|
Post by King Kodiak on Mar 7, 2019 6:34:18 GMT -5
“If short-faced bears were large, aggressive scavengers capable of stealing carcasses from other large carnivores, then it seems unlikely that brown bears could dominate them in direct interference competition. And while brown bears may have preferred to feed on animal carcasses, it seems more likely that they would have avoided direct confrontation with a dominant bear.”
I agree with this paragraph here. The short faced bears (Tremarctinae subfamily) were the most dominant bears of their era, even with brown bears.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 8:21:10 GMT -5
Still the barren ground grizzlies do stand up to larger polar bears. I am not surprise if the brown bears might have at least kept the short faced bears at bay.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 25, 2019 11:24:25 GMT -5
We cannot go back in time to observe animal behavior; but the common belief is that Arctodus simus was a very aggressive scavenger who routinely displaced any and all predators. The grizzly very likely did more hunting than scavenging and a lot of foraging vegetation. But, I can see a big male grizzly displacing an Arctodus she-bear or sub-adult. He might even have hunted and killed Arctodus she-bears and juveniles for food. Theory.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Mar 25, 2019 12:58:55 GMT -5
We cannot go back in time to observe animal behavior; but the common belief is that Arctodus simus was a very aggressive scavenger who routinely displaced any and all predators. The grizzly very likely did more hunting than scavenging and a lot of foraging vegetation. But, I can see a big male grizzly displacing an Arctodus she-bear or sub-adult. He might even have hunted and killed Arctodus she-bears and juveniles for food. Theory. Humm, i dont know about that brobear. Arctodus Simus Females were probably same weight/size or even larger than Grizzlies. We don have their weight, but its my guess. Subadult Simus yeah i can see that.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 25, 2019 15:43:02 GMT -5
iceage.museum.state.il.us/mammals/short-faced-bear-0 Females: 300-400 kg (660-880 lbs); Figuerido et al. 2010 Males: 800-1000 kg (1760-2200 lbs); Figuerido et al. 2010 *Basically, the Artodus she-bear was in pretty-much the weight range of a male grizzly. The she-bear would no doubt be taller, but the grizzly more compact, stronger, and a better grappler. So, its possible. However, in knowing the normal habits of a grizzly, even though this is a fight he could win, it might be more trouble than its worth for a meal. However, there is also the possibility that the grizzly would simply not like the giants. We will not likely ever have a clear answer.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Mar 25, 2019 16:11:16 GMT -5
Females: 300-400 kg (660-880 lbs); Figuerido et al. 2010
Just by guess work i basically hit it right on the money. Arctodus Simus adult females were very much in the weight range of the Pleistocene adult male grizzly. Like you said, most probably taller also. So, knowing this, i see it very unlikely that the grizzly hunted female Arctodus. A displacement yes, i see it possible, although not often in this case.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 25, 2019 22:18:24 GMT -5
Females: 300-400 kg (660-880 lbs); Figuerido et al. 2010 Just by guess work i basically hit it right on the money. Arctodus Simus adult females were very much in the weight range of the Pleistocene adult male grizzly. Like you said, most probably taller also. So, knowing this, i see it very unlikely that the grizzly hunter female Arctodus. A displacement yes, i see it possible, although not often in this case.I would think that a big male grizzly might displace an Arctodus she-bear without a second thought. After living within the same environment for centuries, the grizzly knows he is the stronger. The she-bear knows too that this grizzly is a dangerous foe. The grizzly ( perhaps ) could displace Arctodus she-bears and sub-adults without any physical contact in most cases. But, be this as it may, we will never know the truth. *I will edit and add: I'm pretty sure that no she-bear or sub-adult ever displaced a big boar grizzly from a carcass.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Mar 26, 2019 4:19:25 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that no she-bear or sub-adult ever displaced a big boar grizzly from a carcass. Oh yeah definatly brobear, i agree. Not likely.
|
|
|
Post by BruteStrength on Mar 27, 2019 17:12:06 GMT -5
I think a boar grizzly could displace a adult shortface she bear but I don't know for sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2019 22:04:08 GMT -5
I think a boar grizzly could displace a adult shortface she bear but I don't know for sure. A grizzly boar which was larger during the era of the short face bear is much better built and has better grappling abilities compared to the latter so I actually agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by BruteStrength on Mar 27, 2019 23:41:48 GMT -5
Yes I think a boar grizzly would be a better brawler.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 29, 2019 4:59:07 GMT -5
I think a boar grizzly could displace a adult shortface she bear but I don't know for sure. Yes. Arctodus simus was a monster. The Pleistocene grizzlies of N. America were not the huge cave bear-sized brutes that lived in Ice-Age Europe. They probably averaged no larger than about 700 pounds; roughly half the weight of the giant. Size matters. As for the giant she-bears, they were basically within the weight range of the big male grizzly. And yes, grizzlies are ( pound-for-pound ) better grapplers. So... could he - yes. Did he - we may never know.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 29, 2019 5:05:42 GMT -5
I will add to above post. I have no lingering doubts that big male grizzlies stalked and killed juvenile and sub-adult short-faced bears. Not even the young of their own species is safe from attack. Adult short-faced she-bears as prey... King Kodiak is probably correct. A big male grizz could win this fight, but that's more risk and trouble that a grizzly will normally take-on for a meal.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Mar 29, 2019 5:30:57 GMT -5
I will add to above post. I have no lingering doubts that big male grizzlies stalked and killed juvenile and sub-adult short-faced bears. Not even the young of their own species is safe from attack. Adult short-faced she-bears as prey... King Kodiak is probably correct. A big male grizz could win this fight, but that's more risk and trouble that a grizzly will normally take-on for a meal. Yeah, all we have are theories, but it would seem this way. Knowing that Arctodus females were the same size as Pleistocene male grizzlies, hunting would seem far fetched. If a battle would had happened, the grizzly should be able to have overpowered Arctodus females.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Oct 29, 2019 4:26:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 11, 2019 7:47:09 GMT -5
Consider that during the height of the last Ice Age, on average, depending on the "lay of the land", the high water mark on beaches around the world was nine miles further out to sea than they are today. Thus Beringia connecting Russia to Alaska. Also strongly connected were North and South America. They could at this time have been simply called, America - one continent. As for grizzly vs Arctodus simus she-bear... it would not surprise me much if on occasion, a big male grizzly might have displaced the giant she-bear from a carcass.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Nov 11, 2019 17:42:42 GMT -5
Consider that during the height of the last Ice Age, on average, depending on the "lay of the land", the high water mark on beaches around the world was nine miles further out to sea than they are today. Thus Beringia connecting Russia to Alaska. Also strongly connected were North and South America. They could at this time have been simply called, America - one continent. As for grizzly vs Arctodus simus she-bear... it would not surprise me much if on occasion, a big male grizzly might have displaced the giant she-bear from a carcass. I agree, but i dont think it was something that normally happened. Anyhow, at the end of the Pleistocene epoch, it was the grizzly that survived until this day, not Arctodus. The grizzly is a survivor.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 4, 2019 6:05:30 GMT -5
Ursus arctos and Arctodus simus are very different bears.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 4, 2019 6:38:59 GMT -5
This is my favorite found bear painting - California Grizzly meets Giant Short-Faced Bear.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 4, 2019 8:15:50 GMT -5
wiseaboutbears.org/bears-of-yesterday-prehistoric/ Although much taller than brown bears (Ursus arctos), giant short-faced bears were not so heavily built (Figure 2). Their limbs, particularly the hindlimbs, were longer and more slender. A calculation of the autumn weight of a giant short-faced bear (with its full component of fat), based on diameter of the upper hind leg (femur) shaft, is approximately 700 kg. The largest known polar bear (Ursus maritimus) recorded in Canada, weighed 660 kg. Result of your conversion: 700 kilograms is equal to 1,543.24 pounds
|
|