WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Carnivorous and Omnivores Animals, Excluding Felids
›
Bears
Bear Anatomy
Bear Anatomy
|
Bear Anatomy
|
 (12-10-2018, 01:46 AM)Panther Wrote:Of course it is interesting to understand what someone is wanting to show if there is quoted some chart or document. That´s why I asked about your agenda so, that it is easier to understand what you want to point out. There are so many research documents, that naturally there are time to time some contradictions or at least information which can look like to be contradictory before looking closer to details. But it was nice to get some clarity here, because bears are interesting animals.(12-10-2018, 01:20 AM)Shadow Wrote: I still don´t get your point here. Yes, polar bears are biggest bears what comes to size in average. But what are you now trying to say with these charts?Why are so curious about my agenda? I'm just showing the average of Kodiak bear is no way near to polar bear in that thread. I have no agenda or nothing. I'll always go through facts.  (12-10-2018, 02:14 AM)Shadow Wrote: Of course it is interesting to understand what someone is wanting to show if there is quoted some chart or document. That´s why I asked about your agenda so, that it is easier to understand what you want to point out. There are so many research documents, that naturally there are time to time some contradictions or at least information which can look like to be contradictory before looking closer to details. But it was nice to get some clarity here, because bears are interesting animals. I'm just here to show the real average of Kodiak bear. Many people has no clear information on this subject, even me until I saw vodmeister's post on Carnivora. A scientifical research is more credible than a estimate from a expert. Of course they are very interesting.. (12-10-2018, 02:43 AM)Panther Wrote:(12-10-2018, 02:14 AM)Shadow Wrote: Of course it is interesting to understand what someone is wanting to show if there is quoted some chart or document. That´s why I asked about your agenda so, that it is easier to understand what you want to point out. There are so many research documents, that naturally there are time to time some contradictions or at least information which can look like to be contradictory before looking closer to details. But it was nice to get some clarity here, because bears are interesting animals. You haven´t yet showed real average of Kodiaks, that I disagree strongly. Charts you shared aren´t giving clear picture. First one is not good for comparisons, then another one had +6 year Kodiaks and+9 years from Alaska peninsula. Then you had one research from Yellowstone. You have to do better if you use words like "real average". Now you use way too big words here compared to quality of information which you have shared. (12-10-2018, 02:47 AM)Shadow Wrote: You haven´t yet showed real average of Kodiaks, that I disagree strongly. Charts you shared aren´t giving clear picture. First one is not good for comparisons, then another one had +6 year Kodiaks and+9 years from Alaska peninsula. Then you had one research from Yellowstone. Well, can I ask you why the first one is not good for comparisons? I already proven that it's not my cherry picked data, it's from a known respectable poster called "vodmeister". You can ask him the full study, but I guess he's not active right now. And what's wrong with the second chart of 6+ year old individuals? I already showed the scientifical proof of male Brown bears reaching adult size at 6 years. And 6+ isn't equal to 6. It means more than 6 like 7, 8, 9,etc.. but starts from more than 6 year old specimen. The Yellowstone research is the same one that gives second chart. I've done what I had to do. You disagreeing with a two different studies is way too much for anyone. Really. Maybe your personal feelings, but this is a public forum. The quality of the information I provided is fine. You have yet to prove otherwise. You disagreeing it by calling "random old charts" is really ridiculous. Also don't make it too lengthy with less subject, I mean use some data to back up your claims. Because it'll be easier to get a conclusion... (12-10-2018, 03:01 AM)Panther Wrote:(12-10-2018, 02:47 AM)Shadow Wrote: You haven´t yet showed real average of Kodiaks, that I disagree strongly. Charts you shared aren´t giving clear picture. First one is not good for comparisons, then another one had +6 year Kodiaks and+9 years from Alaska peninsula. Then you had one research from Yellowstone. I gave some criticism and told already reason and reasoning. This is indeed public forum and all people looking this thread can check things I mentioned and reason why I am not convinced now. At this point really all relevant things have been said and also I don´t see any point to continue and go to some endless nonsense. If someone comes up with some new information, then of course interesting to discuss :) 
Guys, let's move on.
You can remain at odds, but try not to ruin the ambience of this place by overheating the debate. (12-10-2018, 03:08 AM)Shadow Wrote: I gave some criticism and told already reason and reasoning. This is indeed public forum and all people looking this thread can check things I mentioned and reason why I am not convinced now. At this point really all relevant things have been said and also I don´t see any point to continue and go to some endless nonsense. If someone comes up with some new information, then of course interesting to discuss :) You're actually testing my patience. Your reasoning is nothing but calling them "not good", "old" or "unreliable". You have yet to prove your own claims. And telling me disagreeing two different studies is ridiculous. We've gone through more than a weak. And now you claiming that you need new information to discuss is disgusting. I mean heck, the whole Carnivora (even Warsaw) has no counter for those weights when vodmeister posted. But why it's that hard to realise that average adult isn't prime specimen and 6+ isn't equal to 6 years. I agreed that the second chart of 300kgs average isn't that credible. That first one(312kgs) is definitely based on larger individuals and is accurate.. (12-10-2018, 03:19 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Guys, let's move on. @GrizzlyClaws , tell me what is your opinion on this? I mean the second chart by vodmeister is giving 688lbs. Which is based on 10 "adult" specimens. I guess the average would be around 700 or 720lbs for kodiaK bears. (12-10-2018, 03:32 AM)Panther Wrote:(12-10-2018, 03:19 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Guys, let's move on. I haven't checked the whole context of this debate, but the 700+ lbs figure looks sound to me. Since the bear intrinsically has more fluctuation between the average and extreme outlier, hence 1500+ lbs specimens aren't out of norm based on a half-sized average.
12-10-2018, 07:03 AM
( This post was last modified: 12-10-2018, 07:49 AM by Shadow
Edit Reason: adjusting text
)
(12-10-2018, 03:27 AM)Panther Wrote:(12-10-2018, 03:08 AM)Shadow Wrote: I gave some criticism and told already reason and reasoning. This is indeed public forum and all people looking this thread can check things I mentioned and reason why I am not convinced now. At this point really all relevant things have been said and also I don´t see any point to continue and go to some endless nonsense. If someone comes up with some new information, then of course interesting to discuss :) To make this clear. I don´t test or care about your patience. And I haven´t been here on this topic a week. I just wanted to know, that what is the point here in recent discussion what happened between you and brotherbear because I wasn´t quite sure what you wanted to point out. So I asked about it until I got some idea. I know, that those charts are from different researches, but those charts are also somewhat problematic to make too big conclusions. They give a reason to ask questions, but then again not giving solid answers. For instance in one chart is given bigger average weight to bears at Alaskan peninsula area (specimens started from 3 years older bears than Kodiaks compared, detail which isn´t meaningless), but then again in biggest individuals Kodiak bear was 169 kg heavier, that´s about 372 lbs in favor of Kodiak bear. Quite interesting. Then again weights in that chart concerning Kodiaks seemed to be from year 1969 and what comes to Alaska peninsula from years 1976 and 1980. And it was same thing in females, biggest individual was Kodiak. I´m sorry but even though information is there, it doesn´t look like information from which could be made too big conclusions to any direction. So I don´t disagree about figures on charts. But I disagree that those figures would give clear comparison what comes to Kodiak bears and other brown bears. Why I give criticism to for instance comparison made about 6+ years bears compared to 9+ years old bears... There is no information how many Kodiaks were 6-9 years old on that chart. That combined to information how male Kodiak bears grow (Males continue to grow, gaining approximately 100 lbs. (45.45 kg) per year until they are eight to ten years old and weigh 500 to 1000 lbs. (227.27 – 454.54 kg)) leaves there quite big possibility to have twisted information and comparison. And what comes to males, there were only 5 from Alaskan peninsula and only 10 from Kodiak in chart giving to Kodiaks (6+) average weight of 300 kg and to bears from Alaskan peninsula (9+) average weight of 389 kg. So there is possibility, that for instance 6-7 Kodiaks were only 6 years old. If assuming, that 5 were 6 years old and 3 were 7 years old, we should add to mentioned total weight (3000 kg) 954,45 kg and suddenly comparable average weight of these Kodiak bears would be 395,5 kg... assuming, that growing normally. This is of course now speculation, but point is that those charts leave a lot of room for it. So little numbers of specimens there, that quite impossible to make big conclusion in any case. Of course those charts open up a good reason to look closer and make questions, but too many problems there to talk about real average weights. At least I don´t buy it yet if nothing more to back up such claim. Nothing personal, just how I see it. (12-10-2018, 05:36 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: I haven't checked the whole context of this debate, but the 700+ lbs figure looks sound to me. I don't understand. Are you agreeing with this 700lbs figure? What would be the average without stomach contents? Since Brown bears pack fat, I have no doubt that larger males significantly vary. Also how much the largest Kodiak bear ever walked weighed without stomach contents? (12-10-2018, 07:03 AM)Shadow Wrote: To make this clear. I don´t test or care about your patience. And I haven´t been here on this topic a week. I just wanted to know, that what is the point here in recent discussion what happened between you and brotherbear because I wasn´t quite sure what you wanted to point out. So I asked about it until I got some idea. I can only suggest you to read the previous replies. There you got the answer. Calling my data "old", "unreliable" without proving otherwise just because you are not agreeing with that is called testing patience of me. Quote:I know, that those charts are from different researches, but those charts are also somewhat problematic to make too big conclusions.They give a reason to ask questions, but then again not giving solid answers. For instance in one chart is given bigger average weight to bears at Alaskan peninsula area (specimens started from 3 years older bears than Kodiaks compared, detail which isn´t meaningless), but then again in biggest individuals Kodiak bear was 169 kg heavier, that´s about 372 lbs in favor of Kodiak bear. Quite interesting. Then again weights in that chart concerning Kodiaks seemed to be from year 1969 and what comes to Alaska peninsula from years 1976 and 1980. And it was same thing in females, biggest individual was Kodiak.I don't know the issue with the years. But the average of Alaska peninsula Brown bears in this chart is based on just 5 specimens.  *This image is copyright of its original author Given an average of 389kgs while the max is just being 442kgs (a mere 50kgs difference) is not accurate I say. If more bears weighed, then the value would be much less than that. Also it's discussed here on this site that Alaska peninsula Brown bears are being larger on average than kodiaK bears. Quote:I´m sorry but even though information is there, it doesn´t look like information from which could be made too big conclusions to any direction.It is, but you're not in a condition to agree with that. It's ok. Quote:Why I give criticism to for instance comparison made about 6+ years bears compared to 9+ years old bears... There is no information how many Kodiaks were 6-9 years old on that chart. That combined to information how male Kodiak bears grow (Males continue to grow, gaining approximately 100 lbs. (45.45 kg) per year until they are eight to ten years old and weigh 500 to 1000 lbs. (227.27 – 454.54 kg)) leaves there quite big possibility to have twisted information and comparison.The average for 9+ year old bears is just based on 5 specimens, along with them being prime males compared to the average adult (6+ year) Kodiak bears. Also 6+ means more than 6. So don't count it from 6 but 7. Those 10 attained the maximum of 611kgs, I don't think they're all young adults. Also I strongly disagree with that chart, I guess the first chart of 700lbs sounds accurate. Quote:And what comes to males, there were only 5 from Alaskan peninsula and only 10 from Kodiak in chart giving to Kodiaks (6+) average weight of 300 kg and to bears from Alaskan peninsula (9+) average weight of 389 kg. So there is possibility, that for instance 6-7 Kodiaks were only 6 years old. If assuming, that 5 were 6 years old and 3 were 7 years old, we should add to mentioned total weight (3000 kg) 954,45 kg and suddenly comparable average weight of these Kodiak bears would be 395,5 kg... assuming, that growing normally. This is of course now speculation, but point is that those charts leave a lot of room for it. So little numbers of specimens there, that quite impossible to make big conclusion in any case. How could it be, when it stated the individuals in the chart are 6+ year old? 6+ means more than 6, so count from 7. Also the difference between average and maximum of those 5 Alaska peninsula Brown Bears is very minimal. It's clearly not accurate, and based on prime specimens. Sorry, your calculation is wrong. Quote:Of course those charts open up a good reason to look closer and make questions, but too many problems there to talk about real average weights. At least I don´t buy it yet if nothing more to back up such claim. Nothing personal, just how I see it. You're using very large words that surpassing the words of peter, Guategojira, and tigerluver,etc.. Please don't make it heated discussion. I answered each of your questions. I guess you can understand the logic behind those conclusions... (12-10-2018, 09:04 AM)Panther Wrote:(12-10-2018, 05:36 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: I haven't checked the whole context of this debate, but the 700+ lbs figure looks sound to me. Something like 1800 lbsish pre-hibernation, and 1200 lbish post-hibernation? The post-hibernation Brown bear can also look abnormally skinny, thus I take the median number like 1500 lbsish in the summer. (12-10-2018, 10:10 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Something like 1800 lbsish pre-hibernation, and 1200 lbish post-hibernation? So this is the weight of exceptional males without stomach contents?
Also if the KodiaK bear is 800lbs on average, the average without stomach contents might be 710lbs, right?
Since Brown bears eat as much as 90 pounds in one sitting.. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 5 Guest(s) |