WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Carnivorous and Omnivores Animals, Excluding Felids
›
Bears
Survival Skills of Bears
Survival Skills of Bears
|
Survival Skills of Bears
|
A Historic Grizzly... Years ago I witnessed a line of men trying to turn a grizzly over on a mat, much like two wrestlers. If they were able to do so, then they would be awarded a monetary prize. The grizzly with the command by the trainer stood on all fours. The person would put his one hand on the bear's front upper leg ( arm ) and his other over the bear's back. Weight was no factor since this bear was hardly any bigger than these two hundred and fifty pound people. On a command from the trainer the scuffle started, and in a matter of seconds the bear was on top of each of the contestants. One guy apparently irritated the bear because the bear flew up and around in one motion and had the guy pinned! It was a blessing the bear was declawed and wore a face muzzle, or this guy would have been in big trouble. I could hardly believe the quickness of that bear!
In Monterrey, Mexico a California grizzly killed an African lion so quickly that the large crowd weatching did not know how it was done! During that same time frame a grizzly killed a bull in a ring in similar fashion.
In my own words: Both William H. Wright and Bob Nolin were bear hunters yet, like so many of the so-called "grizzly experts" they disagree on a great many view points. As one who learns from books and wildlife documentaries, I must form my own judgments and beliefs. It appears that each individual person who comes to know the grizzly on a somewhat personal level sees him in a different light. Perhaps it is because bears have such a wide variety of individual personalities that coming to know them is similar to coming to know separate groups of people with different habits. But, this only partly explains it. Is a grizzly more difficult to kill than other similar-sized animals? Well, the black powder rifles used on black bears were inadequate for grizzlies yet plenty powerful enough for black bears. And some of those black bears are rather large fellows! So, there must be at least some small amount of truth there. Were the grizzly bears of the American frontier more aggressive than those living today? I would say yes, as they had less to fear from man. However, they were never the monsters of the campfire tales which frightened both children and adults alike. Are grizzly bears successful predators of large game? I believe that in the days of old, they hunted more often than those bears living in the mid-to-late 20th century and today. However, most grizzly bears, even 200 years ago were more scavenger than predator. -These are simply my own opinions formed mostly from my reading.
I will add to post #92 that according to Doug Peacock in his book "Grizzly Years" he knew of a grizzly who would walk past a carcass, totally ignoring it, and preferred to hunt and kill for himself. Some grizzly bears become accomplished hunters while some haven't the foggiest idea how to go about it.
Also, I wish to add: according to numerous books in my collection, I believe that up until the mid-1800s on the American prairie, bison ( American buffalo ) were heavily hunted by grizzlies. Of course, as is the way of the grizzly, they mainly targeted bison calves.
National Geographic - Yellowstone - May 2016: Grizzly Bear: The Opportunist.
According to studies, the Yellowstone grizzly consumes 162 plant species, 36 invertebrate species, 26 species of mammals, 26 kinds of cultivated plants and domestic animals, 7 mushrooms, 4 species of fish, 3 species of birds, 1 alga, and 1 amphibian. 
@
I have heard from a naturalist this assertion "The only thing a brown bear doesn't eat is the stone"...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/fort-m...ly-n569871
More than 1,600 homes and other buildings have been burned. Two traffic accidents related to the fire have led to fatalities, but no deaths have been tied to the fire itself, authorities said. *I understand that people and property is everyone's main concern here, but it shouldn't be the only concern. After reading six or eight posts about the massive wildfire in Canada, not one that I read gave wildlife even the slightest mention. When they say "no deaths tied directly to the fire," I'm sure they are referring only to human life. I have to wonder how many animals died from the smoke and flames. As for a bear, once he gets a whiff of the massive fire, where would he go?
http://news.discovery.com/animals/arctic...151217.htm
Polar bears are the largest of all bear species, while the grizzlies that live on Alaska’s North Slope are the smallest brown bears in that state — some no bigger than the black bears that try to break into garbage cans on the hillsides around Anchorage. So should the two ever encounter each other, the seal-eating denizens of Arctic ice might be expected to have the advantage, right? Actually, not so much. In fact, according to a recent study, not at all. In an article for Alaska Dispatch News, Yereth Rosen spoke with Susanne Miller of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who explained that diminishing amounts of summer and fall sea ice in the southern Beaufort Sea off the North Slope have forced polar bears to spend more time ashore, grabbing whatever food they can on land. Among their targets are bowhead whale scraps left by Inupiat whalers on the shore by villages such as Kaktovik. Miller and colleagues resolved to study the polar bears that visited these “bone piles” to see if they could ascertain any behavioral changes as a result of not being on the sea ice; but, she told Rosen, they soon found they had a problem: Grizzly bears got in the way. “Brown bears just showed up and polar bears left,” she said. The North Slope is not an area of high brown bear concentration, and the grizzlies that do live there tend to be smaller than those farther south; conditions are much harsher and food rarer than in many other parts of the species’ range, and the bears generally depend on plants and a smattering of mostly lean prey animals. So a concentration of fatty whale remnants is a welcome indulgence that naturally attracts grizzlies in the area as it does polar bears. But because the arrival of the former frequently meant the departure of the latter, Miller and her colleagues switched the focus of their study to the interspecies interactions around the bone pile. The scientists observed a total of 137 encounters between the two bear species, polar bears reacted submissively, even though the grizzlies did not obviously act aggressively toward them; in roughly 50 percent of the encounters, grizzlies displaced the polar bears completely, writes Rosen, even though, in Miller’s words, “they look like they’re about half the size of the polar bears.” The reason why can perhaps be determined from differences in the two species’ behavior and ecology. Brown bears are naturally territorial, fiercely defending areas that have food and females from interlopers whose areas have less of either. Polar bears are not, given that they inhabit a constantly shifting mosaic of ice floes. Indeed, although polar bear males will occasionally cannibalize cubs, and older males will display dominance over younger ones should they converge at a kill, instances of intraspecific aggression in polar bears are rare — outside of mating season, when males will fight ferociously over females. One of the study’s co-authors, Richard Shideler of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, told Rosen that, “I think it’s attitude … (Grizzlies are) more aggressive in terms of bear-bear interaction.” Scent, however, may also play a role, with Miller noting that even a brown bear carcass on the bone pile was enough to spook some polar bears. As well as being an intriguing insight into bear behavior, the study is particularly relevant given that decreasing sea ice means that polar bears are likely to spend greater time ashore along the North Slope and to come into greater contact with grizzlies, and perhaps into competition with them, in the future.
Survival attributes.
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
I recently watched a documentary, for the third or forth time, where Casey Anderson went out and filmed grizzly bears at night. He discovered that, like the big cats, grizzlies are more active at night than during the daylight hours. In one scene, he was listening to the horrible cries of an elk calf being eaten alive. Casey stated that grizzlies are surprisingly highly inefficient killers. I must agree even though I have seen a few examples of some quick kills, normally the victim of a grizzly attack suffers horribly. We read about survivors of grizzly attacks on people. Most of then would probably have died in time from the injuries if not for medical help. Hugh Glass is a good historical example of a grizzly attack survivor. After a grizzly attack, a person or wild or domestic animal is left with multiple rips and punctures and broken bones. The bear doesn't care if his victim is dead or alive during the feeding, just so long as his meal is immobilized or that the threat is unable to follow or present itself as a danger.
Any thoughts on this?
California Grizzly - 1955.
Grizzlies in more northerly parts of North America and those in the Rockies denned up and were dormant for varying periods during the winter, but those in the southern part of the original range, including California, were abroad throughout the year. According to Seton ( 1909 : 1046 ), the males were active through a longer season than females. Early newspapers contain reports of four encounters with grizzlies in each of the three winter months. Most of these were in the lowlands or warmer foothills, but two were in Shasta County during December. There are several reports of grizzlies active at higher elevations of the Sierra Nevada in winter. A bear was abroad at Leek Springs, El Dorado County, during the winter of 1851 when the snow was 8 feet deep and frozen on the surface ( N 19 ). Grizzly Adams caught or killed bears in the snow season in the central Sierra Nevada ( probably at 4,000 to 5,000 feet elevation )-some when they were abroad, others in their dens. A man was killed by a grizzly during December, 1874, in Sierra Valley, four miles west of Sierraville, while snow lay on the ground ( N 85 ).
California Grizzly - 1955.
DEATH - The grizzly was so formidable that it probably had few real enemies. It seems likely that once a bear was fully mature, only the physical forces of nature, disease, or actual senility could cause its death. Of grizzlies in the Rockies, Enos Mills ( 1919 : 58 - 60 ) mentions individuals killed by a forest fire, a desert flood, a falling stone from a cliff, and a snowslide. He found one fat young grizzly which, though apparently healthy, had been frozen to death while hibernating during an extremely cold winter with little snow, and had a report of an old bear that perished similarly.
California Grizzly - 1955.
Wild animals in particular were invested with extraordinary significance, and for size and ferocity the most impressive species encountered in California was the grizzly. It was the only truly dangerous animal. Whether an Indian met the bear in its actual form, as known to the white man, or saw it with imagined and unusually evil attributes beyond our comprehension, it was an integral part of his environment and one of the factors that shaped his life. The grizzly was certainly the one formidable animal in the environment of the Indian almost throughout the area of California. Before the coming of the Europeans, the natives lacked adequate weapons and were afraid of grizzlies, whereas the bears had little to fear from any living creature. They were at the top of the food chain and could treat native man with contempt. That fact alone explains many attributes of the Indians toward the great carnivore. He was their hereditary enemy ( Goddard, 1903 : 5 ) and the most evil and odious being of which they could conceive ( Powers, 1877 : 240 ). His ferocious disposition, according to the Yokuts, was clearly evident even in death when the muscular fibers bristled erect as his flesh was cut with a knife ( Kroeber, 1925 : 526 ). By contrast, the black bear was considered sacred and lucky. It would run from the Indians, and they could hunt it for its flesh and pelt without fear.
California Grizzly - 1955.
The terror that the grizzlies inspired among the Indians is not surprising in view of the superstitions associated with the beasts, as well as their natural ferocity. A Shasta expressed the firm conviction that "The biggest man is scared of a grizzly. He will cry and tremble. Anyone who had had trouble with a grizzly will just bawl and cry. If you just hear one, it scares you to death. You may not know you are shaking until you light your pipe and your hand will just be shaking. Nothing else has that power." ( Holt, 1946 : 311 ). When Dr. Pickering traveled in California with the United States Exploring Expedition during 1841 he noted that, because of the grizzly, Indians "kept on the hills and other high ground, very carefully avoiding the favorite resorts of this animal" ( Cassin, 1858 : 14 ).
A sign of their intelligence is noticed when a bear appears to be enjoying the beauty of scenery. Bears have been observed sitting for long periods of time on a cliff of a mountain simply gazing out at the beautiful scenery; and doing the same at other locations. No other explanation has been found.
 *This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |