|
Post by brobear on Aug 19, 2020 17:38:38 GMT -5
Two things I have seen but decades ago probably on the old AVA. ( 1 ) Bart the bear meaurements with shoulder height, head-and-body length, bipedal height, and weight. ( 2 ) same thing with Casey Anderson's Brutus. However, I haven't seen these in ( as stated ) decades.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 21, 2020 14:39:17 GMT -5
domainofthebears.proboards.com/thread/11/size?page=3 * Brutus weighs more than 400 kilograms. ( 882 pounds ) * Standing up, Brutus is almost 2.5 metres. ( 8 feet 2 inches ) *Well; everything I can find on measurements given of any specific bear will give the weight, sometimes the shoulder height, and either the length or the bipedal height ( never both ).
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 21, 2020 15:00:48 GMT -5
Yeah exactly, i have searched and searched, even on AVA like you said, haven't found any bear with both measurements.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Oct 8, 2020 21:14:44 GMT -5
In general, we do not live in a weight parity world yet some animals do overlap in weight.
While I personally support bears over most animals at weight parity depending on species, I believe it is debatable.
In the animal world size does matter and we need to include to square root cube law: mass increases faster than size, therefore, a larger animal might seem pound to pound weaker.
How the square cube law applies: A female polar bear is able to drag a beluga five times her weight out of a breathing hole yet a male polar bear at 2200 pounds is unable to drag a 11000 pound bull elephant tusker carcass. A female cougar can kill a bull elk seven to eight times her weight yet a male cougar close to 300 pounds can’t kill a 2100 pound American bison.
Still we know that the males of both species are pound to pound stronger than their female counterparts should their weights overlap due to square root law. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 9, 2020 2:51:30 GMT -5
Personally, I am only interested in a weight-parity face-off where the two animals are generally within the same size range. Examples; Ussuri brown bear vs Smilodon populator. If our gathered info is correct, they would each weigh about 650 or 700 pounds. Another example would be a prime male Amur tiger vs Ussuri brown she-bear. The weight info we receive here vary greatly, but as their weights overlap, a weight-parity match-up is logical. Of course, for those who believe that the tiger could defeat the she-bear; this face-off does not place a feather in anyone's hat. A man cannot prove himself a man by beating-up his opponent's girlfriend. Now, you mentioned that a female cougar ( cougaress? ) can kill a bull elk seven or eight times her weight. You did not specify by ambush. How well would she do in a face-to-face confrontation? I'm not at all sure that a cougar ever comes close to 300 pounds? Also, I would question a cougar's ability to kill a prime bull bison even by ambush.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Oct 9, 2020 3:03:24 GMT -5
The largest recorded cougar was shot in Arizona and weighed 125.5 kilograms (276 pounds) after its intestines were removed, indicating that in life it could have weighed nearly 136.2 kilograms (300 pounds). Several male cougars in British Columbia weighed between 86.4 and 95.5 kilograms (190 to 210 pounds). This info is found on the cougar op in the matchups on Carnivora. That is where the 300 pound cougar came from. carnivora.net/cougar-v-leopard-t3069.html#p8164
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Oct 9, 2020 10:19:52 GMT -5
Everything is debatable in "animal vs animal fights".
In the wild, you will basically never have a weight parity fight as most animals that coexist with each other have much different weights and sizes, this is how nature works.
That is why we have these hypothetical match ups at these forums. Example, the Ussuri brown bear and the Siberian tiger are not at weight parity (the adult males), but we can always find a huge 600 lb tiger to make a weight parity fight with. In the wild, a weight parity fight would be an adult male tiger vs an adult female brown bear or a subadult male.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 9, 2020 10:48:35 GMT -5
Quote: "In the wild, a weight parity fight would be an adult male tiger vs an adult female brown bear or a subadult male." Thus we have the topic, "Debate: Male Amur Tiger vs Female Ussuri Brown Bear". But, as I said, "Of course, for those who believe that the tiger could defeat the she-bear; this face-off does not place a feather in anyone's hat. A man cannot prove himself a man by beating-up his opponent's girlfriend." Tigers hunt, ambush, and kill juvenile brown bears. But, should a tiger kill one in a face-off, again, nothing proven. Of course it is theoretically possible for an exceptional 500-pound tiger to blunder upon a less than exceptional full-grown male 500-pound Ussuri brown bear. But, the unlikely chance of this happening combined with the unlikely chance of the tiger deciding to fight is perhaps within the realms of fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Oct 11, 2020 16:39:05 GMT -5
Sun bears weigh 154 pounds for a big male. The leopards that live in their habitat are not as big as the African leopards but they probably overlap in weight with it.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 11, 2020 16:45:10 GMT -5
Sun bears weigh 154 pounds for a big male. The leopards that live in their habitat are not as big as the African leopards but they probably overlap in weight with it. A weight parity face-off between a sun bear and a leopard is sensible; as their size ranges overlap.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Oct 11, 2020 16:47:57 GMT -5
The sun bear has the most animals in its weight class range. That includes the smaller cougar subspecies and some species of wolves as well.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 12, 2020 16:01:31 GMT -5
The sun bear has the most animals in its weight class range. That includes the smaller cougar subspecies and some species of wolves as well. I will always give a weight-parity face-off between a cat and a bear a 50/50 because, in reality, the cat has a size advantage. A 150-pound leopard will have quite the height/length advantage over the 150-pound bear. Sure; equal in mass, but this is because a bear is stronger than a cat, thus heavier ( if of equal length ).
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Oct 12, 2020 18:53:18 GMT -5
A male polar bear is too big and strong to be matched up with big cats even at weight parity. Even if ‘miraculously’ shrunk down to the weight of big cats, the male polar bear will still be stronger due to the square cube law but again that is only an imagination which can never happen.
An exceptionally large male smilodon and American lion might overlap in weight with a smaller than average male yellowish white bear.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 17, 2020 3:05:26 GMT -5
Simply a question I hope can be answered. Let's say a brown bear measures 8 feet from nose to rump. How tall would he stand bipedally?
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Oct 17, 2020 4:22:33 GMT -5
Simply a question I hope can be answered. Let's say a brown bear measures 8 feet from nose to rump. How tall would he stand bipedally? I expect the bear to be a little taller. For example, the 2200 pound polar bear which is 11 ft plus would be shorter (10 ft) on all fours.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 17, 2020 4:25:43 GMT -5
Simply a question I hope can be answered. Let's say a brown bear measures 8 feet from nose to rump. How tall would he stand bipedally? What I'm seeking is actual data; either from a study or from the measurements of an actual individual bear showing both head-and-body length plus bipedal height.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Oct 17, 2020 9:38:19 GMT -5
I think a little shorter on all fours. Because 1 feet is only 0.3 meters which would be the length of the polar bears leg. That would be too short. For example, brown bear's legs are a little longer than half meter at 0.6 to 0.7 meters, that would be a little more than 1.96 feet. And polar bears hind legs should be even longer than brown bears. This means that an 11 foot polar bear should be around 9 to 9.1 feet on all fours (Maybe more). I am just doing a speculation here.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Oct 17, 2020 10:33:21 GMT -5
See here, there is a difference of 2 feet when polar bears stand on hind legs from when they are on all fours. 10 feet to 8 feet:
On average, polar bears on all fours are 3.5 to 5 feet (1 to 1.5 meters) tall, but when standing on its hind legs, an adult male polar bear may reach more than 10 feet (3 m). Lengthwise, they are 7.25 to 8 feet (2.2 to 2.5 m) from head to rump. Their tail adds another 3 to 5 inches (7.5 to 12.5 centimeters).
www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/27436-polar-bear-facts.html
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 17, 2020 10:52:17 GMT -5
YES; I have found plenty of such sites providing random numbers. This is far different from having the exact measurements from s single individual bear.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Oct 17, 2020 10:56:44 GMT -5
YES; I have found plenty of such sites providing random numbers. This is far different from having the exact measurements from s single individual bear. Yes i know what you mean, that is just a general sense of the info. But trust me, i have searched and searched and cant find 1 particular bear with both the head and body length and the bipedal height, its incredible.
|
|