|
Post by King Kodiak on May 11, 2019 8:00:39 GMT -5
This is indeed exceptionally large female grizzlies to. She is larger than some average male polar bears at 900 pounds. Well it says the weight was estimated, but yeah, that is the largest female brown bear i ever heard of.
|
|
|
Post by tom on May 11, 2019 22:36:32 GMT -5
It would seem Bloody Paws killed just the sake of it. Bears in the 19th Century appeared to be much larger than the current day Yellowstone variety. I have to believe this was due to diet. More meat available in the form of cattle and sheep.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on May 12, 2019 9:24:53 GMT -5
It would seem Bloody Paws killed just the sake of it. Bears in the 19th Century appeared to be much larger than the current day Yellowstone variety. I have to believe this was due to diet. More meat available in the form of cattle and sheep. Oh definatly Tom. Its a fact that the grizzlies of before were much larger, its written all over this book. And yes you are correct, Bloody Paws killed for fun, all of those outlaw grizzlies did, most cattle killed were NOT eaten at all, just killed.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on May 17, 2019 18:57:03 GMT -5
|
|
smedz
Ursus abstrusus
Recent Graduate
Posts: 410
|
Post by smedz on May 17, 2019 23:11:04 GMT -5
The bear is a predator, at least a part time hunter, but normally he will take kills from others, because why hunt when you can take from others?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 0:01:22 GMT -5
The bear is a predator, at least a part time hunter, but normally he will take kills from others, because why hunt when you can take from others? <iframe width="23.680000000000064" height="2.9200000000000017" style="position: absolute; width: 23.680000000000064px; height: 2.9200000000000017px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT2_93252201" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="23.680000000000064" height="2.9200000000000017" style="position: absolute; width: 23.68px; height: 2.92px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1125px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT2_71469626" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="23.680000000000064" height="2.9200000000000017" style="position: absolute; width: 23.68px; height: 2.92px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 87px;" id="MoatPxIOPT2_75365991" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="23.680000000000064" height="2.9200000000000017" style="position: absolute; width: 23.68px; height: 2.92px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1125px; top: 87px;" id="MoatPxIOPT2_98420447" scrolling="no"></iframe> More powerful predators generally usurp the food of less formidable predators even though they are just as capable because its easier to conserve energy by usurping rather than hunting food on your own. Carnivores also compete a lot more in winter and thats the time brown bears usurp prey food other predators (e.g. siberian tigers, cougars, wolves) more so than other times when food is scarce.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on May 18, 2019 12:00:05 GMT -5
Bears steal:
35 % of Siberian tigers kills just in the Sikhote Alin reserve. (Dale Miquelle)
Plenty of Amur leopards kills.
About 1/3 of wolves kills. In some regions every kill.
about 50 % of pumas kills. In some regions black bears steal up to 77 %.
Bear kleptoparasitism (kleptoparasitism is science-talk for “stealing food from another animal”) is ubiquitous wherever bears and mountain lions overlap in North America. In a Colorado study, we found that black bears visited 48% of deer and elk killed by cougars in summer, and in a California study, they visited an amazing 77% of deer killed by cougars (Elbroch et al. 2014). That’s a tremendous amount of interference by bears in cougars’ lives.
In both the CO and CA studies, cougars killed about 50% more animals each week in the “bear season” than the “no-bear season.” Our research showed that black bear kleptoparasitism likely increased cougar kill rates in two ways: first, mountain lions eat less of their kills when a bear shows up, and second, mountain lions kill their next prey more quickly when displaced by a bear at their last kill. So, when bears are around, cougars spend less time at kills, and less time between kills…both of which lead to more frequent killing of prey.
blog.nationalgeographic.org/2014/11/01/mountain-lions-versus-black-bears/
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Jul 4, 2019 7:58:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tom on Jul 4, 2019 10:48:53 GMT -5
Bears are thieves because they can be. When your the biggest bad azz on the block who is going to stop you.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Jul 4, 2019 12:54:10 GMT -5
Bears are thieves because they can be. When your the biggest bad azz on the block who is going to stop you. Nobody.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 3, 2019 20:25:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 26, 2019 7:31:08 GMT -5
Kleptoparasite. This term means to displace another predator from his kill. Most bear species will do this. Although the giant short-faced bears were omnivorous, they ( Arctodus simus and Arctotherium angustidens ) routinely displaced any and all other predator species from their kills. The grizzly is also a notorious kleptoparasite.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 14, 2019 9:36:45 GMT -5
The Bear Almanac - Second Edition:
A grizzly bear preying on a moose calf finds the protective mother a formidable foe. Adolf Murie "... watched a mother, followed by her very young calf, determinedly chasing a grizzly and doing her best to overtake it." An account is related of a Russian brown bear imitating the call of an elk ( moose are called elk in Asia ) during the rutting season, luring the unsuspecting moose to where it would be easier prey.]
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 14, 2019 9:37:45 GMT -5
The Bear Almanac - Second Edition:
Brown bears are a natural enemy of elk. Grizzly bears may under unusual circumstances kill adult elk, but grizzlies and American black bears normally seek calves. BEARS by Richard Perry:
Even the gigantic moose occasionally falls victom to a grizzly. One has been seen dragging the carcass of a bull moose, weighing upwards of a ton. In his Mammals of North America, Victor H. Cahalane describes how one summer day a fisherman in Yellowstone Park was astonished to see a bull moose dash out of the forest with a grey grizzly clinging and tearing at its hip. The moose succeeded, however, in shaking off its attacker at the edge of the stream and escaped into deep water, leaving the frustrated bear to rage up and down the bank for some hours. *As a predator of large herbivores, the brown bear is less efficient than the big cats.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Nov 21, 2019 17:22:40 GMT -5
IN EURASIA, THE BROWN BEAR PREFERS MOOSEA meta-analysis of ungulate predation and prey selection by the brown bear Ursus arctos in Eurasia At the biogeographic scale, spatial variation in diets may reflect not only the ecological flexibility of carnivore feeding habits, but also evolutionary adaptations of different populations within a species. We described the large-scale pattern in brown bear Ursus arctos predation on ungulates, its selectivity for ungulate species, and its relative role in ungulate mortality. We collated data from 63 studies in Europe and Asia and analyzed them in relation to annual temperature. Ungulate meat makes up, on average, 8.7% of brown bear diets, with European bears feeding on ungulates more (mean 10.5%) than Asiatic bears (6.8%). In Europe (but not in Asia), the percentage share of ungulates in bear diet was negatively related to the mean annual temperature. Northern populations of Asian bears consumed less ungulate meat than the respective populations in Europe, because of the widespread occurrence of Siberian pine Pinus sibirica and dwarf Siberian pine Pinus pumila, which produce relatively large, protein-rich seeds. In both continents, ungulates peak in the diet of bears in spring. Brown bears’ preference for 10 species of ungulates increased with body mass of prey. The bear significantly preferred preying upon moose Alces alces throughout its range. Bears were the most important predator of moose and caused, on average, 23% of total natural mortality in moose populations. Brown bear preference for moose and its dominant role in moose mortality suggest an evolutionary predator–prey relationship between these two species. Brown bears illustrate that even an apparently omnivorous predator can prefer one prey species. Full report here,: www.researchgate.net/publication/327783044_A_meta-analysis_of_ungulate_predation_and_prey_selection_by_the_brown_bear_Ursus_arctos_in_Eurasia
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 10, 2019 5:00:17 GMT -5
shaggygod.proboards.com/thread/471/bears-scavengers Scavenging by Bears Bears actively scavenge carcasses in spring and fall. Like other species of scavenger, bears prefer to eat meat, hide, viscera, or cartilage before finally gnawing bones. Black bears occasionally fracture long bones of adult bison, but do so more often because wolves have first gnawed off an epiphysis (usually the distal end of femora, the proximal end of humeri, or the proximal end of tibiae). While large bears are capable of breaking bison limb bones, it hardly seems adaptive for them to rely on such a difficult source of food. However, in years when there have been poor crops of berries or mast, bears would make stronger efforts to feed on all available carcass parts in the fall, and many long bones would be broken to get out marrow. Winter scavenging would also be heavy by bears in years when summer and fall foods were in poor supply. Haynes, G. 1981, FREQUENCIES OF SPIRAL AND GREEN-BONE FRACTURES. ON UNGULATE LIMLB BONES.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 10, 2019 5:01:47 GMT -5
More from Haynes.....
Abstract.—Large cats, canids, bears, and hyenas create distinctive types of damage when they gnaw bones. This paper describes the diagnostic characteristics of damage done by each taxon to femora and tibiae of herbivores whose body weights are 300 kg or more. Pleistocene and Recent fossil collections that include gnawed bones might provide data on the presence of carnivores whose own remains are not found in the collections. Information might also be gained about predator and scavenger utilization of prey carcasses, often a reflection of prey vulnerability or availability in past communities.
Bears (Ursus arctos, U. americanus mainly; other species listed in Table 1).—Bear gnaw damage to large bovid femora: Most bears will usually not gnaw heavily on bones after the soft tissue has dried or been removed, although there are wide behavioral differences between individuals and species.
Damage from bear gnawing is distinct from damage caused by canids and hyenas, in that the broader cheek teeth of bears grind down and crush cancellous bone as well as plane or shear it off. However, bear gnawing, like hyena or wolf gnawing, may leave distinct furrows or score marks across cancellous tissue.
In the early stages the cheek teeth grind off most of the greater trochanter and the larger trochlear rim, with the jaws aligned parallel to the rims.
In the later stages the stump of the greater trochanter is faceted or flattened, and the exposed cancellous bone may be gouged into fewer than 5 pits that are 6 mm deep and 10-20 mm long, each corresponding to and about the size of individual cheek teeth of large bears. There is rarely a rim of compact bone higher than the cancellous bone of the trochanter stump. The trochlear rims also appear to have been crushed or ground off between teeth, rather than chopped off. There may be no tooth marks or scratches on the shaft surfaces. The occasional tooth marks on compact bone appear as short and wide sets of parallel scrapes, each seldom wider than 1.5 mm or longer than 9 mm, or they may appear as roughly circular pits no deeper than 0.5 mm.
Bear gnaw damage to large bovid tibiae: Black and brown bears (U. americanus and U. arctos) do not often severely damage tibiae of large herbivores such as Bison bison unless wolves have first gnawed off epiphyses. Bears seldom inflict the full range of damage of which they are capable, except when other sources of food are in short supply.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 10, 2019 5:03:13 GMT -5
Typical damage due to gnawing by bears appears as a rounding of edges and a grinding with crushing of compact bone surfaces, exposing cancellous tissue and leaving it with a mashed look. There may be occasional tooth cusp impressions in the proximal end of the bone, consisting of single, nearly flat-bottomed holes entering cancellous tissue. There may also be sets of parallel furrows on the crest, resulting from the filing away of bone by separate tubercles on the cheek teeth. The cheek teeth may produce a few short scratches on the shaft. These scratches actually appear similar to rodent gnaw marks: short and parallel, shallowly etched, straight score lines. Haynes, G. 1983, A guide for differentiating mammalian carnivore taxa responsible for gnaw damage to herbivore limb bones.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 10, 2019 5:04:22 GMT -5
Haynes (1983) follow up for those people interested in big cat comparisons.
Lion, tiger, and jaguar (Panthera leo, P. ti-gris, and P. onca).—Large cat gnaw damage to large bovid femora: African lions, Bengal tigers, and jaguars will not often sustain gnawing on large bones, although captive cubs and adults may mouth bones and gnaw briefly from time to time.
The main damage from large cats consists of the biting off of the greater trochanter, undercut biting of the femoral head, and scraping off of trochlear rims by use of the carnassials and other cheek teeth, leaving a few, relatively deep, identifiable grooves from individual tooth cusps running perpendicular to the larger trochlear rim. The grooves, if clearly produced, will usually be larger than grooves created by the teeth of hyenas or wolves, and may be fewer in number.
Lion cubs may gouge out only some of the greater trochanter, leaving a discontinuous 3-7-mm-high rim of compact tissue around the internal cancellous tissue, similar to gnaw damage created by adult wolves.
Adult lions sometimes leave tooth scratches on the compact tissue of the diaphysis. Most of these marks are nearly perpendicular to the element's long axis, and all are shallow but rather sharply incised. The outline of the greater trochanter may be irregularly gnawed into deep round pits. The basic identifying characteristic of large cat gnawing is the rough and irregular marking left by biting on or through cancellous bone of the epiphyses. These marks are wide, deep, and countable, and are inflicted by the large cheek teeth.
The main damage that I have recorded from large cats gnawing on tibiae has been moderately deep and isolated scoring of parts of the proximal articular edges on medial and lateral sides. The cranial proximal end (or "crest") is also occasionally furrowed perpendicular to the element's long axis, probably during consumption of the muscle and soft tissue around the patella. The crest may also be bitten off.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 10, 2019 5:07:42 GMT -5
Actualism has been a fundamental tool in taphonomy. The knowledge of accumulation patterning of modern faunal allows us to interpret the activity of different actors in the archaeological record and to reconstruct the behaviour of preterit animals and humans in which we are interested. However, until now, there are few works that include bone modifications made by bears amongst those made by carnivores. Most data about bone modifications made by bears have been obtained from the archaeo-palaeontological record. In most of these assemblages, the presence of bears is related to their period of hibernation. Therefore, in these contexts, the changes documented on recovered bear bones are associated only with cannibalism. In this paper, we present an actualistic study about modifications on bones made by modern brown bears. These animals can cause damage similar to those produced by other large carnivores. Generally, bear activity leaves slight damage, mainly on large-sized animal bones. However, on bones of small-sized animals and those of greater fragility, the bears can produce abundant damage. Though not usual, bears can break long bones and consume the complete epiphysis. This study suggests that bears have the potential to be agents of bone modification in fossil assemblages. Consequently, they should be considered as a possible agent of modification of faunal remains in the fossil record. Saladié, P., Huguet, R., Díez, C., Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A. and Carbonell, E. (2011), Taphonomic modifications produced by modern brown bears (Ursus arctos). International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oa.1237/abstract
|
|