WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Carnivorous and Omnivores Animals, Excluding Felids
›
Bears
Bear Size ~
Bear Size ~
|
Bear Size ~
|
 (01-11-2016, 01:40 AM)brotherbear Wrote: 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. I do agree that polar bears generally take much bigger and more dangerous prey than the average grizzly bear. A walrus has: -Durability (layers of fat a huge thicket of tough, almost rhino-like skin) -Strength (it's neck is predicted to easily turn over a ice flow 10 meters long, and a stab of it's tusks can kill a polar bear in many ways: there are PDF documents detailing the deaths of polar bears as a result of walrus attacks.) -Endurance (as part of the Caniform family, seals, sea lions, and walruses have extremely developed stamina as a result of their slow-twitch muscle capacity and lung sizes.) -Speed (surprisingly, not many people think a block of fat can move, but as with all animals in nature, we must never underestimate them. A full grown walrus bull can pedal forward 6 meters at a time in under two seconds; turning sideways is not as efficient as moving in forward-backward directions. A walrus is almost untouchable in water without a question. A walrus can move its neck at incredible speeds like a dog or bear as well.) -Flexibility (surprising as well. A walrus can rotate its back side to side to use its flippers to swat away other creatures, and it can curl around all the way until its nose is almost 2 feet away from the tip of its tail.) -Weaponry (tusks and powerful bite.) Regarding all these features, I think the walrus is the most dangerous and difficult prey any predator could ambush or take on face-to-face. Ambushing it usually takes a few hours to tear through those layers of fat, all while the walrus is trying to kill the predator (not easy to simply tear a 20-inch bite into its fat-layered neck or skull, its skull is super thick and no modern carnivores' jaws can support a bite that size.) . I don't think even a cape/water buffalo, guar, bison, or any antelope/moose/cervid can match the extreme hardness of a walrus. However, I do think that a large wild boar or elephant seal is quite an equal to the walrus. Though, I will admit, some brown bears do find a "meat tooth" savory, and they can hunt large bison, mountain goats, and elk a lot of times. But big cats and polar bears are better hunters for me. Things can get interesting when the grizzly and polar bears are within each others' territories as well. 
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. ( from post #32 by Grizzly Claws ) Largest Boone and Crockett Skulls: Alaskan Brown Bear: Length 19 and 13/16 ... Width 17 and 14/16 ... Total Score 30 and 12/16. Polar Bear: Length 18 and 8/16 ... Width 11 and 7/16 ... Total Score 29 and 15/16. From http://shaggygod.proboards.com/ the record total of the Kamchatka brown bear: 30 and 11/16.
The record short-faced bear skull, from the biggest Arctodus simus specimen ever discovered, measures 20.51 inches. The record brown bear skull, that of a Kodiak, measures 19 and thirteen sixteeths inches long. The length difference is less than one inch.
 (01-11-2016, 06:20 AM)brotherbear Wrote: The record short-faced bear skull, from the biggest Arctodus simus specimen ever discovered, measures 20.51 inches. The record brown bear skull, that of a Kodiak, measures 19 and thirteen sixteeths inches long. The length difference is less than one inch. Arctodus simus is taller with proportionally broader skull. But they max out at 2200 pounds, so the largest modern bears are rather close in size, and the difference is not great by margin.
Interesting document on polar bear sizes from different time periods and populations by Dr. Lindeman. The only question I have is how the 1349-pound specimen is only ten and a half feet tall? Does body weight also account body density?
In response to post #42, yes even with the Arctodus simus skull and Kodiak bear skull being equal in length, the short-faced bear's skull would be heavier. I agree with this. I read from one person studying Arctodus simus dscribe its skull as being very much like the skull of a big cat.
In response to post #43, only 10 and a half feet tall? Really? A bear that tall is huge! I was astonished to see two polar bears listed as 11 feet 6 inches and 11 feet 11 inches ( just short of 12 feet tall! I could be wrong, but a bipedal height of 10 feet is probably just about the brown bear's limit. Any grizzly taller than that I am interested in hearing about it.
Man Meets Grizzly by Young and Beyers.
This member of the great bear family continues to grow larger and stronger until he reaches maturity, in the seventh or eighth year. At that time he varies in size from four hundred to one thousand pounds. A grizzly bear at the Chicago zoo was weighed at 1,153 pounds. The biographer of James Capen Adams says that Adam's Old Sampson tipped the hayscales at 1,500 pounds. Many hunters have estimated grizzlies they have killed to weigh from one thousand to one ton; but a bear may look very large to a man out in the wilds. Much has been written concerning the size of grizzlies. It was long a custom of mountaineers and hunters to speak of the size of bears in terms of the size of their tracks. Enos Mills gave the measurements of the largest grizzly track he had seen as slightly more than thirteen inches long and seven and a half inches wide. This length did not include the claws, which are sometimes seven inches long. Townsend's grizzly had a lateral footspan of ten inches and claws of seven inches. Than Galloway measured the foot of a Colorado grizzly at a little more than fourteen inches. Yet, tracks do not always indicate the size of a bear, any more than footprints do the size of a man. There have in fact been many huge grizzlies. Than Galloway, the Utah bear hunter, reported killing one so large that it's skin, when stretched to dry, covered one end of a good-sized cabin. A bear is measured from the tip of the nose to the root of the tail; not that it would do much good to measure to the end of the tail, for this appendage is notoriously short. Despite the size of its tail, the grizzly is commonly a large bear, and many of the stories in this collection comment on its great size. An interesting footnote to the tale of Old Ephraim is that when his skull was presented to the Smithsonian Institution by the Boy Scouts of Cache Valley, the year following his death, the curator reported that it was the largest grizzly specimen they had had an opportunity to examine - a statement that the Smithsonian recently confirmed. (01-11-2016, 02:10 PM)brotherbear Wrote: In response to post #42, yes even with the Arctodus simus skull and Kodiak bear skull being equal in length, the short-faced bear's skull would be heavier. I agree with this. I read from one person studying Arctodus simus dscribe its skull as being very much like the skull of a big cat. A LOT of polar bears over 1000 pounds are over 10 feet tall, and don't forget that polar bears are at least 8 inches taller than a grizzly at weight parity due to their longer legs and longer necks (bipedal, of course). If I heard right, I remember the tallest grizzly being 14 feet tall, although he was obese and captive. I am not so sure about the tallest recorded wild brown bear. I think the largest grizzly could easily exceed 10 feet, though he'd have to be 1200-1300 pounds for that?
@
The 11'11" specimen from Kotzebue listed was actually the "supposedly" the world's largest polar bear.
I believe the 14 foot tall grizzly is from a website story which has been debunked. Imo - 9 feet tall is pretty much the natural normal max for an inland grizzly while 10 feet tall is probably the normal max for a coastal brownie. Also, imo - 11 feet tall is probably the normal max for a polar bear. Bears that range above these norms are simply exceptional bears; not necessarily freaks.
Any claims of a grizzly or coastal brownie above these measurements please post here. I just reread your post. I had forgot "captive." That would likely have been either Clyde or Goliath. I still have some big doubts of a 14 foot tall grizzly.
Man Meets Grizzly by Young and Beyers.
Sunday, May 5, 1805. Captain Clark and Drewyer killed the largest brown bear this evening which we have yet seen. It was a most tremendous looking animal, and extremely hard to kill not-withstanding he had five balls through his lungs and five others in various parts; he swam more than half the distance across the river to a sandbar, and it was at least twenty minutes before he died; he did not attempt to attack, but fled and made the most tremendous roaring from the moment he was shot. We had no means of weighing this monster; Captain Clark thought he would weigh 500 pounds. For my own part I think the estimate too small by 100 pounds. He measured 8 feet 7.5 inches from the most to the extremity of the hind feet, 5 feet 10.5 inches around the breast, 1 foot 11 inches around the middle of the arm, and 3 feet 11 inches around the neck; his talons, which were five in number on each foot, were 4.75 inches in length.
Bears of the World by Lance Craighead.
These tundra or barren-ground grizzly bears hibernate for 7 to 8 months and have only 4 or 5 months to accumulate fat reserves. *Note; this fact coupled with the scarcity of food available explains the small size of this grizzly population. (01-11-2016, 06:49 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Man Meets Grizzly by Young and Beyers. Great for showing how even a small to mid-sized bear can possess such huge durability to damage.
I believe that the inland grizzly, living within a fairly healthy lush environment should average somewhere between 500 and 600 pounds ( mature male ). As for his durability, I have learned that the black powder rifles of the early American pioneers were great for the deer and black bears of the eastern forests, but quite inadequate for grizzly. But yes, as wild animals go, I believe that few can compare well against a grizzly in terms of durability, if there is any truth at all to the tales.
(01-12-2016, 01:17 AM)brotherbear Wrote: I believe that the inland grizzly, living within a fairly healthy lush environment should average somewhere between 500 and 600 pounds ( mature male ). As for his durability, I have learned that the black powder rifles of the early American pioneers were great for the deer and black bears of the eastern forests, but quite inadequate for grizzly. But yes, as wild animals go, I believe that few can compare well against a grizzly in terms of durability, if there is any truth at all to the tales. I don't get how black bears are less durable than grizzlies. Maybe since they're smaller and weaker that's why, but I don't find any exaggerating differences in tissue or fluid density, bone density, thickness, and robusticity, or much changes in morphology at equal weights. Or maybe their lesser body fat can account for them bleeding out earlier. I just simply don't know. And, it also matters if the bear is mature or not. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 4 Guest(s) |