WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Carnivorous and Omnivores Animals, Excluding Felids
›
Bears
Bear Size ~
Bear Size ~
|
Bear Size ~
|
 (01-10-2016, 06:08 AM)Pckts Wrote: I'm not trying to start a vs debate, the info you provided makes great sense to me @Polar.The claws of a grizzly are strong for digging and do considerable damage in a fight. The shorter claws of the polar bear are more deeply hooked so that it can grasp prey cat-like. Therefore, in the claw department, imo equal. As for the jaws, the polar bear has longer canines and teeth better suited for tearing flesh. However, his diet is well over 90% soft blubber and as bears go his bite force is not so great. The grizzly has a powerful bite; according to Casey Anderson, producing enough force to crush a bowling ball. However, his molars are designed for crushing vegetation. Therefore imo their jaws rank equal. So, who might win in a face-off between a Kodiak bear and a polar bear? I don't care. As I stated, each is the ruler of his own realm.
Polar, I do not doubt the 2,210 pound record-sized polar bear. It is not beyond the realm of possibilities. Kodiaks have been recorded at 2,000 pounds in captivity. There may be some of such size in the wild; hunters rarely weigh their kills. Also, according to both Grraahh and my old friend Big Bonns, the biggest grizzly is the older and wiser bear who knows how to avoid humans. When the ( rangers ) do their annual bear studies, they are most interested in population size and the health of the bears. Measuring and weighing bears is not their top priority. Therefore, they do not spend long hours or days seeking out big bears. They simply routinely tranquilize bears at random. Also, when they claim an average size for adult male bears, they include bears as young as 5 years old. This is like including 12 or 13 year old boys into the average size of mature men.
Bottom line, the polar bear is the world's biggest bear with the Kodiak bears running a close second.  (01-10-2016, 06:58 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Polar, I do not doubt the 2,210 pound record-sized polar bear. It is not beyond the realm of possibilities. Kodiaks have been recorded at 2,000 pounds in captivity. There may be some of such size in the wild; hunters rarely weigh their kills. Also, according to both Grraahh and my old friend Big Bonns, the biggest grizzly is the older and wiser bear who knows how to avoid humans. When the ( rangers ) do their annual bear studies, they are most interested in population size and the health of the bears. Measuring and weighing bears is not their top priority. Therefore, they do not spend long hours or days seeking out big bears. They simply routinely tranquilize bears at random. Also, when they claim an average size for adult male bears, they include bears as young as 5 years old. This is like including 12 or 13 year old boys into the average size of mature men. Referring to the supposed "2,210 pound specimen," it was a wild one, not captive. But all brown bears >1800 pounds that I've heard of were all raised in captivity, coupled with the fact that polar bears are larger in the wild than in captivity (in every other carnivore, it's the opposite). Theoretically, among modern bears, brown bears can obtain weights up to massive polar bears only if they were captive. In today's environment, I doubt a brown bear could reach the size of 2,400-pound Clyde, but back then, maybe they could? The thing is, modern polar bear weights aren't as diverse as before and the prey around their region (in fact, all regions besides Foxe Basin) are incredibly depleted. The aforementioned specimen was found on Kotzebue Sound in northern Alaska (which was and still is a prey-depleted site). I don't get how that polar bear could grow up to such sizes.
Polar bear grow bigger in the wild than in captivity. This is true. What zoo or circus could feed a bear a more weight-gaining meal than pure blubber? As for Clyde and Goliath, there is no doubt that they were huge. I'm not sure that their weights can be varified though. I believe that a Kodiak and possibly a Kamchatka brown bear might reach an extreme max of perhaps 2,000 pounds in captivity; or perhaps on a polar bears diet. But in the wild or in captivity in rare cases, I think that 1500 pounds is pretty much their normal max.
The polar bear is the bigger bear. He can outweigh the biggest brown bear by several hundred pounds. He is taller at shoulder height and at bipedal height. But, he has a few tricks up his sleeve. A polar bear has the longest legs of any living bear. This adds to his height. He has a longer neck and a long narrow skull adding length. Polar bears have an extra layer of fat for insulation and bouyancy. This adds weight. Polar bears are the world's largest and heaviest bears without a doubt. I'm just saying that the Kodiak bears, the biggest of the grizzlies comes in a close second. It's like comparing an African lion to a Bengal tiger. When you put them face-to-face, the size difference is not immediately obvious. Also keep in mind that when we look at a bear's family tree, we find the polar bear on the brown bear's branches. Even though scientifically the polar bear carries a different family name, Ursus maritimus, he is still basically a brown bear perfectly adapted to his arctic environment. Oh, and let's not forget the record Kodiak who weighed 1,600 pounds in the wild. I would call this polar bear sized. We have no way of knowing how many reach such weights as so very few are weighed. When it comes to size, no terrestrial predator living today can outmatch the polar bear. The Kodiak bear is often listed as the world's largest living terrestrial predator only because the polar bear is listed as aquatic.
The Grizzly Book by Jack Samson - A Gallery of Outlaw Grizzlies by W.P. Hubbard - Old Silver 1898 to 1901.
Old Silver tipped the scales at 984 pounds. He was a magnificent fellow with dark, bluish-gray, almost black, pelage. Silvery-white tinged the tips of the hair over his shoulders and along his back. The grizzly Book by Jack Samson - A gallery of Outlaw grizzlies by W.P. Hubbard - The Bandit 1899 to 1904. The Bandit weighed over 1,000 pounds. He had dark, beautiful thick fur, with a grayish tinge on the tips over his neck and shoulders, and along his back. The white hair, which gave the impression of a mask, extended across the face at the eye level and a short way down his nose. He was judged to be about 15 years old.
The Grizzly Book by Jack Samson - The Trouble with Grizzlies by Thomas Hardin.
The grizzly is by no means as large as his cousin the monster brown bear of Kodiak Island or the Alaskan Peninsula, which sometimes is reputed to weigh 1,500 pounds. Now and then a wild grizzly may weigh 1,000 pounds and I have seen one that I thought would weigh between 850 and 900, but the average big male will weigh from 500 to 600 pounds and the females from 300 to 400. A hide that will square eight feet is a very large one, and one that will square nine feet is tremendous. The average big grizzly's hide will square about seven feet. *I agree with these numbers.
Grizzly bears are big bears; some very big. They are top of the food chain predators. However, with the exception of those coastal populations which feed heavily on salmon, they are not prehistoric-sized giants. During the Pleistocene in North America, the grizzly coexisted with giant short-faced bears. However, in the end, the short-faced bear's great size may have contributed to his demise. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/...pes-giant/
I will edit and add: my favorite bears are not the coastal giant brown bears most often seen on nature documentaries, but the smaller and fiercer inland grizzlies.  *This image is copyright of its original author
The Grizzly Book by Jack Samson - The Big skull by Grancel Fitz.
In the case of bears, it wasn't hard to find. The world's record grizzly skull is in the National Museum in Washington. Since ( brown ) bears may live for 40 years or more, unless somebody shoots them, and since they keep getting bigger until they die, it is a fairly safe bet that this old monster was born in the great days of the bison, at least a century ago. The Grizzly Book by Jack Samson - Hunting the Grizzly Bear by Ned W. Frost. "Old Four Toes" was finally killed in 1908 by some local rancher-sportsman. The account of his death makes an exciting story. The men who killed him were accustomed to judging the weight of animals and they estimated this bear at eighteen hundred pounds. The hide measured twelve feet six inches long and eleven feet seven inches wide. Two weeks later they exhibited an eight-inch cube of fat taken from the animal's back after it had been compressed a great deal by packing it in under the pressure of a diamond-hitch. 
A 4.75 inches lower canine of a Cave bear, so its upper canine must have been an inch longer.
This bear could have a skull that exceeds 21 inches for sure.  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (01-10-2016, 06:36 AM)brotherbear Wrote:blubber may be "soft" but it is jam packed. It takes extremely sharp and powerful claws and teeth to rip through. The hide of walrus are notoriously tough.(01-10-2016, 06:08 AM)Pckts Wrote: I'm not trying to start a vs debate, the info you provided makes great sense to me @Polar.The claws of a grizzly are strong for digging and do considerable damage in a fight. The shorter claws of the polar bear are more deeply hooked so that it can grasp prey cat-like. Therefore, in the claw department, imo equal. As for the jaws, the polar bear has longer canines and teeth better suited for tearing flesh. However, his diet is well over 90% soft blubber and as bears go his bite force is not so great. The grizzly has a powerful bite; according to Casey Anderson, producing enough force to crush a bowling ball. However, his molars are designed for crushing vegetation. Therefore imo their jaws rank equal. Like I stated, polar bears weapons are designed for one thing only.... Killing Compared to a grizzly or Kodiak which have multiple uses. Digging, chewing and yes.. Killing as well. Just not as adapted to the trait as a polar. So when I compare two similarly sized animals, I lean towards the one with the better adaption for killing if that is what we're talking about of course. But all that being said, Nothing is set in stone and I wouldn't be surprised if one or the other won or lost in a fight.
The Kodiak bear is from but one population ( the term subspecies may be obsolete ) and even he, the biggest of the grizzlies, comes up short when compared to the polar bear in size. And yes, killing a walrus or a beluga whale is extremely impressive. As a whole, Ursus arctos would average I would guess little better than half the weight of a polar bear.
But south of the polar bear's realm there rules the grizzly. Where the grizzly bear and tiger domain merge, things get interesting.
California Grizzly by Tracy I. Storer and Lloyd P. Tevis, Jr.
At the rear, in a very large cage, was the monster grizzly Samson. He was an immense creature weighing some three-quarters of a ton; and from his look and actions, as well as from the care taken to rail him off from spectators, it was evident that he was not to be approached to closely... (01-11-2016, 12:52 AM)Pckts Wrote:(01-10-2016, 06:36 AM)brotherbear Wrote:blubber may be "soft" but it is jam packed. It takes extremely sharp and powerful claws and teeth to rip through. The hide of walrus are notoriously tough.(01-10-2016, 06:08 AM)Pckts Wrote: I'm not trying to start a vs debate, the info you provided makes great sense to me @Polar.The claws of a grizzly are strong for digging and do considerable damage in a fight. The shorter claws of the polar bear are more deeply hooked so that it can grasp prey cat-like. Therefore, in the claw department, imo equal. As for the jaws, the polar bear has longer canines and teeth better suited for tearing flesh. However, his diet is well over 90% soft blubber and as bears go his bite force is not so great. The grizzly has a powerful bite; according to Casey Anderson, producing enough force to crush a bowling ball. However, his molars are designed for crushing vegetation. Therefore imo their jaws rank equal. Better adaptation for killing doesn't always mean one can win a fight. Other factors such as agility, stamina, brute strength, explosive power, reflexes, and durability have to be taken into account. You're right about the polar bear's claws being useful for leverage and sharp tearing, but the grizzly's are used for deep penetrating and battering, so different uses (not one much better than the other.) Let's not make this thread a face-off between the two generous beasts, okay?
I agree but I enjoy talking about these things and I'll just say that yes, those factors certainly play a huge role, I don't give either animal significant advantages in the characteristics named. You'll be able to find examples from both.
California Grizzly by Tracy I. Storer and Lloyd P. Tevis, Jr.
WEIGHT - The weight of California grizzlies is a topic on which there are many statements and some estimates but few facts. We have found fully fifty references on the subject, including a few precise figures. Some state that the animal was actually weighed, but other "weights" are sheer guesses. We know that the new-born grizzly was a relatively tiny creature, weighing less than two pounds; and we can be certain that some individuals attained to huge size - excluding exaggerations, there is adequate testimony on this point. The weight on any individual would depend on its age, sex, state of health, and nutrition, and possibly on the season of capture. The grizzly evidently had a growing period that lasted for several years. Data on grizzlies elsewhere indicate that males attain a larger size than females. It is possible that some grizzlies in California lived in places where a greater food supply was available than in other localities; and seasonal food supplies may have caused grizzlies to be fatter at certain times of year, such as after the acorn harvest. Data are lacking, however, on all these variables. The two extreme statements we have found in regard to weights of California bears are these: "a young grizzly, weighing some eighty pounds" ( Oct.4, 1866; N 67 ) and "the bear tipped the beam-forbid it that anyone should question the reading of the scales! - at two thousand, three hundred and fifty pounds" ( Newmark, 1926 : 447 ). The last captive, "Monarch" ( fig. 33 ), when killed after a long life in a public zoo where he was underexercised and probably overfed, weighed 1,127 pounds ( Grinnell et al., 1937 : 89 ). Adams' big captive, "Samson," was several times reported to weigh more than 1,500 pounds ( Hittell, 1860 : 295 ). One report of 1856 ( Herrick, 1946 : 179 ) states that a "mammoth grizzly," taken in what is now El Dorado County, afforded no less than 1,100 pounds of meat ( which yielded the hunter $1,375 ). Of two killed in the hills near Matilija Canyon, Ventura County, in September, 1882, it was stated: "The largest ... would weigh about 1,500 pounds; it was all two strong horses could do to drag it..." ( N 93 ). Our records of animals with weights below 1,000 pounds, mainly from early newspapers, are as follows: 250 pounds, one; 300 pounds, two; 500 - 525 pounds, four; 630 - 642 pounds, three; 700 - 800 pounds, four; 900 - 932 pounds, four. The few weights not given in round numbers may indicate that they were of bears actually weighed. There are fully fifteen statements in early newspapers and a dozen or more in books, of weights of "1,000 pounds" and upward, practically all in round numbers. The maximum weight of male California grizzlies was estimated at 1,200 pounds by Grinnell ( 1938 : 72 ) and by Hall ( 1939 : 238 ), neither of whom had access to the numerous reports we have found on the subject. We are inclined to believe that the maximum was somewhat higher. Seton ( 1909 : 1032 ) was of the opinion that no true grizzly ever weighed 1,500 pounds or that any but the California grizzly reached 1,000 pounds; he gave 600 pounds as the average weight for males, and 500 for females. Writing from Colorado of the bears there, Mills ( 1919 : 251 - 252 ) said: The grizzly always appears larger than he really is. The average weight is between three hundred and fifty and six hundred pounds; males weigh a fourth more than females. Few grizzlies weigh more than seven hundred pounds, though exceptional specimens are known to have weighed more than one thousand ... It may be that years ago, when not so closely hunted, the grizzly lived longer and grew to a larger size ... |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |