WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Carnivorous and Omnivores Animals, Excluding Felids
›
Bears
Bear Anatomy
Bear Anatomy
|
Bear Anatomy
|
The following information is from Alaska's Official site..
"A bear’s weight varies with the season. Bears weigh least in the spring or early summer. They gain weight rapidly during late summer and fall and are waddling fat just prior to denning. At this time most mature males weigh between 500 and 900 lbs (180 – 410 kg) with extremely large individuals weighing as much as 1,400 lbs (640 kg)." Source: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm%3Fa...nting.main (12-10-2018, 02:57 PM)brotherbear Wrote: By Ursus arctos: nteresting to see how the "312 kg" average figure often cited for Kodiak bears brakes down (note that the average weight of the 10 bears in the 6-7 year old and older categories have an average weight of 312 kg). An older, reproductive, male likely weighs substantially more (at least 835 lb). There's no age mentioned for that chart. Where did Ursus arctos got 6-7 year old individuals? This is just a estimate by a poster, not a research.. 
No bear below the age of nine should be included in a research to find a reasonable average for full-grown male Kodiak bears. The chart should show the age of each bear in the study and how many of each age-group. We do not have this. Try try again.
(12-10-2018, 03:48 PM)brotherbear Wrote: No bear below the age of nine should be included in a research to find a reasonable average for full-grown male Kodiak bears. The chart should show the age of each bear in the study and how many of each age-group. We do not have this. Try try again. How come? If I had the full study of that 700lbs average chart it'd be better. But I'm sure vodmeister had it. I'll try to ask him in PMs. And will show you the full study... (12-10-2018, 03:59 PM)Panther Wrote:(12-10-2018, 03:48 PM)brotherbear Wrote: No bear below the age of nine should be included in a research to find a reasonable average for full-grown male Kodiak bears. The chart should show the age of each bear in the study and how many of each age-group. We do not have this. Try try again. That will work.  (12-10-2018, 03:26 PM)Panther Wrote: The following information is from Alaska's Official site.. (12-10-2018, 03:22 PM)Panther Wrote: Let me make it clear... These ones are better, but @ Try to understand what he is trying to say... As stated in post #116, the average including bears of age 6-7 year can be almost 50lbs lighter than the one with only 9+ ones. That's similar to calculating adult male tiger/lion average weight by including all specimens aged 3+, compared to doing it with only 5+ ones. Like a 4 year old tiger/lion, a 7 year old bear can gain considerable amount of body mass in next 1-2 years. IMO all pre-prime & post-prime specimens should be included, right from the point they stop being "sub-adults". The age, health condition, (for bears, time of the year) must be mentioned alongside as critical factors.  (12-10-2018, 05:35 PM)Rishi Wrote:(12-10-2018, 03:26 PM)Panther Wrote: The following information is from Alaska's Official site.. This is actually interesting issue to discuss if it can be discussed in reasonable way. What comes to weights of animals, bears are for sure one of the most problematic to compare. Especially if comparisons are made based on researches which are made by different researcher groups in different times. Ideally there should be bears from same age groups, especially if talking about male bears under 9-10 years old. Females reach full size faster if I remember right. That concerns all brown bears naturally, not only Kodiak bears. Also weighing should have been done at same time of year because it is no secret, that from spring to autumn bears gain weight a lot every month. Knowing, that there are many kinds of researchers it is important to have more information and details, because especially when talking about bears, also details do matter. I have seen a research saying, that at least in some parts of coastal area of Alaska bears are bigger (in average) than Kodiak bears, but it wasn´t one of the most convincing studies, that I´ve seen. And despite it, in sites of Alaskan officials Kodiak bears are told to be biggest also today. So it is logical to think, that they say it for some reason and not only making it up. Also is mentioned, that when looking at 20 biggest bears shot by hunters in Alaska, 17 are Kodiak bears. So here is for sure a good topic to look closer now. Who knows if situation is, that biggest individuals are Kodiaks but still in average bears on some other area are heavier... or not. I don´t care who is right or wrong here, this is interesting issue. If someone finds good information, it´s nice to see.
Here are mentioned some big ones and this looks like to be information which could be considered serious information even though here isn´t official documents etc. Still here are mentioned people and this is so new information, that questions can be made and more details might be possible to get.
http://robinbarefield.com/kodiak-bear-growth-2/ Here is quote from text: "In the wild, Kodiak bears are not easy to weigh. Biologist Vic Barnes set out to answer the question, “How big do Kodiak bears get?” With the assistance of hunting guides, he obtained the weights of several large boars and sows shot during spring and fall hunts. The largest three boars weighed 1245 lbs. (566 kg), 1483 lbs. (674 kg), and 1519 lbs. (690.5 kg). The largest female weighed 767 lbs. (348.6 kg)." These figures are impressive and if valid, then really something and giving a hint why Kodiak bears have that reputation to produce "monster sized" individuals. Robin Barefield lives at Kodiak Islands, so she have to have some idea about these bears. (I have a master’s degree in fish and wildlife biology and have worked the last 30 years as a wildlife-viewing guide on Kodiak Island. I am currently writing a book about the wildlife of Kodiak Island, so many of my blog posts will be dedicated to wildlife facts and news.) Vic Barnes also seems to be pretty reliable. (Vic was raised in Colorado, attended Colorado State University, and then spent 32 years as a research wildlife biologist. The last 16 years of his career was with the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR) where he conducted numerous studies on Kodiak Bear ecology, habitat use and bear viewing. Vic’s renowned research and studies included black bears, polar bears, brown and grizzly bears. Vic has collaborated on many Kodiak bear research and management studies.) He works now here: https://kodiakbearcenter.com/en/about-us...the-staff/ 
LARGE WILD BROWN BEARS IN ALASKA
Just passing by (cough, cough) and decided for a visit. Interesting post, Shadow. I assume the 3 largest boars (1519, 1483 and 1245 pounds) were shot in fall? Any pictures available to enable us to compare a bear of that weight with a human? Still have this one I found in the National Geographic a long time ago. This male was 900 pounds (408,24 kg.):  *This image is copyright of its original author This was posted at AVA many years ago. Enormous print:  *This image is copyright of its original author
(12-11-2018, 08:08 AM)peter Wrote: LARGE WILD BROWN BEARS IN ALASKA I assume, that biggest have to be shot in fall, it wasn´t said there. But I think, that only that lightest one of these three mentioned would be possible also in summertime if big one. I hope to get more information about these bears, but we will see. And no, no photos. Most impressive photos, which I have seen are these ones, which I think, that many have seen. But most of these photos are taken in a way, that making bear look as big as possible.... still interesting photos to look. Here is a link if someone haven´t seen this gallery. https://www.wideopenspaces.com/gallery-h...ears-pics/ It is a pity, that hunters take photos in a way, that always putting animal in front of hunter and twisting scales making it difficult to make accurate comparisons. But there are some measurements too in that gallery which can be interesting. I add here another link. If someone is interested, here is a story behind one of the bears in that gallery, "Bob Fromme bear". Interesting article even though pity that these bears are hunted. But at least there is strict control for that hunting. http://www.bowhuntingmag.com/editorial/g...ook/310963
Well @
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-the-kin...3#pid63873 Shall we continue?
A little bit about bear size compared to humans. Often there are photos from hunters and taken so, that animal looks as big as possible. Then many people look funny videos about captive bears and have good time. But how many take a little bit time and look at those videos from that point of view, that there is often really good material to see humans and different sized bears (same with other animals too) side by side and by pausing videos to look at still pictures there is a good way to compare size. Here some good videos.
First is a Kodiak bear (said to be about 9 feet when standing on hind legs, so it is big, but there are way bigger too) weighing about 1400 lbs (635 kg). It is captive so it is quite heavy naturally. There are still photos, but look at those situations, where bear puts paw on back of this man there. Head size is easy to see in many occasions. Also when bear sits while this man standing right behind it, is also a good place to compare size. Then here is Kodiak bear, which was shot, said to be 10-11 years old. Pity, that there is no more information, but shot in spring time. Looking to be quite robust though. Best place to compare size is between 11:40 - 12:45. Last one here is captive bear from Russia, weight 350 kg (772 lbs), no other information about size, maybe around 7 feet tall on hind legs (just rough estimation what it could be). Here also many good places to stop footage and compare head and paws to humans as well as overall size. In videos people are in front of bear, behind and side by side and "hugging" etc. So these are very good for some comparisons when understanding conditions and having some facts about size, age etc. (12-13-2018, 12:43 AM)Panther Wrote: Well @ And the answer is.... ? (12-22-2018, 07:03 PM)brotherbear Wrote: And the answer is.... ? That post is almost 10 days ago, before you pulled it to "king of bears..."thread. You asking me now, where we already stopped that argument for having insufficient information? Really weird! Please read my last post in "king of bears..." thread!
When thinking trophy hunters going to Alaska and Kodiak islands, it feels pretty odd to think, that bear this size would be considered too small by the most ambitious hunters..... "only" 8 and half feet tall on hind legs.... if forgetting weight, which is of course quite big when captive bear... Trophy hunters prefer to find at least 9 feet but hoping for 10 feet or more.... I know, that many have seen Bart II but this video also is a good one to compare and understand size in quit different way, than looking just some numbers in statistics.
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |