WildFact
›
General Section
›
Debate and Discussion about Wild Animals
The "King" of the bears - comparison between the Polar bear and the Brown bear
The "King" of the bears - comparison between the Polar bear and the Brown bear
|
The "King" of the bears - comparison between the Polar bear and the Brown bear
|
Since the first debates, in the old hunting literature, it has been a hot topic to discuss about which is the largest of the bears.
Some people state that the largest bear is the Polar bear (Ursus maritimus), which according to those sources reach the largest body size and weight. Other sources, on the contrary, still states that the largest bear is the Brown bear (Ursus arctos), represented specifically by the giant Kodiak bear. It is important to mention that several literature still separate the brown bear populations in “subspecies”, however those descriptions are unreliable as those “differences” stated by the old naturalists are based in poor sampling and biased descriptions. Although there is some variation between populations, both in size and color pelage, DNA studies have shown that in fact ALL brown bear populations belongs to a single species with no subspecies, just like the case of the polar bear, the jaguar or the wolves. This topic is the first of a new series dedicated to compare animals and they characteristics. This is NOT a “vs” series, as the point here is not to debate who is going to win in a fight. For the contrary, the comparison in this case is to know which of the two is actually the largest and what differences can we describe in order to know them, even without the flesh. Let’s begin. [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
Polar bear (Ursus maritimus):
Normally, this species of bear is described as the largest by scientists, although some sources still claim that in fact, they are smaller, on average, than the Kodiak one. According with Gerard Wood (1978), the average adult male measures 2.36 m nose to tail (tail 76-203 cm), stands 1.21 m at the shoulder and weighs 383-408 kg (adult females are a third smaller). Although these figures seem reliable, Wood doesn’t show his references, so we don’t know the sample size, range and other data useful for comparison. Here are the images of Gerard Wood's book "Animal facts and feats" of 1978:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Although it seems acceptable, the record of the Polar bear of 1002 kg seems somewhat exaggerated by some authorities and some claimed that most be verified (Christiansen, 1999). About the scientific records, here are a few images:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Record polar bear of 699 kg and other pictures of this species: http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-polar-bears-data-pictures-and-videos Of course, this data is not exhaustive, but show the largest specimens capture by scientists in the field. According with this data, the heaviest polar bear recorded was a male of 699 kg, however those exceptionally large, that could not be weighed in any form, were estimated at 800 kg. What I found as a clear exaggeration is the shoulder height of 170 cm. That size correspond more to a measurement over curves as is close to the height of a large specimen of Arctodus simus, a prehistoric giant bear species. Other exaggeration is the claim that such a bear could reach 4 m tall (in two legs), especially when the largest male reported was of “just” 3.39 m. This proves that even in scientific literature, some exaggerations still exist. This is all for today, but tomorrow I will bring the data of the Brown bear, and you will be surprised. 
Good topic, I think If discussed with manner, It will let the members understand how they differ in strength, size and surviving strategy.
According to me, Both of bear are of equal caliber, Polar bear are generally less aggressive and avoid fight in comparison of Brown bear. Strength - There is no scientific research in this, I think on an average Polar bear are little more powerful than brown bear (Kodiak). Most of them hunt or scavenge on meat. Size - On front, Kodiak bear look more bigger However on back Polar bear are more thicker. In height, Polar bear are little taller. Surviving Strategy- Polar bear live a tougher life than Kodiak bear, They not only hunt big prey like Beluga whale but have also develop relatively more developed senses. Note:- This is my personnel view, So don't be harass with your words. All of you are free to put your views, But I think none of us are expert of bears, We all know them by watching TV, reading on internet, therefore do not claim anything as fact unless you are accepted expert of bear. Also read the rules. I invite @ 
The polar bear is the biggest bear. He has the longest legs of any bear and has a streamline physique with a long neck and a long narrow skull. He is therefore the tallest of all bears. He has a layer of blubber lacking in the brown bears, for both insulation and buoyancy. So, the polar bear has a few size advantages in the way he is built. But yes, he is the largest and heaviest of bears. Only a brown bear living in an ideal environment, such as the varius coastal brown bears can compare to the polar bear in size. As for his carnivorous diet, the polar bear eats very little meat other than the blubber of seals, walrus, and beached whales. Never-the-less, the polar bear is the most carnivorous of living bears; perhaps of any bear ever. He has the carnivore teeth to prove it. However, the brown bear has stronger jaws. In comparing skulls, the kodiak bear dwarfs the polar bear. A brown bear has a bigger broader head and a shorter more robust neck and shoulders. Well, this is all I have to say on the subject. I will not become nuisance.
Thank you @
I also appreciate you don't add nuisance
Where is GrizzlyClaws? I think he has also interest in bears. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Sorry, I was unable to post the data on bears yesterday and today, question of time and the job. However I will have a free day this Saturday, so stay tuned, I will post the data on the brown bears that day. Greetings to all. [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]  *This image is copyright of its original author I just found this image on facebook, Its indicate bears population's distributed across world and different spices of bear. Is it right information in this image ? If not what is wrong ?  (10-09-2014, 09:56 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Where is GrizzlyClaws? I think he has also interest in bears. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img] I become the stalker right now, just visit here for the daily information.
But @GrizzlyClaws and @
(10-10-2014, 12:03 AM)'sanjay' Wrote: But @GrizzlyClaws and @ Guate has already posted everything i can post here, and it will motivate me to find for more new information.
~California Grizzly by Tracy I. Storer and Lloyd P. Tevis, Jr. WEIGHT - The weight of California grizzlies is a topic on which there are many statements and some estimates but few facts. We have found fully fifty references on the subject, including a few precise figures. Some state that the animal was actually weighed, but other "weights" are sheer guesses. We know that the new-born grizzly was a relatively tiny creature, weighing less than two pounds; and we can be certain that some individuals attained to huge size - excluding exaggerations, there is adequate testimony on this point. The weight on any individual would depend on its age, sex, state of health, and nutrition, and possibly on the season of capture. The grizzly evidently had a growing period that lasted for several years. Data on grizzlies elsewhere indicate that males attain a larger size than females. It is possible that some grizzlies in California lived in places where a greater food supply was available than in other localities; and seasonal food supplies may have caused grizzlies to be fatter at certain times of year, such as after the acorn harvest. Data are lacking, however, on all these variables. The two extreme statements we have found in regard to weights of California bears are these: "a young grizzly, weighing some eighty pounds" ( Oct.4, 1866; N 67 ) and "the bear tipped the beam-forbid it that anyone should question the reading of the scales! - at two thousand, three hundred and fifty pounds" ( Newmark, 1926 : 447 ). The last captive, "Monarch" ( fig. 33 ), when killed after a long life in a public zoo where he was underexercised and probably overfed, weighed 1,127 pounds ( Grinnell et al., 1937 : 89 ). Adams' big captive, "Samson," was several times reported to weigh more than 1,500 pounds ( Hittell, 1860 : 295 ). One report of 1856 ( Herrick, 1946 : 179 ) states that a "mammoth grizzly," taken in what is now El Dorado County, afforded no less than 1,100 pounds of meat ( which yielded the hunter $1,375 ). Of two killed in the hills near Matilija Canyon, Ventura County, in September, 1882, it was stated: "The largest ... would weigh about 1,500 pounds; it was all two strong horses could do to drag it..." ( N 93 ). Our records of animals with weights below 1,000 pounds, mainly from early newspapers, are as follows: 250 pounds, one; 300 pounds, two; 500 - 525 pounds, four; 630 - 642 pounds, three; 700 - 800 pounds, four; 900 - 932 pounds, four. The few weights not given in round numbers may indicate that they were of bears actually weighed. There are fully fifteen statements in early newspapers and a dozen or more in books, of weights of "1,000 pounds" and upward, practically all in round numbers. The maximum weight of male California grizzlies was estimated at 1,200 pounds by Grinnell ( 1938 : 72 ) and by Hall ( 1939 : 238 ), neither of whom had access to the numerous reports we have found on the subject. We are inclined to believe that the maximum was somewhat higher. Seton ( 1909 : 1032 ) was of the opinion that no true grizzly ever weighed 1,500 pounds or that any but the California grizzly reached 1,000 pounds; he gave 600 pounds as the average weight for males, and 500 for females.
Writing from Colorado of the bears there, Mills ( 1919 : 251 - 252 ) said: The grizzly always appears larger than he really is. The average weight is between three hundred and fifty and six hundred pounds; males weigh a fourth more than females. Few grizzlies weigh more than seven hundred pounds, though exceptional specimens are known to have weighed more than one thousand ... It may be that years ago, when not so closely hunted, the grizzly lived longer and grew to a larger size ...  (10-10-2014, 12:56 PM)'brotherbear' Wrote: ~California Grizzly by Tracy I. Storer and Lloyd P. Tevis, Jr. WEIGHT - The weight of California grizzlies is a topic on which there are many statements and some estimates but few facts. We have found fully fifty references on the subject, including a few precise figures. Some state that the animal was actually weighed, but other "weights" are sheer guesses. We know that the new-born grizzly was a relatively tiny creature, weighing less than two pounds; and we can be certain that some individuals attained to huge size - excluding exaggerations, there is adequate testimony on this point. The weight on any individual would depend on its age, sex, state of health, and nutrition, and possibly on the season of capture. The grizzly evidently had a growing period that lasted for several years. Data on grizzlies elsewhere indicate that males attain a larger size than females. It is possible that some grizzlies in California lived in places where a greater food supply was available than in other localities; and seasonal food supplies may have caused grizzlies to be fatter at certain times of year, such as after the acorn harvest. Data are lacking, however, on all these variables. The two extreme statements we have found in regard to weights of California bears are these: "a young grizzly, weighing some eighty pounds" ( Oct.4, 1866; N 67 ) and "the bear tipped the beam-forbid it that anyone should question the reading of the scales! - at two thousand, three hundred and fifty pounds" ( Newmark, 1926 : 447 ). The last captive, "Monarch" ( fig. 33 ), when killed after a long life in a public zoo where he was underexercised and probably overfed, weighed 1,127 pounds ( Grinnell et al., 1937 : 89 ). Adams' big captive, "Samson," was several times reported to weigh more than 1,500 pounds ( Hittell, 1860 : 295 ). One report of 1856 ( Herrick, 1946 : 179 ) states that a "mammoth grizzly," taken in what is now El Dorado County, afforded no less than 1,100 pounds of meat ( which yielded the hunter $1,375 ). Of two killed in the hills near Matilija Canyon, Ventura County, in September, 1882, it was stated: "The largest ... would weigh about 1,500 pounds; it was all two strong horses could do to drag it..." ( N 93 ). Our records of animals with weights below 1,000 pounds, mainly from early newspapers, are as follows: 250 pounds, one; 300 pounds, two; 500 - 525 pounds, four; 630 - 642 pounds, three; 700 - 800 pounds, four; 900 - 932 pounds, four. The few weights not given in round numbers may indicate that they were of bears actually weighed. There are fully fifteen statements in early newspapers and a dozen or more in books, of weights of "1,000 pounds" and upward, practically all in round numbers. The maximum weight of male California grizzlies was estimated at 1,200 pounds by Grinnell ( 1938 : 72 ) and by Hall ( 1939 : 238 ), neither of whom had access to the numerous reports we have found on the subject. We are inclined to believe that the maximum was somewhat higher. Seton ( 1909 : 1032 ) was of the opinion that no true grizzly ever weighed 1,500 pounds or that any but the California grizzly reached 1,000 pounds; he gave 600 pounds as the average weight for males, and 500 for females. I don't know if you watch the Kodiak doc, but its a show about hunting kodiak bears where the gov't allows a certain amount of hunters to kill a limited # of Grizzlies for "bear number control." which is absolute BS. But any way, The doc is about these trackers who know the island so well and no where to find the best bears etc. They find a beached whale carcass and there is one bear who has ran off all the other bears and is sleeping on the carcass that he has claimed, they then KILL this massive bear. Which may be another reason bears could of been larger in old days, its usually easier to find the biggest speciman of any creature because they have less to fear and are far more bold. Like Waghdoh who has been quoted as being "arrogant" with how he lounges around and moves so slowly etc... I wonder if all of these great bears where just picked off, then their prey and their habitat, etc. Either way, its sad to see our Gov't and many others still allow this sport hunting and try to say its for "population control" More political BS.
That bear was obviously the monarch of his domain. It's a shame that people, especially trophy hunters cannot feel or show respect toward animals, especially those who are the monarchs of their kind. All the hunter can see is "a big trophy" to show off and brag about. Too bad they had no means of weighing and measuring the carcass.
It was a massive bear, so large that they had to tie him to the side of the boat and drag him in the water back to their camp.
~The Bear Almanac by Gary Brown. The polar bear eats skin and blubber first ( 100 to 150 pounds of blubber per meal ). Will beg for blubber from whaling ships. Stomach capacity is 154 pounds ( large male ). http://lifeatrisk.tripod.com/kodiak_bears/diet.htm
As with most other brown bears, the Kodiak brown bear can eat anything that it can digest and is edible. During the summer Kodiak bears store up 80 to 90 pounds per day from dietary intakes so that it can gain enough weight and fat to survive hibernation during the winter. Kodiak females, that are pregnant, have to consume more than 90 pounds of food to be able to perform hibernation and to be able to give birth and feed her cubs wholesome milk. Kodiak bears are heavy eaters, but during the spring and before the spawning salmon season begins they eat about 50 pounds of food per day. This low intake, compared to their summer dietary intake, is due to many factors, some of, which include the climate, abundance of food and the availability of food that contains a high amount of fat and nutrients. Most of the food that a Kodiak bear eats is plant material, which seems to label the Kodiak as a herbivore, but the remaining dietary intake of this animal comes directly from the fish, carrion and occasional game animal that they eat. The Kodiak bear's vegetation intake usually comes from wild relatives of the carrot, lettuce, berries and various types of grasses. All bears use different techniques and strategies to catch fish, the most common of which is the bear jumping headlong into the river and then proceeding to claw their paws in the river. Other techniques include the Kodiak waiting along an area where the fish jump high enough for the bear to grab it and the submarine technique. This submarine technique involves the bear submerging in the water, with only its ears above the water. The Kodiak will then push itself underwater, while wading up the river. While the bear performs all of these measures it also will simultaneously look for a fish, and if it finds one it will simply swim at the fish with its jaws open. Kodiak bears will also scrounge through beach drift, which includes seaweed, mollusks, crabs and washed-up marine mammals, such as a whale and sea lion. They also prey on young and sick moose calves, deer, elk and caribou. It rarely chases and hunts a healthy game animal because the game animal will out run it in both short and long distances. When a Kodiak kills a large animal which is too large to be consumed all at once, they will hide it from other animals in a secluded area so they can return to it in the near future to finish consuming the animal. More than half of the yearly diet of Kodiak bears consists of berries and grasses. Due to low concentration of food value in single plants, Kodiak bears have to eat a lot of plant material to gain any weight. The claws of a Kodiak bear, which is designed for digging, are used to capture yet another prey for the Kodiak bear, the marmot. The Kodiak bear captures these underground animals by digging through areas that the bear can sense as belonging to the marmot. When the spawning salmon season begins in Alaska, Kodiak bears digest approximately 50% more food than it ate during the spring. This increase of food intake is due to the abundance of salmon and the nutritional value that it possesses. Depending on the amount of salmon available, the Kodiak bear usually strips away all of the fish except for the stomach, liver and intestines, which it leaves for the scavengers that live in the same environment. In my own words: It stands to reason that the polar bear should be the bigger bear. He needs more fat because of his arctic environment. Also, because of his rich diet of animal fat, he should also be bigger physically; "in the bones" so-to-speak. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |