WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Carnivorous and Omnivores Animals, Excluding Felids
›
Bears
Bears as Predators ~
Bears as Predators ~
|
Bears as Predators ~
|
 (05-18-2016, 04:20 AM)peter Wrote:(01-31-2016, 05:56 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Grizzly Years by Doug peacock. The polar bear (and quite possibly Agriotherium) both seem to be naturally adapted to being obligate carnivores, unlike any other bear species. As always, Peter, your posts are always fun to read! Big cats do seem to hunt man with their instinctive hunting skills; however, man-eating bears seem to think more about how they will hunt the man down: it doesn't come naturally to them to hunt a bipedal foe unlike some big cats, so bears tend to use more reasoning (particularly reasoning directed to their prey's morphology, behavior, and situation). Big cats automatically know to bite the throat, regardless of the prey's morphology and they don't have to use as much reasoning to attempt the attack. In short, your viewpoint is still very agreeable and conclusive: man-eating cats have more primal hunting instincts than man-eating bears.   *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (05-18-2016, 04:20 AM)peter Wrote:For once I disagree with Peter, bears predation on humans is as instinctive as big cats predation on humans, seeking human as prey is a habitual behavior of male polar bears and male American black bears, the folklore of the aboriginal people here in Canada ( Natives and Inuit ) speak how for thousands of years bears sought humans as prey ( not the case with cougars, nor wolves) , granted the females usually kill humans in defense of their cubs but the males do it systematically as if they are born with the knowledge that humans are edible.(01-31-2016, 05:56 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Grizzly Years by Doug peacock. A male black bear can grow to 500 pounds and knows that an adult human will provide as much meat as a large buck yet it is much slower, weaker, and less attentive...the rest is a gruesome picture. Big cats on the other hand avoid man and have an innate fear of man and they are far more likely to avoid him and threaten him versus actually attack him and kill him and possibly eat him. In many areas man-eating tigers, lions, and leopards are individual isolated cases that developed for specific reasons yet we have the curious cases of cultural man-eating where generations of animals , mothers to cubs, sub-adults to healthy prime aged adults to old individuals on their last legs...all relish human flesh and seek human prey. The best two examples are the tigers of the Sundarban and the lions of the Lindi district in southern Tanzania, despite intensive research and intervention human victims succumb to the attacks by these big cats.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (05-21-2016, 07:44 PM)Dr Panthera Wrote:(05-18-2016, 04:20 AM)peter Wrote:For once I disagree with Peter, bears predation on humans is as instinctive as big cats predation on humans, seeking human as prey is a habitual behavior of male polar bears and male American black bears, the folklore of the aboriginal people here in Canada ( Natives and Inuit ) speak how for thousands of years bears sought humans as prey ( not the case with cougars, nor wolves) , granted the females usually kill humans in defense of their cubs but the males do it systematically as if they are born with the knowledge that humans are edible.(01-31-2016, 05:56 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Grizzly Years by Doug peacock. Polar is right and so is Dr. Panthera: there's no question that polar bears are true carnivores. Furthermore, they are confirmed man-eaters. Why then did I leave them out? The answer is they are very different from other bears. To me, they are catbears. A new species. As a result of the climat changes, the attempt to start a new branch most probably will fail. Loss of habitat and less opportunities to hunt have significant consequences: intra-specific predation has become prominent and it's likely the population will sharply decline in the next decades. As to polar bears and humans. Many years ago, a friend took me to a zoo somewhere in Holland. As she was very interested in polar bears, we took our time to see the big male they had. As she sensed I had a very different view of the male bear than she had, she became a bit agitated. I didn't want to tell her what I felt, but I didn't need to as the bear did it for me in that he suddenly became very personal. Why did the bear change his behaviour? The answer is he knew the zoo had closed. All gates had been closed as well. Same for the entrance to his corner, meaning we couldn't get out. Although he had plenty of bars to negociate, he was willing to give it a try. As it would take some time for them to check the large zoo and find us, he knew he had a bit of time to find a solution for the problem at hand: how to get to us. As his attempt was very convincing, she suddenly realized what he was after. When people panick, instinct takes over. They lose control, which can result in dangerous situations. It also encourages the attacker. I will spare you the details, but can tell you she decided to climb the gate. She had nearly reached the top when a zoo vehicle came round the corner. She didn't wait for them, but immediately jumped. No bones were broken, but it took quite some time to calm her down. Some time later, the keeper started talking about that bear and his interest in humans. They had been warned by the director of the zoo where he was born and the bear hadn't disappointed them in any way. Hence the decision to build an extra gate. The male bear was at least a 1000 pounds, but he was as athletic as a big cat one third his size and he most certainly knew how to communicate. Although the zoo was spacy and comfortable, the atmosphere was bad. There have been quite a number of incidents. People didn't hear about them, but they sensed something wasn't quite right. The animals 'told' them. I saw and heard a lot of things you never read about. This is the reason I stopped reading articles written by biologists who can 'prove' animals can't do this or that or the opposite. Animals, and predators in particular, are much more capable than many think. They also have very pronounced personalities. Most people don't know, because they never interact with animals. Not really, I mean. But trainers do and they know all about animals. For this reason, they treat them as they treat their humans friends (if not better). All trainers told me bears are very intelligent and capable. Polar bears either like you or they don't. When they like you, there never will be a problem. When they don't and you have to work with them, you need a friend. The best friend you could have is another polar bear. If you don't have one, better leave it. As to American male black bears and humans. Although some males actively hunt humans at times, they do not quite compare to lions and tigers. Percentagewise, the big cats are as dangerous as before. This is not true for bears. The reason is it is an acquired habit. If you consistently remove dangerous individuals for a long time in a region, habits will be affected. Attempts to take a dangerous bear out seldom fail. Big cats, on the other hand, are about eating meat and hunting. Although there is a difference between hunting animals and hunting humans, the bridge isn't a large one. Many who crossed it were taken out, but things didn't really change: percentagewise, big cats as as dangerous as a century and a half ago. The reason is genes. One could make a case for an inborn 'interest' in humans in some bears in some regions as well, but if we add the numbers we have no option but to distinguish between bears and cats. Polar bears are the exception to this rule. It's true that most big cats have an innate fear of humans, but there are many exceptions and it doesn't take a lot to change the situation. A century and a half ago, complete districts were deserted in Java, Sumatra, parts of central and northern India, Nepal, Indochina, China, Manchuria, Korea and the Caspian region. After 1945, outbreaks of man-eating were seen in Indochina (Vietnam war), India, Sumatra, China and the Caspian region. This is apart from individuals who operated in the other regions where tigers and people are neighbours. Today, tigers still hunt humans. The Sunderbands top the list, but I wouldn't underestimate northern India. Lions hunting humans seldom make headlines, but they definitely compare. I've read plenty of books on man-eating lions. There are some good case-studies on man-eating big cats, but there never was an attempt to get to a few conclusions at the level of species. Boomgaard's book ('Frontiers of fear', Yale University Press, 2001), based on official documents, has a lot of numbers. They are quite staggering. Although well-written and interesting, it is no attempt to get to an explanation. Maybe the attempt to find one should start in southeastern Russia, where man-eaters always were the exception to the rule. The question is why that is.
Peter has a great point regarding "the individuality" of animals, science is concerned with the patterns, the norms, the regular and repetitive behavior..so not much is devoted to how an individual animal has a personality different than its conspecifics, yet any person who studied a group of animals for a while from a sheep herder to the most renowned field biologist can attest on how different animals have different personalities.
Another gruesome man-eating episode happened in Kruger in the late 90's, illegal immigrants from Mozambique infiltrated into South Africa at night through the national parks that form the border areas between the two countries, the Greater Limpopo Ecosystem, some lions started preying on these unfortunate refugees, and then proceeded to take more and more victims which they clearly distinguished from other humans eventually when the refugees stopped coming through the area the lions staring attacking other humans in daylight and needed to be put down. American black bears continue to be the main predator of humans in North America outside the arctic area they account to more "eaten" humans than grizzly bears, cougars, and wolves despite more frequent attacks on humans and human fatalities by the first two. (01-18-2016, 05:09 AM)Polar Wrote: I think 50/50 for bear vs bull at equal weights is a fair assessment. I have been re-reading the information on bull vs bear fights. In Old Mexico and Old California, it was often told that the grizzly most often defeated the bull; regardless of the fact that the bear was tethered to a post. The people were not being biased as the bull was the more popular favorite. The same was said of the bull vs bear fights in ancient Rome; where both animals were free ( no ropes or chains ). According to the ancient records, the bear nearly always defeated the bull. As for equal weights - not likely. I would guess that the bull normally had the weight advantage. But, something all of those fights had in common were grizzlies who had been living a more predatory life than most grizzlies of today. On the open prairie of the America west, the bears hunted range cattle, bison, and raided domestic livestock as well. Those bears knew a thing or two about how to kill a cow. Most of those bears had probably had a few fights with bulls before captured for the arena-games. In the wild, a grizzly would hunt calves and would likely from time-to-time be challenged by a cow. In more rare events, he would be faced by a big bull. Experience is a great advantage. The brown bears of Europe lived in an environment with red deer, wild boar, and aurochs. 
I have seen victories for either side,
The popular story of the California bull vs bear where they used to tie the bull, saw its horns then have it fight the bear, then they got tired of the bear winning so they finally let a bull fight with no tie and it's horns in tact, the bear still won. But the same exact account also talks about another fight with a bull and a bear where the bull killed the bear in a couple of minutes. http://nevada-outback-gems.com/gold_rush...tale66.htm "“‘We used to make bears and bulls fight’ remarked Blas Pena, ‘for which purpose we tied the bull and bear together, the bull having one of his fore-legs strapped, and the bear one of his hind-legs. Sometimes the bull came off victorious, and at other times the bear, the result depending somewhat upon the ages of the beasts. " https://yankeebarbareno.com/2012/08/03/g...ort-1800s/ I haven't seen any accounts of ancient roman matches, if you'd like to share any?
I read about those fights, pckts. Those fights came "late in the game" after the "gringo's" took over. Neither the bulls nor the bears, and especially the bears were the great beasts who fought in the Mexican arenas. The bears were usually scrawny ( likely sub-adult ) and very often black bears. It wasn't long after the games turned into bears fighting donkeys or even rats. I have numerous books on the topic.
THE BEAR - History of a Fallen King - by Michel Pastoureau.
Perhaps the first book about a particular animal written by a historian. Whereas the Celts and Germans had seen pictures of lions or elephants only relatively recently, shortly before or shortly after the Roman conquest, the situation was different for the peoples of Mediterranean Europe. They had long known of the existence of the large maned-cat, the huge pachyderm, and a few other exotic animals remarkable for their size, their power, and their appearance. The Romans in particular had been able to marvel at the physical presence of various species in the circus games that were larger and more savage than the European bear. Although they sometimes staged battles in the arena between bears and bulls ( the bears almost always won ), they especially liked to see wild animals brought from Africa or Asia fight one another or against men. Sometimes, however, curiosity made them wonder about the strength of a bear or a bull compared to that of an animal from afar, and so there were battles between bears and lions, bears and panthers, bulls and lions, bulls and an elephant, and even a bear and a rhinoceros. Although bulls, fighting alone or in a group, seem never to have been victorious, a bear always won in single combat against a lion or against several panthers. But that was not enough to make the bear the king of beasts in the eyes of the Romans. Like the Greeks - who had little fondness for animal combat - they preferred to install on the throne either lion or, perhaps more frequently, the elephant. There never seems to have been a battle between a bear and an elephant, but Martial recorded a combat in Rome late in the first century of our era between a bear and a rhinoceros: the latter won easily, piercing the bear's stomach with its horn, then lifting its wounded opponent from the ground with its snout and tossing it in the air several times. A cruel humiliation for the European champion. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 4 Guest(s) |