The "King" of the bears - comparison between the Polar bear and the Brown bear

[Panther]

(12-18-2018, 12:34 AM)brotherbear Wrote: A relatively accurate average weight for fully mature male Kodiak bears can not be found without proper - improved data. Research.

So you're not agreeing with 800lbs figure now?
This is a average not the maximum, dude. 

Of course the more detailed data will give accurate average than this. But for now, this 800lbs figure sounds accurate without being overrated or underrated for me. Reply

[Pckts]

Most info below has been posted already I'm sure...

Kodiak bear
Kodiak bears (also known as Alaskan brown bears) are a subspecies of brown bear and are only found on the Kodiak Archipelago in Alaska. The biggest brown bears come from Kodiak Island itself. While bears are found on many islands off Alaska and the Alaskan peninsula, 17 of the top 25 Alaskan brown bears were taken from Kodiak. The world record was bagged by Roy Lindsley in 1952. Its score is 30 12/16. It’s the largest-scoring bear of any speices known. The skull is now owned by the Los Angeles County Museum. The largest specimens of brown bears commonly weigh more than half a ton, which is a predator that will make the knees of the most seasoned hunter shake.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Larry Fitzgerald poses with the largest grizzly bear taken by a hunter. It was bagged in 2013 near the Totatlanika River, Alaska.

The second- and third-place bears were also taken on Kodiak. Erling Hansen took one in 1961 that scored 30 11/16 and Fred Henton took one in 1938 that scored 30 9/16. Henton’s bear was the world’s record until Lindsley’s harvest overtook it in 1952. The most recent bear in the top 25 was bagged by Thomas Stago in Uyak Bay, Alaska in 2012.

https://www.outdoorhub.com/stories/2014/10/16/4-largest-bears-ever-taken-hunters/

Polar bear

The polar bear is the largest land carnivore in the world. A lot of bears have a nasty reputation, but polar bears back it up. More people have been killed and eaten by polar bears than by all other bears combined. The opportunity to hunt a huge polar bear has been turned upside down in the past couple decades. That’s not to say that you can’t shoot a huge polar bear because all adult polar bears are huge by bear standards, but the areas that produce the biggest ones are off-limits except to indigenous Alaskans.
All of the top 25 white bears and more than 90 percent of all Boone and Crockett record book bears have been shot out of coastal Alaska. Most of them have been shot out of Kotzebue, with the Diomede Islands area a distant second place. Only indigenous natives are allowed to hunt these bears. It stands to reason that subsistence hunters are not looking for bears with big skulls, and if they shot one of record-book size, the odds that it would be entered would be low. All of the top 50 in the record book were taken before 1968. The world record, taken by Shelby Longoria, was taken off the coast of Kotzebue in 1963. It scored 29 15/16. Will there ever be a 30-inch polar bear entered in the record books? Not in the foreseeable future.






"Fitzgerald's kill is a record bear only because it was shot north of the Alaska Range. South of those mountains slicing through Denali National Park and Preserve, his bear would be just another big bear. That's because the record-keeping Boone and Crockett Club arbitrarily splits Alaska brown/grizzly bears into two separate categories -- grizzly bears and brown bears. The world-record Alaska brown bear, taken in Kodiak in 1952, is much larger.''

"The state of Alaska doesn't recognize the distinction between a grizzly bear and an Alaska brown bear, nor do wildlife scientists. Both say the only real difference is diet.

Coastal bears, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game notes, "grow larger and live in higher densities than their 'grizzly' cousins in the northern and interior parts of the state. To minimize confusion,'' state wildlife biologists refer to all of these bears as "brown bears,'' though "grizzly" is arguably a more common popular term.
That's because the description "brown'' can also be used to describe color of the state's cinnamon-colored black bears, and when dealing with bears in wild Alaska it is vitally important for people to be able to tell the difference between black bears, no matter their color, and grizzly bears."


"Grizzly bears also come in a much bigger package than black bears. Mature, male, brown-grizzly bears on Kodiak Island and the Alaska Peninsula can reach heights of more than 10 feet when standing on their hind legs. Fitzgerald's bear was not that big.

In fact, it didn't even come close to the size of a bear from Kodiak, the Gulf of Alaska coast, or even the Kenai Peninsula. Fitzgerald's bear scored 276/16 on the Boone and Crockett trophy measure, which determines bear size by the length and width of the animal's skull.
The bears are too big to weigh. The largest of them can go more than 1,500 pounds. Bears that big are hard to even roll over to skin. And they have massive heads.

"You need a minimum of a 28-inch skull to even be considered in the (Boone and Crockett) book'' for record Alaska brown bears, said Gino Del Frate, a wildlife biologist with Fish and Game. There are about 500 such bears now in the book and more are added every year.

"About 10 percent of our annual harvest on Kodiak is over 28,'' said Larry Van Daele, regional supervisor for the Division of Wildlife Conservation. About 200 brown-grizzly bars are killed on Kodiak each year, meaning more than 20 bears bigger than Fitzgerald's each year come from that area alone.

A bear shot on the Kenai just last fall measured 29. Area biologist Jeff Selinger reported it appeared to be the largest bear shot on the Kenai since the 1960s. The biggest bear recorded on the Kenai went 294/16.

Big bears have been popping up with regularity in Alaska in the past decade, and there is speculation this might be related to global warming. Global warming has played a role in increasing the size of Alaska salmon runs. More salmon provide more food for bears, and the animals grow bigger.
Fitzgerald's bear was big, but were it seen standing next to the world-record brown bear with a skull measuring 3012/16, it would look badly outsized."
https://www.adn.com/outdoors/article/giant-grizzly-one-some-record-books-not-alaskas/2014/05/08/?sp=/99/474/



Big Bear characteristics 
When a bear is sighted, the following are gauges for field judging its size--
Head: Bears are ultimately scored by their skulls, rather than hides; but a really big bear will have a head that looks relatively small, compared to its body.
Ears: Big ears, small bear; small ears, bigger bear.
Legs: Should look short and squatty, not "leggy."
Gait: A big bear will almost waddle; it will also appear relaxed, because it's not afraid of anything or anybody.
At left: Jeff Brigham, 2009, 26 12/16, Unalakleet River, Alaska (rank pending--final score subject to revision by additional verification measurements)

https://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/ga...hem#page-3

*This image is copyright of its original author

Brian Shaub, 44, of Lancaster, is dwarfed by the 1,100-pound Kodiak brown bear he shot October 2013.
https://www.wideopenspaces.com/gallery-humongous-really-really-big-kodiak-bears-pics/


More on this bear above 
"Officials with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game told Shaub his bear was 16 to18 years old and had a live weight of about 1,100 pounds."

“They told me they really don’t get any bigger than that, so they said I can quit,” Shaub said. “I probably won’t hunt brown bears again.”

Entire story attached to this link, I'm not condoning it by any means.
https://lancasteronline.com/sports/outdoors/giant-bear-shot-in-alaska-by-lancaster-hunter/article_7503e6b4-a0ac-11e3-a4c2-0017a43b2370.html


From the Alaskan Department of fish and game 
"A bear’s weight varies with the season. Bears weigh least in the spring or early summer. They gain weight rapidly during late summer and fall and are waddling fat just prior to denning. At this time most mature males weigh between 500 and 900 lbs (180 – 410 kg) with extremely large individuals weighing as much as 1,400 lbs (640 kg). Females weigh half to three-quarters as much. Bear hides are prized by hunters but the meat of a brown bear is generally considered unpalatable and hunters rarely eat it."
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm%3Fadfg=brownbearhunting.main Reply

[brotherbear]

(12-18-2018, 12:50 AM)Panther Wrote:

(12-18-2018, 12:34 AM)brotherbear Wrote: A relatively accurate average weight for fully mature male Kodiak bears can not be found without proper - improved data. Research.

So you're not agreeing with 800lbs figure now?
This is a average not the maximum, dude. 

Of course the more detailed data will give accurate average than this. But for now, this 800lbs figure sounds accurate without being overrated or underrated for me.

Its not a matter of the number being too high or too low. Its a matter of not enough information available; which is surprising. I have no desire to "settle" with an inaccurate average.
Pckts - good information. Reply

[Shadow]

(12-18-2018, 01:05 AM)Pckts Wrote: Most info below has been posted already I'm sure...

Kodiak bear
Kodiak bears (also known as Alaskan brown bears) are a subspecies of brown bear and are only found on the Kodiak Archipelago in Alaska. The biggest brown bears come from Kodiak Island itself. While bears are found on many islands off Alaska and the Alaskan peninsula, 17 of the top 25 Alaskan brown bears were taken from Kodiak. The world record was bagged by Roy Lindsley in 1952. Its score is 30 12/16. It’s the largest-scoring bear of any speices known. The skull is now owned by the Los Angeles County Museum. The largest specimens of brown bears commonly weigh more than half a ton, which is a predator that will make the knees of the most seasoned hunter shake.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Larry Fitzgerald poses with the largest grizzly bear taken by a hunter. It was bagged in 2013 near the Totatlanika River, Alaska.

The second- and third-place bears were also taken on Kodiak. Erling Hansen took one in 1961 that scored 30 11/16 and Fred Henton took one in 1938 that scored 30 9/16. Henton’s bear was the world’s record until Lindsley’s harvest overtook it in 1952. The most recent bear in the top 25 was bagged by Thomas Stago in Uyak Bay, Alaska in 2012.

https://www.outdoorhub.com/stories/2014/10/16/4-largest-bears-ever-taken-hunters/

Polar bear

The polar bear is the largest land carnivore in the world. A lot of bears have a nasty reputation, but polar bears back it up. More people have been killed and eaten by polar bears than by all other bears combined. The opportunity to hunt a huge polar bear has been turned upside down in the past couple decades. That’s not to say that you can’t shoot a huge polar bear because all adult polar bears are huge by bear standards, but the areas that produce the biggest ones are off-limits except to indigenous Alaskans.
All of the top 25 white bears and more than 90 percent of all Boone and Crockett record book bears have been shot out of coastal Alaska. Most of them have been shot out of Kotzebue, with the Diomede Islands area a distant second place. Only indigenous natives are allowed to hunt these bears. It stands to reason that subsistence hunters are not looking for bears with big skulls, and if they shot one of record-book size, the odds that it would be entered would be low. All of the top 50 in the record book were taken before 1968. The world record, taken by Shelby Longoria, was taken off the coast of Kotzebue in 1963. It scored 29 15/16. Will there ever be a 30-inch polar bear entered in the record books? Not in the foreseeable future.






"Fitzgerald's kill is a record bear only because it was shot north of the Alaska Range. South of those mountains slicing through Denali National Park and Preserve, his bear would be just another big bear. That's because the record-keeping Boone and Crockett Club arbitrarily splits Alaska brown/grizzly bears into two separate categories -- grizzly bears and brown bears. The world-record Alaska brown bear, taken in Kodiak in 1952, is much larger.''

"The state of Alaska doesn't recognize the distinction between a grizzly bear and an Alaska brown bear, nor do wildlife scientists. Both say the only real difference is diet.

Coastal bears, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game notes, "grow larger and live in higher densities than their 'grizzly' cousins in the northern and interior parts of the state. To minimize confusion,'' state wildlife biologists refer to all of these bears as "brown bears,'' though "grizzly" is arguably a more common popular term.
That's because the description "brown'' can also be used to describe color of the state's cinnamon-colored black bears, and when dealing with bears in wild Alaska it is vitally important for people to be able to tell the difference between black bears, no matter their color, and grizzly bears."


"Grizzly bears also come in a much bigger package than black bears. Mature, male, brown-grizzly bears on Kodiak Island and the Alaska Peninsula can reach heights of more than 10 feet when standing on their hind legs. Fitzgerald's bear was not that big.

In fact, it didn't even come close to the size of a bear from Kodiak, the Gulf of Alaska coast, or even the Kenai Peninsula. Fitzgerald's bear scored 276/16 on the Boone and Crockett trophy measure, which determines bear size by the length and width of the animal's skull.
The bears are too big to weigh. The largest of them can go more than 1,500 pounds. Bears that big are hard to even roll over to skin. And they have massive heads.

"You need a minimum of a 28-inch skull to even be considered in the (Boone and Crockett) book'' for record Alaska brown bears, said Gino Del Frate, a wildlife biologist with Fish and Game. There are about 500 such bears now in the book and more are added every year.

"About 10 percent of our annual harvest on Kodiak is over 28,'' said Larry Van Daele, regional supervisor for the Division of Wildlife Conservation. About 200 brown-grizzly bars are killed on Kodiak each year, meaning more than 20 bears bigger than Fitzgerald's each year come from that area alone.

A bear shot on the Kenai just last fall measured 29. Area biologist Jeff Selinger reported it appeared to be the largest bear shot on the Kenai since the 1960s. The biggest bear recorded on the Kenai went 294/16.

Big bears have been popping up with regularity in Alaska in the past decade, and there is speculation this might be related to global warming. Global warming has played a role in increasing the size of Alaska salmon runs. More salmon provide more food for bears, and the animals grow bigger.
Fitzgerald's bear was big, but were it seen standing next to the world-record brown bear with a skull measuring 3012/16, it would look badly outsized."
https://www.adn.com/outdoors/article/giant-grizzly-one-some-record-books-not-alaskas/2014/05/08/?sp=/99/474/



Big Bear characteristics 
When a bear is sighted, the following are gauges for field judging its size--
Head: Bears are ultimately scored by their skulls, rather than hides; but a really big bear will have a head that looks relatively small, compared to its body.
Ears: Big ears, small bear; small ears, bigger bear.
Legs: Should look short and squatty, not "leggy."
Gait: A big bear will almost waddle; it will also appear relaxed, because it's not afraid of anything or anybody.
At left: Jeff Brigham, 2009, 26 12/16, Unalakleet River, Alaska (rank pending--final score subject to revision by additional verification measurements)

https://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/ga...hem#page-3

*This image is copyright of its original author

Brian Shaub, 44, of Lancaster, is dwarfed by the 1,100-pound Kodiak brown bear he shot October 2013.
https://www.wideopenspaces.com/gallery-humongous-really-really-big-kodiak-bears-pics/


More on this bear above 
"Officials with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game told Shaub his bear was 16 to18 years old and had a live weight of about 1,100 pounds."

“They told me they really don’t get any bigger than that, so they said I can quit,” Shaub said. “I probably won’t hunt brown bears again.”

Entire story attached to this link, I'm not condoning it by any means.
https://lancasteronline.com/sports/outdoors/giant-bear-shot-in-alaska-by-lancaster-hunter/article_7503e6b4-a0ac-11e3-a4c2-0017a43b2370.html


From the Alaskan Department of fish and game 
"A bear’s weight varies with the season. Bears weigh least in the spring or early summer. They gain weight rapidly during late summer and fall and are waddling fat just prior to denning. At this time most mature males weigh between 500 and 900 lbs (180 – 410 kg) with extremely large individuals weighing as much as 1,400 lbs (640 kg). Females weigh half to three-quarters as much. Bear hides are prized by hunters but the meat of a brown bear is generally considered unpalatable and hunters rarely eat it."
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm%3Fadfg=brownbearhunting.main

One thing what comes to the end of that posting, where is mentioned "mature males weigh between 500 and 900 lbs (180 – 410 kg)". In Katmai national park biologists determine mature male to age, when it can breed ("Katmai’s biologists classify bears as adults once they are 5-6 years old. The distinction between a subadult and an adult bear is somewhat arbitrary, but like many other organisms adulthood is defined by reaching sexual maturity.").

What comes to statistics about average weights problem is, that current charts are very tricky to compare. Surprising how difficult it is to find information about sample bear ages and weighing times. But hopefully something could be found soon.

One thing which I just have to say, damn those bears in photos!! Even though I´ve seen same photos so many times, always impressive. Look at those front legs for instance :) There is some raw power. Reply

[Panther]

(12-18-2018, 01:38 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Its not a matter of the number being too high or too low. Its a matter of not enough information available; which is surprising. I have no desire to "settle" with an inaccurate average.
Pckts - good information

Edited by Mod (Rishi) so that you can understand what is not acceptable & why not.

So now, you calling it inaccurate when you have no argument against it? (He does...Incomplete data IS inaccurate data.)

No surprise, you're a guy who made a whole forum to overrate bears. You the guy who said black bears can beat adult male Bengal tigers on Carnivora. (Irrelevant. Has nothing to do with this topic...
But it's totally possible for black/sloth bears to hold their own against tigers & and even chase them off. About a "real fight to the death", we know of tiger preying on adult sloths regularly, blacks more rarely.)

*This image is copyright of its original author

I have no desire to take a decision of biased bear fan like you. Who is neither a expert nor a biologists,etc. (Not for you to decide who is the biased one here... you're not even trying to comprehend what he's trying to say.)

I should have discussed with non-bias posters like @GrizzlyClaws and @peter. My bad! (For people who wonder why people get banned from Wildfact...↑that, not this↓)
Thanks for telling me the truth about wildfact. The forum, where all kind of posters tend to agree with the bias of bear fans.

Sorry, I'm not about to make a war with you. This might be my last reply to you. No hard feelings! Reply

[Panther]

@peter , the last thing I needed is your answer about averages. What figure is more reliable?
660lbs , 700lbs, 800lbs, or 835lbs? Reply

[Shadow]

Problem here really is, that researchers aren´t giving enough information always. Troyer-Hensel chart is only one telling about ages of weighed Kodiak bears and also some information about weighing times. About other bears in charts recently posted here, we have less information.

And it looks like Troyer-Hensel chart is source for information about Kodiak bears in other charts too. Notice sample sizes, males 10, females 16 and make comparison to Troyer-Hensel chart of bears aged 6-9 years old. Female average weights confirm this conclusion, with male weights there is something odd, but it is clear, that Troyer-Hensel had some weighings more than there is in that chart of theirs and that unknown information and how it has been used can be the reason, that we have some issue with male weights. I am personally trying to find out reason for that.

But anyway situation is, that no matter who puts charts here, same questions stay. Is it known, that what are ages of weighed bears, time of weighing and sample number. I for instance replied about same things when Peter and Guate gave some charts and figures. So here really is nothing personal.

All animals have some unique features and people who know those things do demand certain quality when information is offered and especially if there is purpose to make comparisons. If certain relevant things are not known, then there is no point to debate so much, but to focus finding more information. 

If I would put here charts about 2-3 year old male bengal tigers and a chart about siberian tigers without any other information, but male siberian tigers and offering some conclusion based on those, I am sure, that I would be questioned. People would remind me, that am I mixing now sub adults to adults etc. etc.

What else can anyone expect here? Reply

[Panther]

(12-18-2018, 02:35 PM)Shadow Wrote: Problem here really is, that researchers aren´t giving enough information always. Troyer-Hensel chart is only one telling about ages of weighed Kodiak bears and also some information about weighing times. About other bears in charts recently posted here, we have less information.

And it looks like Troyer-Hensel chart is source for information about Kodiak bears in other charts too. Notice sample sizes, males 10, females 16 and make comparison to Troyer-Hensel chart of bears aged 6-9 years old. Female average weights confirm this conclusion, with male weights there is something odd, but it is clear, that Troyer-Hensel had some weighings more than there is in that chart of theirs and that unknown information and how it has been used can be the reason, that we have some issue with male weights. I am personally trying to find out reason for that.

But anyway situation is, that no matter who puts charts here, same questions stay. Is it known, that what are ages of weighed bears, time of weighing and sample number. I for instance replied about same things when Peter and Guate gave some charts and figures. So here really is nothing personal.

All animals have some unique features and people who know those things do demand certain quality when information is offered and especially if there is purpose to make comparisons. If certain relevant things are not known, then there is no point to debate so much, but to focus finding more information. 

If I would put here charts about 2-3 year old male bengal tigers and a chart about siberian tigers without any other information, but male siberian tigers and offering some conclusion based on those, I am sure, that I would be questioned. People would remind me, that am I mixing now sub adults to adults etc. etc.

What else can anyone expect here?

Of course you're right! Troyer hensel chart gave ages. And 8-9 year old is the last age for males to reach adulthood.

Information in my study is ofcourse clear enough to get answers. If you think logically, the study is based on Brown bears started from age-class of 8years. Those aren't small bears either.

What I'm telling is the more bears weighed, the troyer-hensel chart will give the value close to 800lbs.

Also 2-3 year old tigers aren't even sexually mature. Not a good comparison with what I'm doing here. Reply

[Shadow]

(12-18-2018, 02:49 PM)Panther Wrote:

(12-18-2018, 02:35 PM)Shadow Wrote: Problem here really is, that researchers aren´t giving enough information always. Troyer-Hensel chart is only one telling about ages of weighed Kodiak bears and also some information about weighing times. About other bears in charts recently posted here, we have less information.

And it looks like Troyer-Hensel chart is source for information about Kodiak bears in other charts too. Notice sample sizes, males 10, females 16 and make comparison to Troyer-Hensel chart of bears aged 6-9 years old. Female average weights confirm this conclusion, with male weights there is something odd, but it is clear, that Troyer-Hensel had some weighings more than there is in that chart of theirs and that unknown information and how it has been used can be the reason, that we have some issue with male weights. I am personally trying to find out reason for that.

But anyway situation is, that no matter who puts charts here, same questions stay. Is it known, that what are ages of weighed bears, time of weighing and sample number. I for instance replied about same things when Peter and Guate gave some charts and figures. So here really is nothing personal.

All animals have some unique features and people who know those things do demand certain quality when information is offered and especially if there is purpose to make comparisons. If certain relevant things are not known, then there is no point to debate so much, but to focus finding more information. 

If I would put here charts about 2-3 year old male bengal tigers and a chart about siberian tigers without any other information, but male siberian tigers and offering some conclusion based on those, I am sure, that I would be questioned. People would remind me, that am I mixing now sub adults to adults etc. etc.

What else can anyone expect here?

Of course you're right! Troyer hensel chart gave ages. And 8-9 year old is the last age for males to reach adulthood.

Information in my study is ofcourse clear enough to get answers. If you think logically, the study is based on Brown bears started from age-class of 8years. Those aren't small bears either.

What I'm telling is the more bears weighed, the troyer-hensel chart will give the value close to 800lbs.

Also 2-3 year old tigers aren't even sexually mature. Not a good comparison with what I'm doing here.

Yes, 8-9 years bears are quite big already and some rough estimations can be of course done, I agree to that. I can´t say with current information how good value 800 lbs is, but it is plausible, not something to call impossible by any means. But at this point I don´t feel comfortable to give too much estimations, because still hoping to get more information. If we get good information, that number maybe go down, but it can also go up. 

What comes to bear weights concerning other areas of Alaska, that mean weight can be looked to be as you suggest. Problem is, that we have no idea about time of year when weighings are done. So again situation is, that not possible to make big conclusions.

I personally am seeking charts/information, where is told, as I have said before 1. age or age group of bears 2. Time of year when bear is weighed 3. Number of bears weighed.
Can we find such information is another thing. As hunters have told, they are usually unable to weight big bears. That is naturally difficult for researchers too. If not, I think, that we would have a lot of good information to use.

My comparison about tigers wasn´t meant to be 1:1 to this situation, but this whole conversation started from a claim, which created many questions. Same thing would happen from that kind of comparison. And you kind of proved my point saying immediately, that even that example was bad :)

I think, that you made a good question by bringing up this topic about Kodiak bears and Alaskan coastal bears to be looked up. It brought up then another issue, do we have any good information what could be compared so, that no-one could argue in serious way? I think, that not yet. With all the respect to bear experts in North America, if current charts here with current explanations are the best there are..... not particularly impressive if so. Reply

[Panther]

(12-18-2018, 05:55 PM)Shadow Wrote: But at this point I don´t feel comfortable to give too much estimations, because still hoping to get more information. If we get good information, that number maybe go down, but it can also go up. 

Well,  I agree. The average must be either 835lbs as brotherbear suggested or 800lbs as I said. Time will tell!

Now let's stop here, until one of us got more information about this topic! Reply

[GreenGrolar]

(11-07-2014, 09:28 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

brotherbear\ dateline='\'1415357146' Wrote: Would you say that, pound for pound, the brown bear's bite force was moderate; pretty much average among the bears?
I returned to edit and add; the sun bear is also said to have a powerful bite.

 

 

I think black bears are pound for pound the weakest, brown bears are more towards moderate, then follow by the polar bears.

BTW, those short-muzzled bears might really be pound for pound the strongest ones.

I think it is the sloth bears with the weakest jaws mainly because of their diet of termites and also there is an account where the sloth bear robbed a kill from a leopard and it prefers the soft insides and blood compared to the muscle tissue. The brown bear has stronger jaws that polar bears, however, the letter has a better slicing bite that enables it to cut the hide of walruses and beluga whales (which have thicker skin than an average land mammal).

Regarding the short- muzzled bears, that explains why the giant panda has arguably the strongest jaws pound to pound. I might be wrong but it could be because it is decendent of the shot faced bear family. Reply

[BorneanTiger]

Long ago, there used to be huge grizzlies in California, and they were used in fights against other animals, including bulls (https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/bu...california, https://irving.thefreelibrary.com/Advent...39#vaquero, https://books.google.com/books?id=1QVZFQ...&q&f=false, https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc...ll&f=false).

Stuffed Californian grizzly at Valley Center History Museum (the town used to be called "Bear Valley"): https://www.vchistory.org/exhibits/grizzly-bear/, https://www.yelp.com/biz/valley-center-h...ley-center
   
   

Bear vs bull: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/bu...california

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[GreenGrolar]

These califonian grizzly bears were pretty huge. They have the ability to take down even bisons more so than the regular grizzly bears. Reply

[BorneanTiger]

(07-27-2019, 05:33 AM)GreenGrolar Wrote: These califonian grizzly bears were pretty huge. They have the ability to take down even bisons more so than the regular grizzly bears.

Sadly, it seems that even existing grizzlies, besides polar bears, have just gotten a higher risk of extinction, thanks to Trump: https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-animal-...8#pid89568 Reply

[Roberto]

THE FRONT AND BACK LEG BONES OF POLAR BEARS ARE DENSER THAN GRIZZLIES.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://books.google.com.au/books?dq=the...&q&f=false Reply