (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

aerial???
This paragraph (in the size info) appears to have some kind of error: the sequence "comparable in size to the Polar Bear the aerial version of the bear is much smaller" doesn't parse, AFAICT, and I'm not at all sure what an "aerial version of a bear" could be, unless there was a veterenary catapult involved ...

Kodiak bears are generally considered to be among the largest of all terrestrial bears, being comparable in size to the Polar Bear the aerial version of the bear is much smaller. Altogether, sixteen of the twenty largest brown bears killed by hunters have come from the archipelago. A large male can stand over 10 feet tall when on his hind legs, and five feet tall when on all four legs. [1] There are legends and early reports of much larger bears, but these have not been verified.

Wait, I get it: someone's being cute. "largest of all terrestrial bears ... aerial bears are smaller ..."

I'm removing the "aerial bears" thing, added 02:53, 2 March 2007 70.167.247.134 (Talk) (→Size and appearance), the only content in that particular anonymous contribution.

Jackrepenning 06:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a clue what an aerial bear is either...or how it got in there.

The other information is correct as written.

Larry Van Daele, PhD Alaska Department of Fish and Game Kodiak, Alaska

bears in captivity
I just added a block quote from Terry Lincoln, director of the Bismarck, ND zoo re: Clyde, largest Kodiak bear in captivity. Previously I had read claims of weights in captivity over 3000 lbs, so I did some research. This quote is from an email I received from Lincoln dated 031207. I haven't referenced it yet because I'm not quite sure how to go about it.

(Ok, I believe it's ok now.

--Gypsyleathers 15:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

kodiak bears
do kodiaks hunt in packsRpriest 17:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)rpriest17:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Rpriest

No. No bears hunt in packs. Bears are very solitary. Even mother bears with nearly grown cubs exhibit no cooperative hunting behavior, although they will defend one another. 76.28.103.69 (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Will in New Haven76.28.103.69 (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Revert to VERY old, inadequate version -- Please help rewrite the article
I'm sorry I had to do this, but the vast majority of the article was a blatant violation of GOV (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As the author of both the Alaska Department of Fish and Game website you reference and most of the substantial edits to the Kodiak bear wiki article, I do not understand why you felt it necessary to revert the article back to an inadequate and inaccurate version... Please reinstate it so that I do not have to rewrite the whole thing again. Taquka (talk)Taquka


 * the very oldest versions of this article are much more complete than the present one (though, it seems, largely uncited). should we try to bring that back? in present form, it might as well be merged with brown bear. -  Metanoid (talk, email) 16:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I restored parts of an older version. Apparently, the old version was removed because it had several paragraphs copy/pasted from here. I reworded and added only factual stuff. However, I have to note that this is a US government work and so it is not subjected to copyright. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I know next to nothing about copyright law, but the copyright notice at the bottom of the page seems to suggest otherwise. Furthermore, the copyright notice links to this page, which states in no uncertain terms that the material in question is copyrighted and not to be copied. Perhaps it is because it is state, rather than federal, government that copyright applies?  In any case, they cite Alaska Statutes AS 16.05.050(2), 16.05.050(8), and AS 44.99.400 and seem very adamant about protecting their "original works". GOV (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I checked the text. Some months ago it was rewritten by some from the US. Fish and Wildlife Service, and they used the original sources that the source used. Turns out that all the material on that page was sourced from documents like this dissertation, and from "Barnes, V.G. and L.J.Van Daele. 2006.  Productivity of female brown bears on Kodiak Island, Alaska. Job completion report for Challenge Cost Share Project.  Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Kodiak, Alaska, USA. ", but they had neglected to indicate so. Doh. I suppose that they must have the copyright for those texts, or permission to use them, or they were authored by the same person. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction!
I don't know who is screwing with this page, or where some of you people are getting your information, but the Kodiak Brown Bear is not endangered It's not even threated, frankly it's hunted, and I don't mean just by natives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novahawk9 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Novahawk9, this reference confirms what you are saying, however this reference appears to suggest otherwise. PhilKnight (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Both sources are from 2003, but the first source is talking about experiences on 2002, and the source that suggests otherwise is citing a 1966 study to explain what was the history of the protection. So, the second source is good for explaining what was the situation at that time, but not for sourcing the current status. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not endangered. I cited the Endangered Species program from the US Fish and Wildlife service. I changed the threat level to "Near Threatened" because of genetic diversity concerns. Also, the hunting is heavily regulated. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I finally found the UICHN Red List, that has it a Least Concern, but it got deleted because it was on the same paragraph as other information that was incorrect or redundant. I'll restore the UICHN because it's the only source on the article for the conservation status on the infobox, and see if any of the other info can be recovered. (the status was changed to "conservation dependant", but it wasn't cited as such anywhere at the article that I could find, maybe it was buried on one of the references) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I only restored the minimum to source the least concern status and the not endangered status --Enric Naval (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * P.D.: the status should be put in context, and integrated with the rest of the text. Something similar to "On xxxx, Kodiak Bear status was set to YY due to zzzz. On uuuu, it was set to LC thanks to the recovery efforts of uuuuu and circumnstances vvvvvv, sssss and tttttt, which caused the population to grow and to have a better habitat. Kodiak Bear was listed as endangered by agency ooooo from pppp to qqqq due to rrrrrrr." --Enric Naval (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Bias or Irrelevance in "Changes in land status"
I'm not familiar enough with wikipedia to know how to apply tags, and not really looking to make revisions myself, but I want to call attention to "Changes in land status". I find the last paragraph in this section biased. It casts Exxon and its actions in a positive light, where a neutral tone should be used. Some information provided about Exxon's role is irrelevant and should be omitted. For example: "Bear-safety training exposed thousands of workers to factual information about bears". This statement has nothing to do with the land status of kodiak bears. It is however, something nice to say about how Exxon managed to make amends for a large oil spill. It might also be nice if this last paragraph started with a relevant sentence, rather than "Exxon didn't hurt any bears with its oil spill". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.0.152 (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

interactions with humans
The writing is very poor in this section, saying the last fatality caused by Kodiak bear was in 1999 and then goes on to reference a news program covering two different incidents. It does not sound very authoritative, as though without the said news program there is no real certainty the attacks occurred. Or there should be more specific information: dates of when the attacks occurred, names of victims, locations of attacks, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.79.165 (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Diet
This article claims that the Kodiak and the Polar bear are the two largest extant land carnivores. The Kodiak bear is considered an omnivore and the citation listed for that sentence never claims that the Kodiak is a carnivore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.27.197.5 (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Raggz (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone chose the most guilty-ass looking bear for that second photo
Thank you to whoever did that though, that's good stuff. Arguably the best update to the page. 75.133.90.156 (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambig
needs disambig line (I am 2 dumb)Sadsaque (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Kodiak 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/management/planning/planning_pdfs/kabcmp2.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=planning.kodiakbb
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=kodiak_bear.kodiakfaqs


 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cameraq.com/efbbc.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.alaska.net/~jlanders/Fatal/Rasmussen%2011-01-99.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Kodiak 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130517195135/http://www.northernforum.org/servlet/download?id=2674 to http://www.northernforum.org/servlet/download?id=2674
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081204074806/http://kodiak.fws.gov:80/wildlife_bearfacts.htm to http://kodiak.fws.gov/wildlife_bearfacts.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate map
The map featured on the article is incorrect. It was either created for U. a. gyas or the creator of the map thought that since U. a. gyas and U. a. middendorffi are possibly the same subspecies, wanted to merge the two distribution maps. However even with that thought in mind, the map is incorrect since the actual range of U. a. middendorffi isn't even included in the map, the Kodiak Archipelago is left out in gray.. I'm removing this map until it is corrected. Berkserker (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

File:2010-kodiak-bear-1.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:2010-kodiak-bear-1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 13, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-07-13. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Alutiiq name
Right now the lede has a sentence: "Its Alutiiq name is taquka-aq.", citing this fact sheet which doesn't provide that information.

I have found the following sources which seem relevant:


 * Kodiak Alutiiq Dictionary / Alutiiq Word of the Week
 * "taquka'aq Meaning: bear, Kodiak brown"


 * Qik’rtarmiut Alutiitstun/Sugt’stun, p. 80
 * "Taquka’aq - Bear"


 * A Conversational Dictionary of Kodiak Alutiiq, p. 39
 * "bear (brown bear): takuka'aq"


 * The Alutiiq Noun Dictionary and Pronunciation Guide, p. 16
 * "Bear (in general) taquka (NW, PG)"

Anyway, I'm not sure what should be done, I've added a failed verification tag, but should that reference be deleted? Moved to a different sentence? And which variant / source should be used for the Alutiiq word instead?

(Should this even be in the lede to begin with?)

Thanks.

Umimmak (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Coming from the perspective of a cat-fan, as you can see from my username, if you have seen what I have done in pages like North American jaguar and Central African lion, maybe we should have a section called "Cultural significance," to talk about that. Leo1pard (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Leo1pard (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kodiak 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/20160304053247/http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-439-01-0001.pdf to http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-439-01-0001.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150217033654/http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0IJ to http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0IJ

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) 21:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Page views
Leo1pard (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Range Map
Could we have a map of the distribution for this subspecies? It looks like there used to be an inaccurate one a number of years ago that got removed, but there still isn’t a revised version. I would do it myself but am completely inept at range maps. Luxquine (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The Grizzly page says this is NOT a subspecieis
If it’s not a subspecies, should not the two pages be merged?
 * I'm not sure that follows, but there should be more clarity on this point. This article mentions two possible trionomals (U. a. middendorffi and U. a. horribilis) in infoboxes, but doesn't seem to discuss any taxonomical dispute or even integrate that information in any way, instead stating that it's a "recognized subspecies".  Of the supplied sources, the most recent seems to essentially say 'more study needed', on the basis that a mtDNA study would support reclassification, but may not be definitive.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

can it be?
Can it be that bears are rude? Yes! It can be because half the bears in the united states are related to the rudness of other bears. 184.185.133.143 (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

“This makes Kodiak bears and polar bears both the two largest members of the bear family and Kodiak bears the largest extant terrestrial carnivorans.”
Polar bears are not “extant terrestrial carnivorans”? Drsruli (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Because they're semi-aquatic, not terrestrial. Mr Fink (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I initially wondered if that was the reason, however, the note *b* on this statement only excludes pinnipeds as marine. In any case, polar bears are still considered terrestrial (as well as marine) (see article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear, second paragraph and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Characteristics). Drsruli (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Just watched David Attenborough say that Polar Bears are the largest land carnivore. (Also, notice that "terrestrial" can be ambiguous.) Drsruli (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

How wide are they?
I can see how tall they are in all ways but what is the Kodiak bear's width? 2601:6C3:8201:A300:4DD9:19D6:CEB8:6A36 (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Did he fit in the box? Drsruli (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)