WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Carnivorous and Omnivores Animals, Excluding Felids
›
Bears
Bear Size ~
Bear Size ~
|
Bear Size ~
|
  (06-05-2016, 08:00 PM)Polar Wrote: The thing I don't understand is why is a 1000-pound grizzly only 3.5 feet tall at the shoulder? I thought grizzlies of that size would be at least 4.2-4.5 feet at the shoulder? I'm not at all certain if the estimate on post #172 or the measurements of the mounted hide are either one truly accurate. From post #12 - Bear Strength: The Grizzly Book by Jack Samson. Monarch - The Big Bear by Ernest Thompson Seton. Strong ropes, strong chains and bands of steel were at hand, with chloroform, lest he should revive too soon. Through holes in the roof with infinite toil they chained him, bound him - his paws to his neck, his neck and breast and hind legs to a bolted beam. Then raising the door, they dragged him out, not with horses - none would go near - but with a windlass to a tree; and fearing the sleep of death, they let him now revive. Chained and double chained, frenzied, foaming, and impotent, what words can tell the state of the fallen Monarch? They put him on a sled, and six horses with a long chain drew it by stages to the plain, to the railway. They fed him enough to save his life. A great steam-derrick lifted Bear and beam and chain on to a flatcar, a tarpaulin was spread above his helpless form; the engine puffed, pulled out; and the Grizzly King was gone from his ancient hills. So they brought him to the great city, the Monarch born, in chains. They put him in a cage not merely strong enough for a lion, but thrice as strong, and once a rope gave way as the huge one strained his bonds. "He is loose," went the cry, and an army of onlookers and keepers fled; only the small man with the calm eye and the big man of the hills were stanch, so the Monarch was still held. Free in the cage, he swung round, looked this way and that, then heaved his powers against the triple angling steel and wrenched the cage so not a part of it was square. In time he clearly would break out. They dragged the prisoner to another that an elephant could not break down, but it stood on the ground, and in an hour the great beast had a cavern into the earth and was sinking out of sight, till a stream of water sent after him filled the hole and forced him again to view. They moved him to a new cage made for him since he came - a hard rock floor, great bars of nearly two-inch steel that reached up nine feet and then projected in for five. The Monarch wheeled once around, then rearing, raised his ponderous bulk, wrenching those bars, unbreakable, and bent and turned them in their sockets with one heave till the five-foot spears were pointed out, and then sprang to climb. Nothing but spikes and blazing brands in a dozen ruthless hands could hold him back. The keepers watched him night and day till a stronger cage was made, impregnable with a steel above and rocks below. Reply
[b][b][b][b][b] [b]Polar asks: [b]I've heard about Monarch the Californian Grizzly. Isn't he the one that fought off several lions and Californian bulls? (Not Parnell the Grizzly.)
[b] [b]Actually, I believe that such animal combat in the USA might have already been illegal at this time, except offshore on a barge. This is why Ramadam fought Parnell in Mexico. As for that historic fight, and I hope I'm not bending the rules here too much. There have been two-separate versions of that story floating around. But the true story, the original telling is written in the original news article which is hanging on the wall of the California State Capital in Sacramento. The fight took place in Monterrey, Mexico in 1895. The story is in the book, California Grizzly published well before the online debates; 1955. - Bell ( 1930 : 106 ) mentioned a fight staged in Mexico between a grizzly and a lion that had been imported from Africa: "When a few years ago, a Los Angeles County grizzly was sent to Monterrey, Mexico, to be pitted against the man-killing African lion 'Parnell' the great Californian handled the African king as a cat would a rat. He killed him so quickly that the big audience hardly knew how it was done." [b] [b]...Now, let me say this. Such a staged battle of two captive animals, both of which have been caged and have traveled really proves nothing at all. We know nothing of their age, physical or mental condition, or how they have been treated and fed. What does peeve me is the "other version" created for the now rarely-seen on-line animal face-off debates. We will not find the "other version" in any book predating 1980. [/b] [b] [/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b] [b] [/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]
From a chart I found over at "Carnivora" showing the weights of the various brown bear ( grizzly ) populations in North America:
Kodiak brown bears - male 300 kg ( 661 pounds ) - female 200 kg ( 441 pounds ). Lower Alaskan Peninsula - male 319 kg ( 703 pounds ) - female 198 kg ( 437 pounds ). McNeil River - male 257 kg ( 567 pounds ) - female 160 kg ( 353 pounds ). East Brooks Range - male 184 kg ( 406 pounds ) - female 109 kg ( 240 pounds ). West Brooks Range - male 154 kg ( 340 pounds ) - female 112 kg ( 247 pounds ). South Yukon - male 140 kg ( 309 pounds ) - female 95 kg ( 209 pounds ). North Yukon - male 170 kg ( 375 pounds - female 114 kg ( 251 pounds ). Northwest Territories - male 148 kg ( 326 pounds ) - female 110 kg ( 242 pounds ). Glacier National Park - male 165 kg ( 364 pounds ) - female 109 kg ( 240 pounds ). Yellowstone National Park - male 245 kg ( 540 pounds ) - female 152 kg ( 335 pounds ). Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula - male 183 kg ( 403 pounds ) - female 120 kg ( 265 pounds ). Southcentral Alaska - male 248 kg ( 547 pounds ) - female 133 kg ( 293 pounds ). *Note: I'm not certain if these are the supposed averages, but it seems odd that the grizzlies of the Lower Alaskan Peninsula are shown as heavier than the Kodiak bears.
It looks as if the chart was calculated during the summer season.
Into early Fall, the Kodiak region, IMO, should be just approximate to other Pacific regions in terms of weight, not less. Also, the Pacific coasts normally have more shrubbery and fruits, thus more food grown over the Spring for the bears. That could be a cause for the Pacific grizzlies' weights being higher than those of the Kodiak Islands. The Kodiak region has more salmon and whales, but mainly during breeding times. Little vegetation grows within the islands as well, unlike the vast vegetation in the Pacific coasts. 
@
About # 175: An other version which concerns the fight between Parnell the lion and the grizzly. I have also seen this version in several animals forums (Carnivora and so on.)... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUtIoN2xLqk I don't appreciate these stories that rather highlights the seamy side of very numerous people greedy to see such "shows". As you said, no one mention too about the opponents' wealth. And I believe too that the owner wanted absolutely to get rid of this lion which killed 2 or 3 keepers before. Thus, what can I say about this sordid fact ? Worthless and nothing interesting.
Point taken. You are absolutely correct. And as I mentioned, nothing proven, nothing gained. Such battles, as I said, were worthless and nothing learned. But, the point I was attempting to make was the overwhelming amount of on-line fiction created after the arrival of the home computer ... thus the video in the post above. That version cannot be found in any book published prior to the arrival of the home computer. I am not attempting to stir the pot with useless face-off debates. The lion is the king of the open Savannah's and would be even if the grizzly shared his environment. Of this I have no doubts.
Post #177 shows that the smallest grizzlies in North America are the barren ground grizzlies of the Northwest Territories in Canada, the grizzlies of the Yukon, and those of Glacier National Park, all of which average within the 300 pound range. Because of the huge size of coastal bears, we think of these grizzlies as "small bears." However, we do not think of a 300 pound man as being a little man. If I were being chased by an angry aggressive 300 pound grizzly, I would not consider myself in a small amount of danger. -Just saying.
http://www.bearbiology.com/fileadmin/tpl..._Vol_7.pdf
SIZE AND GROWTH PATTERNS OF THE YELLOWSTONE GRIZZLY BEAR (06-07-2016, 03:39 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Post #177 shows that the smallest grizzlies in North America are the barren ground grizzlies of the Northwest Territories in Canada, the grizzlies of the Yukon, and those of Glacier National Park, all of which average within the 300 pound range. Because of the huge size of coastal bears, we think of these grizzlies as "small bears." However, we do not think of a 300 pound man as being a little man. If I were being chased by an angry aggressive 300 pound grizzly, I would not consider myself in a small amount of danger. -Just saying. True. Even a bear cub greater than 100 and less than 200 pounds against a powerlifter or another huge, trained man would prove to be great danger. Many humans think they can take on animals smaller than them, but it depends on how much smaller. But even with a gun, a man will crap his pants when hearing a tiger or lion roar for the first time, or even when a small black bear stares down at him.
Here is a document about the reduction of polar bear size/weight in modern times. (Rode et. al., 2010):
Polar bears are heavier on average than the largest population of brown bears, the Kodiak bears. It is also true, I feel certain, that in the wild, the polar bear has a higher size potential. Never-the-less, the heaviest polar bear confirmed weight stands at 1,541 pounds while the heaviest confirmed brown bear tipped the scales at 1,653 pounds - beating the polar bear by 112 pounds.
Problem is, few of these Goliath bears are actually weighed. There have very likely been bears, both brown and polar which have exceeded these record weights. It is the polar bear's diet of almost exclusively blubber that gives him the advantage of size and weight-gain. The white giant is, after all, a descendant of the grizzly.  *This image is copyright of its original author
There is a 2,200lb polar bear according to this
http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-polar-be...and-videos (06-10-2016, 08:35 PM)Pckts Wrote: There is a 2,200lb polar bear according to this This bear is well known, but the weight is not considered as a 'confirmed fact' just as the two famous zoo-Kodiaks, Clyde and Goliath which are said to have weighed about 2,400 pounds or better were not 'confirmed'. The questions remain, who did the weighing, on what scale, and witnessed by who? |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 4 Guest(s) |