WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Carnivorous and Omnivores Animals, Excluding Felids
›
Bears
Polar Bears - Data, Pictures and Videos
Polar Bears - Data, Pictures and Videos
|
Polar Bears - Data, Pictures and Videos
|
"...The marquee attractions of Victorian circuses, felines commanded the lion's share of top-quality food. The menu du jour of Alexander Fairgrieve's famous traveling menagerie offers some sense of the pecking order among the various animals. Elephants had to content themselves with "hay, cabbages, bread and boiled rice, sweetened with sugar" while the big cats feasted on "shins, hearts, and heads of bullocks." So much meat did the lions and tigers of the great circuses consume, in fact, that their fellow carnivores the bears were forced to await the onset of "very cold weather" before they were similarly provisioned. Until such time, they subsisted on bread, sopped biscuits, and boiled rice.
To be an ursine understudy to feline stars was a sad fate, indeed. Should you wish to express dietary soliditary with the dancing bears of Victorian circuses, this recipe for boiled rice with cheese, which appears in The Helping Hand Cook Book (1912), will have you looking forward to winter's chill..." https://theausteritykitchen.com/2011/09/...ition.html  *This image is copyright of its original author Toledo Zoo - Polar Bear Skulls The skull on the right is a healthy bear, the skull on the left is of a bear fed a poor diet https://www.flickr.com/photos/fkallthewa...hotostream A REVIEW OF LIONS & POLAR BEARS PROLOGUE "There are currently about 1,000 polar bears held captive in zoos around the world. Most of them are held in hard, biologically deficient exhibits that are a key factor in their physical and mental deterioration. A wide range of problems, including aberrant behaviours like repetitive pacing and swimming, poor cardiovascular health and lack of muscle mass, are more or less ubiquitous in captive polar bears. A significant number of captive polar bears are held in temperate and tropical zoos where they experience chronic heat stress, climate induced hair loss and other conditions. The world population of captive polar bears is unhealthy and compromised." http://www.zoocheck.com/calgaryCorpAffairsemail.html https://shaggygod.proboards.com/thread/7...ons?page=2 Two of the links are no longer active but the accounts are found on the now dead shaggybear forum. Sorry if I have posted this info here before.
How Fast Are Polar Bears?
Due to their massive size, polar bears are often thought to be slow. However, the contrary is true. Polar bears are faster than both grizzly and brown bears, reaching speeds up to 35 miles per hour. Comparatively, brown bears reach top speeds up to 30 miles per hour while grizzly bears are slightly slower, at 28 miles per hour. However, polar bears aren’t fast on land only. Classified as marine mammals, polar bears lead a semi-aquatic lifestyle and are excellent swimmers, reaching speeds up to 6 miles per hour in the water. This might seem slow, but it is about the same swimming speed as a walrus. Because of their adaptation to the environment – large, slightly webbed paws and double-layered fur – polar bears can spend a lot of time in the water and swim continuously for over 60 miles. Are Polar Bears The Strongest Bears? Yes, polar bears are the strongest bears. They are not only the largest and fastest of all bears, but they also have the strongest bite force. However, this doesn’t mean they would win in a fight against bears from other species. In fact, in a one-on-one against grizzly bears, the latter would probably win the fight. https://wildlifeboss.com/how-strong-are-polar-bears/ It seems polar bears are also the fastest of all bears and is confirm by more info below: Huge webbed paws are perfect paddles for powering epic swims, and also help to distribute the bears' weight when traversing fragile ice or deep snowdrifts. Polar bears are surprisingly quick when they want to be too – with one clocked at 56 km/h (35 mph) on a road in Churchill, Canada. That makes them the fastest bears at a sustained speed. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2019/2/bigger-faster-stronger-why-polar-bears-are-most-prolific-record-breaking-bears 
@GreenGrolar
About #257: something I don't understand in your interesting post... In the link you mentionned it is written: " However, polar bears have one big disadvantage: their skull morphology. Due to their flattened heads, the stress on a polar bear’s jaw bones is very high when biting at full force. Grizzly bears don’t have this problem, meaning that they can use the maximum bite force in a fight. " It sounds like a bit contradictory to me... Due to their flattened heads, the polar bear aren't able to bite at full force... If it is really the case, polar bear aren't allowed to use their big bite force (bigger than the white shark's one), thus why these powerful jaw muscles do exist if they must not to be used ? If a skull is made weaker by its flattened form, nature must reinforce it by an other way, because the nature abhors a vacuum and the useless. If the huge muscles of the polar bear jaws really exist, what are they for ? Correct me if I am wrong but the polar bear's skull bones are thick and huge, even when compared with the other bears ? The comparaison with the white shark is timely. When a white shark bites a prey, it tears the flesh and, often in a case of huge prey, get away with a big piece of meat in its mouth. Nothing like it with a polar bear, like mostly mammalian predators it puts a pressure on the prey and maintains it in order to kill it (the prey). In this video, even if the polar bear is only killing a walrus cub we clearly see that it can put a pressure on its preys. So the question is: are you really sure that the polar bear's biting force is so strong ? Nevertheless it's not the first time I read something about the polar bear's submissive attitude when confronted in front of a big brown bear. As if something, a limiting factor, prevented them to developp their full strenght potential. (10-21-2023, 01:24 PM)Spalea Wrote: @GreenGrolar The only bear which polar bears encounter in the wild are the barren ground grizzly (though I did post a video where a polar bear encountered an American black bear and scared it off - the video was in Churchill, somewhere on this thread). Polar bears are only submissive if they are not use to the grizzlies presence. There is one account of a polar bear actually defending its carcass from a grizzly and another account which states that older males are more composed around grizzlies than younger males. Regarding polar bears not being able to bite at full force, I personally and respectfully disagree. Polar bears being able to bite (or rather slice) through the skin of belugas (which have skin 100 times thicker than that of land animals) shows that they have compensated crushing for slicing. Anyway: *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Saying a polar bear has jaws stronger than a great white shark refers to pound to pound. Off course a great white shark will be able to chew off way more flesh and have a much better slicing bite than the polar bear. A larger polar bear will have a stronger bite than a smaller grizzly overall but a weaker crushing bite pound to pound at least. The polar bear's slicing bite exceeds that of all bears. In addition: Another significant difference between the species are their skulls, which, while similar in size, vary greatly in bite force and bone strength. The polar bear has a stronger bite, but a weaker skull. Polar bears are one of the most rapid instances of evolution in surviving species of animals, having evolved from the grizzly bear within the last five hundred thousand years. So why are their skulls weaker if their bite is stronger? Simply put: seals are easy to chew. Grizzlies are omnivores, as most bear species. Their diet subsists of salmon, elk, and small game, but includes a hefty amount of vegetation. Polar Bears, in the ice and cold, were forced to eat seals (as well as penguins, fish, even belugas). Seals are largely blubber, providing the caloric intake necessary to sustain these large beasts, but offering little resistance in the chewing process.  *This image is copyright of its original author Skulls of the polar (left) and grizzly bear (right). Modified from P. Christiansen, Journal of Zoology (2006). https://beargorillarealm.proboards.com/thread/37/polar-collection-excluding-weight-predation?page=1&scrollTo=632 Regarding the info you quoted from the same link: Polar bears are the strongest bear species. Their bite force of 1,235 PSI is more powerful than that of a Bengal tiger and about eight times stronger than that of a human. In addition to a strong bite, polar bears also have a paw swipe force of over 1,800 pounds. That’s five times stronger than the punch force of a human. How Strong Are Polar Bears’ Jaws? Polar bears have the most powerful bite force of all bears, their jaw strength reaching 1,235 PSI. However, their skulls are structurally weaker than the skulls of grizzly and brown bears, giving the latter an advantage in a head-to-head fight. Compared to other bear species, polar bears have low, flat skulls that are thinner than the skulls of grizzly or brown bears. This morphology is the result of evolution and adaptation to the marine and arctic environment, allowing polar bears to increase hunting efficiency by thrusting their heads into seal breathing holes in the ice. However, this shape increases the stress on the jaw bones when biting. For this reason, polar bears feed almost exclusively on young prey that is comparatively smaller than their own size and weight. From sentences highlighted and underlined are from the same source as the words in italic (also in your post). My opinion: The info saying that the yellowish white bear will lose in a fight is not wrong but misleading. A polar bear will lose to a brown bear or grizzly in a head to head fight is wrong unless they are close in weights. Only the Peninsula Alaskan grizzly bear and kodiak bear overlaps in weight with the polar bears population from Svalbard and the average polar bear population respectively. Male polar bears from Foxe Basin will outweigh kodiak bears by a decent weight advantage and the average male polar bear outweighs a Peninsula Alaskan brown bear at average weights too. Polar bears feed on young prey smaller than themselves almost exclusively is wrong as 25% of their diet consist of prey other than ringed seals which are bearded seals (which can outweigh a female polar bear), belugas, narwhals, and walruses. Although a polar bear can bite through the skin of a walrus, it is protected by thick hide and blubber (protecting its vitals) allowing it to escape into the sea on time. More accounts in the link below: https://beargorillarealm.proboards.com/thread/15/polar-bear-predation?page=1 Here is one example:  *This image is copyright of its original author
 *This image is copyright of its original author From Animal Trainer: Trevor Bale.
@GreenGrolar :
Yes, we are agree, doubting the assertions of this site. If the bones of the polar bear's skull are so huge, the bite force so great, it is to be used ! As concerns eventual interactions between polar and brown bears, bears are very original animals with a wide range of temperaments. No doubt that some polar bears with a huge character could have had the last word when confronted against a brown bear.    *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Quote:Color photos of the largest Polar Bear ever measured and weighed to date, measuring 3.39 meters long and weighing 1002 kg, it was shot by hunter Shelby Longoria in 1963 in Kotzebue Sound in the state of Alaska in the USA. (10-16-2023, 07:13 PM)peter Wrote:(10-16-2023, 09:03 AM)GreenGrolar Wrote: b - The height of the polar bear  *This image is copyright of its original author "When accidents happen, when strange animals are placed together and a fight starts, always try to protect the weaker animal, regardless of his species. You will hear it said that a tiger can kill a lion, or vice versa. In my experience i have seen all theories exploded. Tigers have killed lions, lions have killed polar bears, a small leopard has killed a large tiger. usually a polar bear can kill any of the big cats, but i have seen a lion kill a polar bear", Louis Roth, forty years with jungle killers, page 204-205. Some trainers seem to believe that lions are superior to tigers. I believe both cats are about equal with both the Bengal tiger and Siberian tiger being larger and stronger. Lions do corporate better in gangs and seem to defend their territory a bit more. There seems to be just as much accounts of lions killing tigers as much as there are accounts of tigers killing lions. I am interested in what you think about this trainer and book, Peter as I believe you said in the Edge of Extinction that some trainers can generalize. Note: I am not trying to turn this section into a tiger vs lion debate since it is to mainly post info on polar bears. Only posted this account here as it mentions polar bears, captive ones.  *This image is copyright of its original author A young female polar bear feasts on a fully grown male reindeer. An arctic fox can be seen on the righthand side looking for scraps. (provided by P. Nowosad and P. Ulandowska-Monarcha) https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_...18188.html  *This image is copyright of its original author A subadult male polar bear in the Mast River (Wapusk National Park) after killing at least five flightless snow geese in three chases. After the chases, the bear walked into the river, lay down and drank periodically. Photographed on 13 July 2013 by R.F.R. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-su..._309182573
Polar Bear Dies At Zoo In Freak Accident With Fellow Bear.
 *This image is copyright of its original author A polar bear drowned at a Canadian zoo Friday after his throat was crushed by a fellow bear while the pair were roughhousing. The incident occurred at the Calgary Zoo in Alberta, Canada when Baffin, a 7-year-old bear, was playing around with another bear, 8-year-old Siku, according to a zoo press release. Siku apparently bit down on Baffin’s trachea while playing Though the bite didn’t pierce through the bear’s skin, its impact crushed his trachea, zoo senior veterinarian Sandie Black told The Associated Press (AP). “It is presumed that Baffin lost consciousness underwater due to the tracheal injury and subsequently drowned,” the press release stated. Baffin was submerged in the pond of the exhibit and did not return to the surface, the outlet reported. Visitors reportedly watched the interaction unfold. Initially, visitors and staff didn’t suspect any issues, the AP noted. (RELATED: ‘Invasion’: Polar Bears Terrorize Arctic Town). “It was apparent that one of the bears didn’t surface,” zoo director of animal care Colleen Baird told the outlet. “[Visitors] were like, ‘How long can a bear hold its breath?’” Black told the AP the bite was “tragically misplaced” and said their roughhousing was “typical of how they play.” Visitors were ushered away following the incident and Siku was reportedly returned to his enclosure. The pond was then drained and Baffin’s body was recovered, the outlet reported. “Baffin and Siku shared a long history as longtime habitat mates and enjoyed a companionate relationship, which is why they were chosen to come to Calgary from Assiniboine Park Zoo,” Baird said in the press release. “They displayed many natural polar bear behaviours, including playing daily in and out of the water. The type and intensity of play on the day of the incident appeared to be no different than the type of play their caregivers witnessed from them on a daily basis,” she added. The zoo’s staff were “deeply saddened by Baffin’s tragic accident” and Siku is being observed closely by Calgary’s Animal Care, Health & Welfare unit, according to the press release. https://dailycaller.com/2024/07/24/polar-bear-drowns-dies-calgary-zoo-canada/
27th July, 2024
Pizzlies, grolars, and narlugas: Why we may soon see more Arctic hybrids  *This image is copyright of its original author Spotting polar-grizzly bear hybrids in the wild can be tricky. This polar bear's darker face and body shape might lead some to think it's a hybrid, but only genetic testing can say for sure. Photograph By Steven J. Kazlowski / Alamy  *This image is copyright of its original author Hybrid bear cubs (two shown) were born to a Kodiak bear mother and a polar bear father at the National Zoo in 1937. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/anima...als-pizzly
The Polar Bear
 *This image is copyright of its original author In 1252, Henry III was given a magnificent white bear, presumably a polar bear, by the King of Norway. Although it was kept muzzled and chained, the bear was allowed to swim and hunt for fish in the Thames. A collar and a ‘stout cord’ were attached to the bear to keep it from escaping. https://www.hrp.org.uk/tower-of-london/history-and-stories/the-tower-of-london-menagerie/#gs.diu5dc  (08-24-2024, 03:43 PM)GreenGrolar Wrote:(10-16-2023, 07:13 PM)peter Wrote:(10-16-2023, 09:03 AM)GreenGrolar Wrote: b - The height of the polar bear Hi Grolar, Nice contributions about polar bears! As to the question about Roth's book: I never read it. I read about it, but never found it. I asked trainers about the book, but not one of them, apart from a few who had read Clyde Beatty's first book, had read a book written by a trainer. The reason, I think, is it had taken them many years to become a trainer. What they knew, was self taught and very personal. It fitted them, but they also knew every trainer has his own 'truth'. Seen in that light, 'truth', at least for trainers, doesn't have a general load and meaning. Same for knowledge. Strange as it may seen, is a very personal thing in the end. Most biologists would disagree, but they do not work with big predators every day all day for years. They're, foremost, observers. Keen and motivated observers, but observers. For them, knowledge has a universal load and meaning. Decisions based on this knowledge, however, can have different effects. It depends on the (local) circumstances. Some decisions can have unfavourable consequences, but they're never personal. For a trainer working with animals able to disable or kill him in an instant, knowledge isn't about observations largely correct at an aggregated level of observation. For a trainer, knowledge is a very specific and personal thing. It's correct and it works. For him. In the specific circumstances he faces. The knowledge biologists have also is correct. In the regions or reserves where they work, the number of tigers has increased. In a way, one could say a trainer is a writer. A good one. Good writers often have a lot of general knowledge. They know about human psychology, history and specific conditions and, for this reason, are able to write a book about a topic or individual they're interested in. A book so good it, in the eyes of the reader, is a near perfect picture of 'real life'. It is (many movies are based on books), and then it isn't. In a book, the main character, as a result of his abilities and knowledge, always is able to come out on top of just about every situation. There will be a second book, that is. Good for the writer and good for the readers. In real life, however, a very experienced, able and knowledgeable man can slip over a banana. The only one he didn't see. He can be betrayed by someone he never ever suspected or he can be crippled for life by a bullet from a rifle that was accidentally fired by the 11-year old son of a war hero. All of us know people deeply involved in habits known to have terrible effects in the long run. Not seldom, they also enjoy taking chances whenever possible. They in particular are the ones swimming in shark infested waters. At night. Not a few of them perish well before their time, but there are just as many who reach 60 in very good health and decide to write a book. A book based on facts only and very true from start to finish. It's a book about a life with risks and it's very true. For the one who wrote the book. But we also know about people who never took a chance and lived their life in a way one can only admire. More often than not, they're the ones prepared to help others on top of that. Nice folks. People you only read about. They've a great life, until, well before their time, they draw a bad card. They in particular, so it often seems. I've played tennis for a long time. The club has many members involved in health, including very experienced experts in their field. I'm referring to specialists and surgeons. Ask them about the occurance and effects of coincidence when you have the opportunity. You'll be surprised. And then there's the stats based on long-term research. Sound research. Reliable research. The stats say habits really have an effect. What I'm saying is life is very complicated. There most definitely are general rules, but life has a lot of exceptions. A real good trainer knows about these things (referring to coincidence and the countless exceptions to a 'general' rule), but never talks about it. When faced with a question he considers interesting, he'll take his time and always leaves room for the exceptions. More often than not, the one asking the questions will end up with more questions. One could say many trainers compare to scientists involved in teaching. Just before I graduated, I was examined by professors considered as experts. And they were. But most professors like to (hear themselves) talk, even when examining a student about to graduate. An experienced trainer doesn't invest a lot of time in talking and when he talks he prefers oneliners or essaylike answers leaving a lot of room for interpretations. A good trainer isn't talking to connect to the person he's talking to. He seems to talk to himself out loud and keeps asking questions. And when he's done, you always see a big smile. I often was surprised by the way they reasoned. Not seldom, it seemed as if they were able to see and to connect to something others are not even aware of. Something that doesn't exist. But in some circumstances, it, as Corbett said, is very real. In this respect, some trainers seemed to compare to people like Einstein. In spite of the questions that kept popping up every day, they had a lot of knowledge. Intimate knowledge about the animals they worked with. They knew when one of them was affected by a problem or a disease and they also knew about their character. In some animals, the connection between the trainer and the animal was real and profound. In others, it wasn't. These animals would use every opportunity to take him out. The animal knew, the trainer knew and both knew the other knew. In order to get to a connection, insight and a personal relation, every trainer working with bears has to become a bear over time. A trainer working with lions becomes a lion over time. Same, albeit to a degree, with posters. The difference between trainers and posters is most posters are guided by preconceived ideas, if not outright preference, meaning they tend to idealize the species they prefer, whereas trainers are guided by experience and real knowledge. They know every adult is an individual. Big cats and bears also have knowledge. Very old knowledge, but it's very real knowledge, all trainers told me. I'm trying to find books about this topic. Books written by those who worked with big predators and those who hunted them. You need, I think, a personal connection to be able to get close. I prefer books written by hunters, because they're the only ones who really knew a few things about some of the animals they hunted. One of the things they noticed time and again is wild predators are true adults able to get to sound decisions. I'm referring, to be clear, to hunters who didn't shoot at everything that moved. Most of them were keen observers. People who not seldom didn't shoot the cat they were after when the opportunity presented itself. More often than not, the cat knew. The trainers I interviewed told me all adult captive big cats and bears are capable animals. Not as intelligent as their wild relatives, but they were most certainly capable of observing, reasoning and deducting. Not always the case in humans, they sometimes added. They feared the future and they were right. A few decades ago, when it became clear the natural world is disappearing and the 'eco' and 'rewilding' hype developed, those deeply involved in these hypes went for 'exotic animals', circuses and animal trainers first. The reason is they were unable, or unwilling, to defend themselves. In this way, many circuses and trainers were destroyed. Also meaning not a few captive big cats were euthanized. Apart from all that, knowledge was lost. The trainers noticed the changes and avoided publicity. In the end, they also avoided interviews. The last interview I did was just before I joined the former AVA forum. Until it was destroyed as well. Not a result of yet another hype, but of something more personal. I'm referring to jealousy, revenge and all that. That's still apart from preference. You know what preference can do, because you're a member of a forum run by someone reinventing it just about every day. In this respect, bears, more than big cats, compare to humans. Meaning they know about preference, jealousy and revenge as well. The reason, I think, is bears, in contrast to big cats, need a lot of energy to satisfy their needs in the food department. If a new 'provider', like a human, turns up, they can save a lot of time if they establish a 'food-productive' connection with their new 'friend'. Older males are different from females in that they often are more predatory. So much so, they actively hunt their own kind in some regions. Food is the keyword in bears. Polar bears, and males in particular, are different from other bear subspecies in that they're true carnivores able to provide for themselves. They seem to be more intelligent and able to connect to humans. Not every trainer, however, will agree. Bears in general, and polar bears in particular, have killed more trainers than big cats. In the circus, they are, make that were, much feared. All cats are professional and very able carnivores. They rely on themselves at all times and, apart from lions, dislike groups. Adult captive big cats are independent individuals. They're more interested in a relation with, say, a trainer than small cats, but they too are, and will always remain, independent wild animals at heart. Preference and jealousy are not very uncommon in captive big cats. Jealousy can have consequences, but incidents inspired by jealousy are few. As to fights in circuses. I posted extensively about the experience of Tony Hughes, but that doesn't mean he was the only one who thought the outcome of a fight between two well-matched individuals (of different species) is unpredictable. Tony was the only one who answered all questions in writing, enabling me to post some of his answers. There are differences between species (and subspecies) in the way they interact and fight, but in the end all trainers agreed it was about individualism, meaning character and determination. That and coincidence. Those who read the book of Beatty I referred to above often tried to avoid a discussion. What they did say wasn't very different from what most posters said. If anything, they seemed to be surprised Beatty's outspoken opinions never backfired. All trainers told me big cats (and bears) are very aware of preference. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |