There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
12-18-2018, 05:55 PM( This post was last modified: 12-18-2018, 06:29 PM by Shadow )
(12-18-2018, 02:49 PM)Panther Wrote:
(12-18-2018, 02:35 PM)Shadow Wrote: Problem here really is, that researchers aren´t giving enough information always. Troyer-Hensel chart is only one telling about ages of weighed Kodiak bears and also some information about weighing times. About other bears in charts recently posted here, we have less information.
And it looks like Troyer-Hensel chart is source for information about Kodiak bears in other charts too. Notice sample sizes, males 10, females 16 and make comparison to Troyer-Hensel chart of bears aged 6-9 years old. Female average weights confirm this conclusion, with male weights there is something odd, but it is clear, that Troyer-Hensel had some weighings more than there is in that chart of theirs and that unknown information and how it has been used can be the reason, that we have some issue with male weights. I am personally trying to find out reason for that.
But anyway situation is, that no matter who puts charts here, same questions stay. Is it known, that what are ages of weighed bears, time of weighing and sample number. I for instance replied about same things when Peter and Guate gave some charts and figures. So here really is nothing personal.
All animals have some unique features and people who know those things do demand certain quality when information is offered and especially if there is purpose to make comparisons. If certain relevant things are not known, then there is no point to debate so much, but to focus finding more information.
If I would put here charts about 2-3 year old male bengal tigers and a chart about siberian tigers without any other information, but male siberian tigers and offering some conclusion based on those, I am sure, that I would be questioned. People would remind me, that am I mixing now sub adults to adults etc. etc.
What else can anyone expect here?
Of course you're right! Troyer hensel chart gave ages. And 8-9 year old is the last age for males to reach adulthood.
Information in my study is ofcourse clear enough to get answers. If you think logically, the study is based on Brown bears started from age-class of 8years. Those aren't small bears either.
What I'm telling is the more bears weighed, the troyer-hensel chart will give the value close to 800lbs.
Also 2-3 year old tigers aren't even sexually mature. Not a good comparison with what I'm doing here.
Yes, 8-9 years bears are quite big already and some rough estimations can be of course done, I agree to that. I can´t say with current information how good value 800 lbs is, but it is plausible, not something to call impossible by any means. But at this point I don´t feel comfortable to give too much estimations, because still hoping to get more information. If we get good information, that number maybe go down, but it can also go up.
What comes to bear weights concerning other areas of Alaska, that mean weight can be looked to be as you suggest. Problem is, that we have no idea about time of year when weighings are done. So again situation is, that not possible to make big conclusions.
I personally am seeking charts/information, where is told, as I have said before 1. age or age group of bears 2. Time of year when bear is weighed 3. Number of bears weighed.
Can we find such information is another thing. As hunters have told, they are usually unable to weight big bears. That is naturally difficult for researchers too. If not, I think, that we would have a lot of good information to use.
My comparison about tigers wasn´t meant to be 1:1 to this situation, but this whole conversation started from a claim, which created many questions. Same thing would happen from that kind of comparison. And you kind of proved my point saying immediately, that even that example was bad :)
I think, that you made a good question by bringing up this topic about Kodiak bears and Alaskan coastal bears to be looked up. It brought up then another issue, do we have any good information what could be compared so, that no-one could argue in serious way? I think, that not yet. With all the respect to bear experts in North America, if current charts here with current explanations are the best there are..... not particularly impressive if so.