|
Post by brobear on Jan 9, 2018 5:22:13 GMT -5
This is where we can boldly put in print those things we believe including those things proven and those things which remain unproven. What do you strongly believe that may be contrary to the ideas of others?
1 - I believe that a full-grown healthy grizzly boar has no predators, with the exception of the Pleistocene era.
2 - I believe that in the RFE, a big boar grizzly ( 600+ pounds ) can and will displace a tiger of any age, sex, or size from a carcass.
3 - In ancient Europe, the people viewed the grizzly, some as the King of Beasts, some as an intermediate between animal and man, and some as a god. Nowhere in all of Europe was the grizzly viewed as a mere animal.
4 - In the pioneer American West, the American Indians viewed the grizzly, some as an ancestral man, some as a spirit animal, some as a god and some as a devil. No Indian tribe saw the grizzly as a mere animal.
5 - Bears rank along-side the elephant and the great apes in intelligence. Besides mankind, only the corvus ( ravens and crows ) and the whales and dolphins are likely higher in intelligence.
6 - No terrestrial mammal of his size is as strong as a bear. - No other bear species is pound-for-pound as strong as a grizzly.
7 - Africa has their majestic lion. India has their royal tiger. In North America we have the mighty grizzly. The grizzly should be proclaimed as a National Treasure and permanently protected from sport hunters. Also in Russia along with the tiger.
8 - At size parity, I believe that a grizzly will most often be the victor in a face-off confrontation with either a lion or a tiger. 9 - I believe that the big bull bovines such as bison, yak, gaur, water buffalo, and Cape buffalo represent the prey limitations of a grizzly. I would give a 1000+ pound grizzly a 50-50 against any of these big wild bull bovine. 10 - I believe that both the lion and the tiger are capable of killing bigger and more powerful prey herbivores than even the biggest-ever boar grizzly. 11 - At equal head-and-body length, a grizzly boar has a greater girth of limbs, neck, and chest than any male big cat including the now extinct Smilodon.
12 - The bone density of bears are equal to if not superior to that of the big cats. IMPORTANT RULE: We will neither dispute nor debate on this topic. However, you may put in print your own ideas and opinions.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 10, 2018 7:25:15 GMT -5
Bear name changes that should take place...IMO: IMO - The name Ursus ingressus should be changed to: Ursus speleaus ingressus. Also - The polar bear should be renamed: Ursus arctos maritimus. Epiphany - The tyrant sea bear should then be named: Ursus arctos tyrannus. My reasoning? Because as more information is learned, a picture changes. We now know - that the two major cave bears were actually subspecies - not separate species. We now know - that the polar bear is a product of grizzly bears which became secluded in the arctic many thousands of years ago. A polar bear is still genetically a grizzly. We now know - that most experts consider the tyrant sea bear to be a brown bear - perhaps being an ancestral bear to the polar bear.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 13, 2018 10:53:23 GMT -5
How best to word this..? I love and respect the people of India. India is a land of wondrous wildlife. However, and I do not mean to stereotype, but it seems to me that Indian citizens are more defensive about their native animals than any other peoples that participate on animal forums. Let someone make a claim that a native Indian animal is outdone by - let's say - an African animal and you have a fight on your hands. Not every Indian citizen, but by so many! I had a guy some time back who got fired-up as he made the claim that the sloth bear is pound-for-pound the strongest of bears and the fiercest fighter. Based on what science? Well, I have never been "politically correct" as they call it here in the U.S. of A. My favorite animal is the grizzly, meaning any brown bear from any land. The fact that there are grizzlies here in America has absolutely nothing to do with my choice. In fact, I live in the South East ( North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida have been my home ). There are no grizzlies within thousands of miles from here. Also, where the grizzly comes up short, I admit. *I do not make false claims; what I say I believe. Many years ago, my favorite animal was the gorilla. But, that was up until Dian Fossey killed the popular movie monster and introduced the real gorilla. I still love gorillas, but they have since lost their glamour.
|
|
|
Post by tom on Jan 13, 2018 14:18:49 GMT -5
10 - I believe that both the lion and the tiger are capable of killing bigger and more powerful prey herbivores than even the biggest-ever boar grizzly. ; What would you base this on, their agility over the Bear or possibly in there method in which they kill them. Lion's normally hunt large game as a team. Claws designed for holding. A single Lion would kill by making a Bite to the throat or over the nose and mouth of the game and hold it till they suffocate.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 13, 2018 15:59:19 GMT -5
The big cats have several perfected tactics and the weapons to kill really big animals. From observation, I have noticed three primary killing methods. 1 - A strangle-hold to the throat. 2 - A bite to the base of the neck. 3 - to cover the animals entire mouth and nose within the mouth of the big cat. The big cat has wickedly curved retractable claws which it can hold onto its prey much more effectively than can a grizzly. The grizzly really has to over-power his opponent with wrestling moves. His jaws are poorly designed for a throat-bite and impossible for a smother-hold. He must either kill with a bite to the spine ( on the base of the neck or directly onto the animals back ) or kill with a paw swipe. Another killing method sometimes used by a grizzly is a series of successive rapid bites, each of which removes a chunk of the herbivore; thus bleeding it to death. But bottom line, if the grizzly cannot hold and control his opponent, he cannot kill it. Oh; another killing method is to grab the animal by its tongue and then forcing it to the ground. Once in control, the grizzly can then kill the herbivore. But, the two main reasons I have come to this conclusion are: 1 - grizzly vs bull bison battles have gone either way with one winning as often as the other. 2 - In the Roman Circus Games, a rhinoceros easily killed a champion grizzly ( gladiator ).
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 13, 2018 17:50:59 GMT -5
Perhaps a better answer to Tom's question: shaggygod.proboards.com/ Bears as predators.... The size of a carnivore strongly influences the size of the prey it is capable of killing, the maximum size of prey killed being slightly larger than that of the predator. For example, a 100 kilogram (220 pound) bear can handle prey weighing up to roughly 150 kilograms (330 pounds). Polar bears prey primarily on the smallish (60 kilogram/ 130 pound) ringed seal and the larger (up to 360 kilogram/790 pound) bearded seal. In some instances, polar bears can remove up to 44 percent of the ringed seal pups born in a particular area. They are also known to kill walruses (500 kilograms/1,100 pounds) and white whales weighing up to 600 kilograms (1,320 pounds). Brown bears, while primarily vegetarian, can also prey significantly on hoofed mammals. In some areas, adult males reportedly kill three or four adult moose (450 kilograms/990 pounds) per year, with females killing an average of one. Caribou (150 kilograms/330 pounds), musk ox (250 kilograms/550 pounds), elk (200 kilograms/ 440 pounds), and bison (500 kilograms/ 1,100 pounds) have all been taken. Brown bears also prey on ground squirrels, trout, and salmon, but usually only when they are sufficiently abundant to make hunting them energy-efficient. ANDREW E. DEROCHER AND IAN STIRLING, Bears: Majestic Creatures of the Wild (1993). Bears typically kill using brute force and do not seem to exhibit any stereotyped killing postures or behaviours as seen in canids and felids (R. Boertje, pers. comm.; J. Hechtel, pers. comm.). Polar bears and brown bears have been observed to attack their prey both with bites and crushing forepaw slaps, apparently to whatever region of the prey’s body is accessible (Murie, 1985; Boertje et al., 1988; Case & Stevenson, 1991; M. Ramsay, pers. comm; J. Hechtel, pers. comm.). Sacco, T. and Van Valkenburgh, B. (2004), Ecomorphological indicators of feeding behaviour in the bears (Carnivora: Ursidae). Journal of Zoology, 263: 41–54.
|
|
|
Post by Polar on Jan 13, 2018 19:14:34 GMT -5
Lion has more of a jaw designed for mauling (much like bears), an elongated jaw allowing for repeated attempts at suffocating or biting the prey and a relatively straight mandible-bottom. The tiger is more designed for a quick kill, with larger canines and teeth in general for its size, a more widened skull for stress release, and the bottom of its mandible is more curved than the lion. Bears skulls have developed for rapid attempts for biting (because of their canine-like ancestors), but the polar bear's skull is more like the tiger's, and the grizzly's more like that of the lion's.
|
|
|
Post by Polar on Jan 13, 2018 19:15:49 GMT -5
To add to the list:
11 - Bears are evolved to bite in rapid succession much like canines and unlike felines.
|
|
|
Post by Polar on Jan 13, 2018 19:19:28 GMT -5
About #10 too, I think a most bears can kill most of what big cats can do. Most. Bears have very similar agility (just not jumping power or spine flexibility to avoid attacks) and greater natural strength: but they can't kill the bigger bovines and rhinos unless they are of exceptional size (and big bears defy the laws of physics). So exceptional bears can do what big cats can do.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 13, 2018 19:58:20 GMT -5
Even a big grizzly that was accustomed to killing feral range cattle and bison ( experienced ) stood no better than a 50% chance against a mature bull bison. I believe that a lion or a tiger would have a higher percentage of successful kills. Those old grizzlies of the pioneer American West were big bears. An African white rhinoceros averaged 2,300 kg ( 5,000 pounds ). An African black rhinoceros averaged from 800 to 1400 kg ( 1,700 to 3,100 pounds ). The Indian rhinoceros averaged 2,200 kg ( 4,900 pounds ). The Javan rhinoceros was the same size as the African black rhinoceros. The Sumatran rhinoceros averaged from 500 to 800 kg ( 1,100 to 1,700 pounds ). In the ancient Roman arena games, a big experienced European grizzly stood no chance against an African rhinoceros. Perhaps, and this is a maybe, a grizzly might be capable of killing a Sumatran rhinoceros. This smallest of rhinos was basically in the size range of a bison. By the way, the record Great Indian rhino weighed 4,000 kg ( 8,800 pounds ).
|
|
|
Post by Polar on Jan 13, 2018 20:11:59 GMT -5
Most big cats don't stand a good chance against those animals either, similar to the bear. Both can have similar success of killing these preys provided that the big cat is normal-to-normal maximum sized and that the bear is more exceptionally sized.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 14, 2018 3:42:11 GMT -5
Tigers routinely hunt and kill adult water buffalo and gaur. Rhino and elephant are not their normal prey, but there have been some recorded cases. I have watched some lion documentaries where a pride of lions hunt Cape buffalo and, in the end, it is only one lion doing the killing while the rest of the pride stand back and watch. It does not take an exceptional lion or tiger to do this but simply a healthy mature big cat. Not every grizzly knows how to hunt. Some are very good hunters while others are clueless. Some grizzlies hunt and kill adult elk and even adult moose, either sex. Those old bison hunters of days gone by were big bears. According to several books, including "Notorious Grizzly Bears" by W.P.Hubbaed, - quote: "A safe estimate of the average weight of adult grizzlies in our western states would be about eight hundred and fifty pounds. This conclusion results from a careful check on grizzlies killed and weighed by numerous hunters, trappers, and old-time bear men. Nevertheless, there are exceptions. Several outlaw grizzlies investigated were known to have weighed over one thousand pounds." In my own words - Bears who eat plenty of meat are always your bigger bears - polar bear good example.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 14, 2018 3:46:03 GMT -5
shaggygod.proboards.com/ Musk Ox - Multiple Hunting Strategy In the Thelon Game Sanctuary, grizzlies and muskox coexist, but the relationship is not always copasetic. Near the Thelon River, bears may use thick willow stands along the waterway to ambush muskox feeding on sedge in nearby clearings. Willows also attract muskox, as it is a preferred food of this beast. Gunn and Miller (1982) report finding a bear on a freshly killed, bull O. moschatus. They were able to scare the adult bear off and examine its kill and concluded that the bear had dispatched the big ungulate by first grasping its nose (crushing the nasal turbine bones and tearing off the nose in the process) and then inflicting a crippling bite to its skull. By grasping the nose, the bear may have prevented the muskox from bringing its horns to bear and also may have been more effective at throwing the animal to the ground. In another study carried out in the northeastern Arctic slopes of Alaska, 92 grizzly-muskox interactions were observed (Reynolds et al. 2002). Fifty percent of these were known kills, 40 % were possible kills or scavenging events, and 10 % were incidents where a grizzly was seen chasing muskox. It was estimated that 16-39 % of muskox mortality was the result of bear predation. During the study period (1982-2001) the number of muskox killed by grizzly bears was zero to two deaths per year before 1993, one to four musk ox per year from 1994-1997 and five to ten deaths per year from 1998-2001. This increase in kill numbers was a function of an increase in the size of musk ox herds. An increase in kills may also be indicative of the bears learning how to better attack and take down these big, formidable animals. While solitary adult bears were most often seen attacking muskox (69 occasions), pairs or trios of adult bears were seen chasing, killing or eating these animals (three episodes). Sows with cubs or yearlings were seen interacting with muskox on three occasions. Surplus Killing Grizzly bears sometimes engage in surplus killing of muskox. In the study carried out by Reynolds et al. (2002) there were ten episodes where one to three bears killed from two to four adult muskox. On several occasions even more muskox were dispatched during a single hunting bout. For example, in one case five individuals (two adult females, a yearling and unsexed adult musk ox) were incapacitated by a single bear. In another case, a grizzly killed four calves and in another incident the victims were one adult female, one two-year old male and one yearling. In most cases, solitary bears were involved in these killing sprees, but in one case three grizzlies instigated the melee. Clarkson et al. (1993) reported a fascinating case of surplus killing of muskox calves by a heterosexual pair of adult grizzlies. Within a distance of about two km, the two bears took down five young musk ox. By doing a little forensic work, the researchers were able to put together a likely picture of what had happened. Rather than form a defensive circle to try and parry the bear attacks, this herd of musk ox tried to out run the grizzlies. The researchers postulated that the calves trailed behind the adults and, therefore, were more vulnerable. The two bears chased the herd, which consisted of 40 to 50 muskox (with a minimum of eight calves). They killed the first calf and ate 90 % of the carcass. They then chased the herd down again and about 1.5-2.0 km from the first kill dispatched a second young musk ox. They ate 60 % of this second calve and began the hunt again. They killed the third calf about 300 m from the second. The third calf was about 30 % consumed by the bears and a wolverine (Gulo gulo) that was feeding on the carcass when the researchers arrived on the scene. The fourth calve was killed 400 m from the third. A golden eagle had just begun to feed on calf four when the researchers arrived. The final calf was killed about 200 m from the fourth – this last young muskox was not eaten either. gobiestogrizzlies.blogspot.com/2008/07/muskox-on-menu-grizzly-predation-on.html
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 14, 2018 3:58:49 GMT -5
Ok - A big grizzly boar ( 700+ pounds ) and being a bear with experience in killing large bovines, just might stand perhaps a 50% chance going up against any of the big bovine bulls. But the pachyderms are a different story. IMO - killing a rhinoceros, hippopotamus, or an elephant would be impossible for a bear. Also consider, making a living by routinely fighting something than has a 50% chance of killing you is, to say the least, a bad idea. The big cats have a much better percentage rate of winning that contest. Grizzlies actually targeted the bison calves or weak members of the herd. The grizzly, on the other hand, is superior when it comes down to fighting other predators. Much of the meat consumed by a grizzly is that usurped from other predators.
*I stick with my 10 statements as printed.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 14, 2018 8:22:10 GMT -5
Polar, give us your own personal beliefs concerning bears; regardless of these thoughts being proven or unproven as fact.
|
|
|
Post by Polar on Jan 14, 2018 18:15:14 GMT -5
I think you've already covered them all. I would add the following:
12. Polar bears are adapted for marine hunting more than any other bear. 13. Exceptionally-sized bears can kill the same prey as average-sized lions and tigers. 14. Bears, in regards to their clumsy-looking body shape, possess one of the fastest neurons and reactions much like big cats. Both are equal in reflexes and response time (there is a difference).
|
|
|
Post by tom on Jan 14, 2018 21:41:43 GMT -5
How bout Polar Bear killing a bull Walrus.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 16, 2018 8:10:50 GMT -5
Polar: Exceptionally-sized bears can kill the same prey as average-sized lions and tigers. I am going to carry this to Grizzly vs the Biggest Bovine.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 16, 2018 17:14:22 GMT -5
Comparing your favorite animal to a human athlete. ( possible topic? )...
Grizzly - think weight-lifter ... Paul Anderson, Mark Henry, Braun Strowman, or Brock Lesner. Tiger - think athltete ... John Cena, Randy Orton, Roman Reigns, or Sheamus.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 22, 2018 10:28:05 GMT -5
On post #1, my list of 10, I had to revamp number #1. The Pleistocene grizzly was no bigger than a Yellowstone grizzly. With few exceptions, those old grizzlies lived in remote locations where there were fewer scimitar cats, saber-toothed cats, giant lions, and the enormous short-faced bears. A big boar grizzly could ( IMO ) make his way in this harsh environment, but for a she-bear, especially one with cubs, life would be near-impossible. Surprisingly, there were a scarce few exceptions to the rule. Fossils of two grizzlies have been unearthed in Oklahoma. The average Pleistocene grizzly of N. America was then very likely then about 450 pounds. Those of Europe were much bigger. After the Ice Age, the grizzlies of N. America became the kings of their domain and some populations doubled in size - and the European grizzly remained big and fierce until the time period between 1000 AD and 1200 AD.
|
|