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.
My intention wasn't to push anything further; you asked me where I get the idea from that 9y would be the usual age where brown bears completed their growth. The authors mentioned that certain measurements kept growing until 9y of age, some even until 10y of age in the case of peninsula grizzlies, that's where I got the idea from. I just responded to the question that you have asked me.
You are not frank, you are accusing me of posting misinformation. I just posted the numbers of certain datasets and their relation to each other, no interpretation or personal statements attached to it by me.
I mean look at your postings. When you calculated differences in between age classes what comes to Yellowstone NP and Alaskan peninsula you had ~23% and ~34%. Then suddenly with Kodiak bears ~70%... quite a difference there, don´t you think? That kind of difference creates more questions than it gives answers. One obvious thing to look at are used averages and to what those are based on because it looks quite clear, that something has to be wrong.
"Males reached mean adult size in 7 of the 11 dimensions by 6 years (body length, girth, height at the shoulder, neck circumference, head length, front pad length, and rear pad width) and in all 11 by 9 years."
This is from Blanchard's study. The 4 dimensions that still kept growing until 9y of age were the contour length (body length over the curves), the width of the head, the width of the front pad and the length of the rear pad. So according to the measurements they listed, those male grizzly bears weren't fully grown in all dimensions until the age of 9 years.
This note is from Glenn's work:
"At least 95 percent of ultimate male dimensions of height at shoulder, total body length, body length, hind-foot length, skull length, chest girth and neck circumference were completed by 6 years; weight and total skull size by 8 years and zygomatic width by 10 years."
Note that he is referring to 95% here in contrast to Blanchard's work; based on skull measurements it may last until 10y of age until we can speak of a fully grown brown bear in terms of certain cranial/morphological attributes.
This next quote refers to Blanchard's study again:
"In general, males appeared to steadily gain weight annually until at least 15 years of age (Fig. 2)."
The annual weight growth of males may last until 15y of age; so a fully grown brown bear in terms of body measurements and body weight may be relatively old pushing the 15y mark.
"So claiming that 455 kg would be average weight of Kodiak bears in spring time doesn´t stand up critical scrutiny."
I didn't claim anything so far; I just posted the results of three datasets without any personal evaluation of mine. I agree with you that the sample size is very low and respective changes with an increased sample size are unpredictable. My question therefore: You are a very experienced poster, are you aware of any additional data listing the weight of fully grown Kodiak bears? I am only aware of the 1969 study on them, maybe there is something you have at hand that I don't know about; we might be able to increase the sample size then.
I didn´t see there any real justification to use 9+ years old as fully grown. Trying to push it further and further is artificial thing to do. When looking at it how things are commonly considered, an 8 years old bear can be considered to be fully grown. They do get more robust still, but overall differences are marginal. Some discussion can be when talking about biggest of the big bears, but overall it´s better to use commonly agreed age ranges to avoid confusion.
And what comes to sample size of two, it´s beyond low, frankly saying it´s useless. So stating some weight changes 70% based on useless information is just the same. It´s unreliable and useless statement. I´m sorry to be this frank, but here in wildfact idea is to avoid spreading misinformation and sometimes things are said frankly.
My intention wasn't to push anything further; you asked me where I get the idea from that 9y would be the usual age where brown bears completed their growth. The authors mentioned that certain measurements kept growing until 9y of age, some even until 10y of age in the case of peninsula grizzlies, that's where I got the idea from. I just responded to the question that you have asked me.
You are not frank, you are accusing me of posting misinformation. I just posted the numbers of certain datasets and their relation to each other, no interpretation or personal statements attached to it by me.
I mean look at your postings. When you calculated differences in between age classes what comes to Yellowstone NP and Alaskan peninsula you had ~23% and ~34%. Then suddenly with Kodiak bears ~70%... quite a difference there, don´t you think? That kind of difference creates more questions than it gives answers. One obvious thing to look at are used averages and to what those are based on because it looks quite clear, that something has to be wrong.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. But posting this data doesn't mean it's misinformation, the numbers are calculated correctly. Blank numbers and interpretation of those numbers are two very different things; yes, the sample size of the Kodiak bears was very low and therefore the meaningfulness can be questioned.
But me posting this is no illegal forum action like spreading misinformation, if I would have attached some personal reference like "This must be labeled as the average weight of Kodiak bears and the sample sizes definitely are very reliable". Then you could have said that I am spreading misinformation, yes, but not for just posting raw data, that's not illegal here.
I posted three datasets, raw numbers and their relation to each other. You could have adressed that there is a high danger that this can be misinterpreted and could lack reliability. Instead you accused me of:
1. Pushing wrong things further and further 2. Posting useless information 3. Producing useless statements 4. Spreading misinformation
The excerpt you shared referred to Hildebrand et al. (2018) as the original source for their exclusion of brown bears below 8y of age. This is part of Hildebrand's excerpt:
"Full body‐frame size, as evidenced by asymptotic skull size and body length, was achieved by 8–14 years of age across populations and sexes. Lean body mass of both sexes continued to increase throughout their life."
So for one point they are solely referring to two measurements (body length and skull size) whereas the excerpts I shared take much more aspects into account and for another point they give a general range of 8-14y for the completion of full body-frame size. Picking out the lowest number and disregarding the general range could also be questioned.
Criticism is always present here. I understand that it can feel bad sometimes, but as said, your postings now had very questionable things included. Same kind of discussions happen here concerning different species every now and then. And it´s good because then people visiting here can see different points of views and what details should be noticed and considered when evaluating some numbers or information.
"Males reached mean adult size in 7 of the 11 dimensions by 6 years (body length, girth, height at the shoulder, neck circumference, head length, front pad length, and rear pad width) and in all 11 by 9 years."
This is from Blanchard's study. The 4 dimensions that still kept growing until 9y of age were the contour length (body length over the curves), the width of the head, the width of the front pad and the length of the rear pad. So according to the measurements they listed, those male grizzly bears weren't fully grown in all dimensions until the age of 9 years.
This note is from Glenn's work:
"At least 95 percent of ultimate male dimensions of height at shoulder, total body length, body length, hind-foot length, skull length, chest girth and neck circumference were completed by 6 years; weight and total skull size by 8 years and zygomatic width by 10 years."
Note that he is referring to 95% here in contrast to Blanchard's work; based on skull measurements it may last until 10y of age until we can speak of a fully grown brown bear in terms of certain cranial/morphological attributes.
This next quote refers to Blanchard's study again:
"In general, males appeared to steadily gain weight annually until at least 15 years of age (Fig. 2)."
The annual weight growth of males may last until 15y of age; so a fully grown brown bear in terms of body measurements and body weight may be relatively old pushing the 15y mark.
"So claiming that 455 kg would be average weight of Kodiak bears in spring time doesn´t stand up critical scrutiny."
I didn't claim anything so far; I just posted the results of three datasets without any personal evaluation of mine. I agree with you that the sample size is very low and respective changes with an increased sample size are unpredictable. My question therefore: You are a very experienced poster, are you aware of any additional data listing the weight of fully grown Kodiak bears? I am only aware of the 1969 study on them, maybe there is something you have at hand that I don't know about; we might be able to increase the sample size then.
I didn´t see there any real justification to use 9+ years old as fully grown. Trying to push it further and further is artificial thing to do. When looking at it how things are commonly considered, an 8 years old bear can be considered to be fully grown. They do get more robust still, but overall differences are marginal. Some discussion can be when talking about biggest of the big bears, but overall it´s better to use commonly agreed age ranges to avoid confusion.
And what comes to sample size of two, it´s beyond low, frankly saying it´s useless. So stating some weight changes 70% based on useless information is just the same. It´s unreliable and useless statement. I´m sorry to be this frank, but here in wildfact idea is to avoid spreading misinformation and sometimes things are said frankly.
My intention wasn't to push anything further; you asked me where I get the idea from that 9y would be the usual age where brown bears completed their growth. The authors mentioned that certain measurements kept growing until 9y of age, some even until 10y of age in the case of peninsula grizzlies, that's where I got the idea from. I just responded to the question that you have asked me.
You are not frank, you are accusing me of posting misinformation. I just posted the numbers of certain datasets and their relation to each other, no interpretation or personal statements attached to it by me.
I mean look at your postings. When you calculated differences in between age classes what comes to Yellowstone NP and Alaskan peninsula you had ~23% and ~34%. Then suddenly with Kodiak bears ~70%... quite a difference there, don´t you think? That kind of difference creates more questions than it gives answers. One obvious thing to look at are used averages and to what those are based on because it looks quite clear, that something has to be wrong.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. But posting this data doesn't mean it's misinformation, the numbers are calculated correctly. Blank numbers and interpretation of those numbers are two very different things; yes, the sample size of the Kodiak bears was very low and therefore the meaningfulness can be questioned.
But me posting this is no illegal forum action like spreading misinformation, if I would have attached some personal reference like "This must be labeled as the average weight of Kodiak bears and the sample sizes definitely are very reliable". Then you could have said that I am spreading misinformation, yes, but not for just posting raw data, that's not illegal here.
And no, not illegal, of course not. But response can be frank. Overall I see you as a decent poster, don´t worry. My style usually is to go to the point, sorry that it made you feel bad. These things can be discussed. But when you make... hmmmm.... "chart like" postings (if it can be said so) then I would recommend to think over when some information is questionable and put some remarks there. What comes to Kodiak bears sadly there isn´t too much good information what comes to exact weights.
12-26-2020, 04:11 PM( This post was last modified: 12-26-2020, 05:24 PM by johnny rex )
A size comparison between a skull of a 19 years old Kenai brown bear (Alaskan coastal brown bear) on the left and a skull of a 22 years old grizzly bear (inland brown bear) on the right.
(12-26-2020, 04:11 PM)johnny rex Wrote: A size comparison between a skull of a 19 years old Kenai brown bear (Alaskan coastal brown bear) on the left and a skull of a 22 years old grizzly bear (inland brown bear) on the right.
This is a good photo. Good thing to notice is, that Alaskan bears skull is almost world record size, only approximately 0,5 cm less, which is 0,22 inch. Then again inland brown bear skull isn´t similar representative but smaller. So this pair is like biggest of the big against closer to average inland brown bear.
While biggest Kodiak bear skull has been 45,56 cm long, biggest inland brown bears have had skull lengths around 40 cm too. I think, that this is good to know when looking at this photo.
(12-26-2020, 04:11 PM)johnny rex Wrote: A size comparison between a skull of a 19 years old Kenai brown bear (Alaskan coastal brown bear) on the left and a skull of a 22 years old grizzly bear (inland brown bear) on the right.
This is a good photo. Good thing to notice is, that Alaskan bears skull is almost world record size, only approximately 0,5 cm less, which is 0,22 inch. Then again inland brown bear skull isn´t similar representative but smaller. So this pair is like biggest of the big against closer to average inland brown bear.
While biggest Kodiak bear skull has been 45,56 cm long, biggest inland brown bears have had skull lengths around 40 cm too. I think, that this is good to know when looking at this photo.
If you measure the grizzly skull with the scale in the photo above, the grizzly skull is approximately 40 cm.
12-27-2020, 10:06 AM( This post was last modified: 12-27-2020, 10:09 AM by johnny rex )
According to this https://www.boone-crockett.org/bc-worlds...izzly-bear, the largest grizzly skull is from Alaska. The width is two inches less than the largest Kodiak bear, and the length is just 0.12 inch less.
(12-26-2020, 04:11 PM)johnny rex Wrote: A size comparison between a skull of a 19 years old Kenai brown bear (Alaskan coastal brown bear) on the left and a skull of a 22 years old grizzly bear (inland brown bear) on the right.
This is a good photo. Good thing to notice is, that Alaskan bears skull is almost world record size, only approximately 0,5 cm less, which is 0,22 inch. Then again inland brown bear skull isn´t similar representative but smaller. So this pair is like biggest of the big against closer to average inland brown bear.
While biggest Kodiak bear skull has been 45,56 cm long, biggest inland brown bears have had skull lengths around 40 cm too. I think, that this is good to know when looking at this photo.
If you measure the grizzly skull with the scale in the photo above, the grizzly skull is approximately 40 cm.
I measured and that smaller skull has length of approximately 36 cm when knowing that bigger one is 45 cm.
I discussed with a representative with Finnish hunter organization and learned, that longest bear skull from Finland is also 45 cm, but narrower than what Alaskan and Kodiak bears have. This record bear what comes to skull length has skull width 23,52 cm and it´s biggest skull from here. Then there are many bear skulls around 40 cm long.
Naturally when putting two random skulls to a photo it can happen that one is almost world record class and other one isn´t same kind. While Kodiak and coastal brown bears in Alaska have bigger skulls than grizzlies I´m not sure if that photo is representing average difference.
(12-26-2020, 04:11 PM)johnny rex Wrote: A size comparison between a skull of a 19 years old Kenai brown bear (Alaskan coastal brown bear) on the left and a skull of a 22 years old grizzly bear (inland brown bear) on the right.
This is a good photo. Good thing to notice is, that Alaskan bears skull is almost world record size, only approximately 0,5 cm less, which is 0,22 inch. Then again inland brown bear skull isn´t similar representative but smaller. So this pair is like biggest of the big against closer to average inland brown bear.
While biggest Kodiak bear skull has been 45,56 cm long, biggest inland brown bears have had skull lengths around 40 cm too. I think, that this is good to know when looking at this photo.
If you measure the grizzly skull with the scale in the photo above, the grizzly skull is approximately 40 cm.
I measured and that smaller skull has length of approximately 36 cm when knowing that bigger one is 45 cm.
I discussed with a representative with Finnish hunter organization and learned, that longest bear skull from Finland is also 45 cm, but narrower than what Alaskan and Kodiak bears have. This record bear what comes to skull length has skull width 23,52 cm and it´s biggest skull from here. Then there are many bear skulls around 40 cm long.
Naturally when putting two random skulls to a photo it can happen that one is almost world record class and other one isn´t same kind. While Kodiak and coastal brown bears in Alaska have bigger skulls than grizzlies I´m not sure if that photo is representing average difference.
It simply means there are varieties of different shapes between brown bears. While the length of the largest inland grizzlies approached the size of the largest coastal brown bears, coastal brown bear skulls tend to be wider.
(12-26-2020, 04:11 PM)johnny rex Wrote: A size comparison between a skull of a 19 years old Kenai brown bear (Alaskan coastal brown bear) on the left and a skull of a 22 years old grizzly bear (inland brown bear) on the right.
This is a good photo. Good thing to notice is, that Alaskan bears skull is almost world record size, only approximately 0,5 cm less, which is 0,22 inch. Then again inland brown bear skull isn´t similar representative but smaller. So this pair is like biggest of the big against closer to average inland brown bear.
While biggest Kodiak bear skull has been 45,56 cm long, biggest inland brown bears have had skull lengths around 40 cm too. I think, that this is good to know when looking at this photo.
If you measure the grizzly skull with the scale in the photo above, the grizzly skull is approximately 40 cm.
I measured and that smaller skull has length of approximately 36 cm when knowing that bigger one is 45 cm.
I discussed with a representative with Finnish hunter organization and learned, that longest bear skull from Finland is also 45 cm, but narrower than what Alaskan and Kodiak bears have. This record bear what comes to skull length has skull width 23,52 cm and it´s biggest skull from here. Then there are many bear skulls around 40 cm long.
Naturally when putting two random skulls to a photo it can happen that one is almost world record class and other one isn´t same kind. While Kodiak and coastal brown bears in Alaska have bigger skulls than grizzlies I´m not sure if that photo is representing average difference.
It simply means there are varieties of different shapes between brown bears. While the length of the largest inland grizzlies approached the size of the largest coastal brown bears, coastal brown bear skulls tend to be wider.
Naturally. My point to put some measurements was to show, that those two skulls in the photo aren´t necessarily showing average size difference. And it´s something good to remember when looking at those skulls.
Bear Size ~
