WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Carnivorous and Omnivores Animals, Excluding Felids
›
Bears
Bear Strength
Bear Strength
|
Bear Strength
|
Wouldn't the shoulder impede the polar bears main purpose?
The reason they have a thinner skull and neck is so they can penetrate seal pup burrows under the snow correct? The reason they would have more massive limbs and hindquarters would be for dragging prey such as walrus and beluga out of the water I would think. I also assume that the need for blubber out weighs the need for excess muscle in an are where they don't require it.... In the shoulders. Polar bears aren't diggers while brown bears are which I assume is why they have the embellished shoulder hump. That's just my theory on it, nothing more.  (06-03-2016, 03:38 AM)Pckts Wrote: Wouldn't the shoulder impede the polar bears main purpose? That is incorrect that fat grows on the shoulder of the polar bear instead of muscle. Polar bears, at times, have to plow through thick ice (anywhere from a foot to two meters thick) to get a seal pup or a pregnant female seal. In fact, during my 2013 Polar Bear International trip, most of the polar bears' shoulders I have felt were inbedded in pure muscle (though not as voluminous as the hump of a brown bear; these were juvenile specimens with some adult females.) Sometimes, they even plow through the thick icebed from underwater, which is even harder. And that is also why it wouldn't hurt to have a shoulder hump if you are a polar bear. Also, the statement that polar bears have thinner skulls is a complete myth. At equal weights, a polar bear's skull is just as thick as a brown bear's skull, albeit more narrow and adapted to carnivorous habits. At weight parity, the neck is just as thick as a brown bear's neck; it just looks thinner because of its elongatedness. The blubber/excess fat that any bear gains, regardless of species, tends to be stored more at the hips, waist, and around the abdomen and neck that's it. I have never even felt an inch of fat on a polar bear's limbs; just pure muscle. But everywhere else, a little more than an inch of fat. Yes, like big cats, polar bears have more massive limbs to drag prey. And brown bears have more massive shoulders since their life depends on digging and burrowing.
I know that no polar bear has ever scored as high as the brown bear on the hunting scale, a bit skewed albeit since polar bears haven't been legally hunted in many decades while brown bears are still hunted to this day.
I'm no bear expert but I'd like to see measurements of the claims so we could compare. I know lions and tigers have been compared in every department but I haven't seen such comparisons for these two big boys.
@Pckts,
I bet there are polar bears that are still hunted illegally by poachers who want some fame and claim, and legally by the natives who choose who eat the bear's meat and use the rest of the bear to maximum extent. Regardless, the Boone/Crockett scale isn't actually that skewed. It takes on all ursine skull lengths and widths (depending on what type of length and width: condylobasal?) and computes the area, regardless of the skull's shape. Brown and panda bears have the greatest skull size/body size out of any ursine in existance. Tigerluver's size insight, GrizzlyClaws's skull/bone collections, and the private and updated abundance of data that I collect from PBI might help with comparing the two. We make quite a good team! 
The way I understand it, the reason that the polar bear has a long narrow skull and elongated neck is for swimming. Polar bears are very aquatic, with webbed feet and blubber for both buoyancy and insulation. The polar bear does indeed have incredibly powerful forearms for swimming and for crushing through thick layers of ice to get to a seal.
I believe that at equal size, a brown bear has more upper-body strength with a massive head, short thick neck, and of course those massive shoulders. The polar bear has longer limbs and perhaps stronger arms. But let's face the facts. The average polar bear is bigger even than the average Kodiak bear. furthermore, Kodiaks are but a single population of the species 'Ursus arctos' while with polar bears we are looking at the entire species. A more realistic representative of the brown bears would likely be the inland grizzly such as those of Montana or Wyoming where the average fully mature male weighs roughly 500 pounds.
The Bear Almanac by Gary Brown - The Boone and Crockett Club: Record Size:
Alaskan Brown Bear Skull - 19 13/16 inches long - 17 14/16 inches wide - World Record Score: 30 12/16 Polar Bear Skull - 18 8/16 inches long - 11 7/16 inches wide - World Record Score: 29 15/16
Don't polar bears also vary in size as well?
I'm not sure which population is said to be larger or smaller but I thought that I read that their size does vary depending on population location? (06-03-2016, 05:02 AM)Pckts Wrote: Don't polar bears also vary in size as well? Yes, but not anywhere near as much as brown bears. In fact, there is more variation in brown bear size than with any other bear species. Brown bears of desolate locations, such as the Canadian tundra ( speaking of course of mature males ) or the Gobi Desert will average about 300 pounds. Those that live near the sea coast where the salmon spawn will average about 700 pounds and can sometimes weigh well over 1,000 pounds. Most inland grizzlies, like those of Yellowstone will average about 500 pounds. It is my understanding that the mature male polar bear ( in general ) averages roughly 900 pounds. But, as you are suggesting Pckts, there is one population that has been reported to average about 1,300 pounds!
Yes, Foxe Basin and Kotzebue (the supposed 2210-pound specimen) polar bears are among the largest polar bears in existance: about 1200-pounds (not 1300-pounds) on average.
The smallest weighted population? Right by Novaya Zemlya and the Russian portion of the Arctic Circle where males on average weigh 780-800 pounds. The usual? 950-1020 pounds on average. Not much variation as brown bears though, from 220-pound males in Iberia to the hulking 900-1000 pound Kodiak males.
Other interesting comparisons between coastal brown and polar bears would be teeth size, claw size, and paw size. Actually though, perhaps these comparisons belong in the topic 'Bear Anatomy'.
California Grizzly by Tracy I. Storer and Lloyd P. Tevis Jr. - 1955.
Physical Features of the Grizzly General Appearance: Among carnivorous mammals, the bears as a group are characterized by their stout form and large size. The head is proportionately small and rather acutely tapered, with less length of snout and greater over-all bulk toward the base of the skull, because of the powerful jaw muscles. The eyes seem rather diminutive for the general size of the animal, and the ears are short. The neck is of moderate length but is large in diameter, because of its thick musculature. The body is heavy in build and conspicuously tapered, and the feet are large. The tail is so short as scarcely to be visible in ordinary view. Features that set the grizzly apart from other bears - except the brown bears - are the shoulder hump, the long front claws, the color of pelage, and the structure of the skull and teeth. As compared with the black bear, it has higher shoulders, a longer body, a straighter back, and lesser elevation of the haunches. Its head is narrower, and the snout and jaws are longer and less blunt. ( Mills, 1919 : 251. ) The Hump: Over the shoulders there is a characteristic hump, evident in both young and old grizzlies. The hump results from the size and placement of the muscle mass above the shoulder blades, according to Dr. Robert K. Enders, who has anatomized several Yellowstone grizzlies in recent years ( letter, Jan.11, 1953 ). There is no pad of gristle in that region as might be supposed, and the dorsal spines of the chest vertebrae are not longer, proportionately, than a black bear.
Monarch, the last California grizzly
 *This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |