|
Post by brobear on Apr 4, 2018 6:57:11 GMT -5
Notice that these two beasts are at weight-parity, yet the grizzly is over a foot shorter in length but with a greater chest girth. Pretty much at parity in shoulder height.
|
|
|
Post by tom on Apr 4, 2018 11:09:04 GMT -5
Interesting stat. Also interesting to see that the average weight for both species has gone down in the past 40 + years.
What would you attribute that to? Loss of habitat and or quality food availability?
|
|
|
Post by Polar on Apr 4, 2018 12:33:50 GMT -5
And extreme human poaching within the area, mostly, which is what caused many of these problems in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by tom on Apr 4, 2018 13:19:30 GMT -5
I agree that poaching is a real problem especially with the Tiger, maybe not so much with the Grizzlies however at least here in the USA. But wouldn't the main concern with poaching (thinking Tigers now) be reduced numbers and not so much to do with body weights going down over 40 years?
Loss of quality habitat and more interaction with humans due to overlapping territory. AS of result poachers would have much better success in locating thus killing them. Ranchers who raise livestock provide the Tigers with easy access to meat but also more risk of being killed by humans as a result of livestock predation. The other possibility is lack of natural game to hunt. Are the Tigers normal prey declining in numbers reducing his choices to small mammals which may not provide enough nutrition, not sure on that one.
Brobear has commented in the past that the Grizzlies of the 19th century were significantly larger on average than today's bears who are much more of an omnivore than their ancestors of 100 years or more ago. What has changed besides the obvious habitat conditions? Bison for one were much more plentiful back then as were Elk and other large game animals. Bears could easily scavage kills from wolves, cougars or simply happen across a dead carcass from natural causes. Today there's no better example than the comparison between the Alaskan Coastal bears and the interior or Barron ground Grizzlies. What they eat is the number one reason IMO why one is significantly larger than the other.
Polar, what about the Polar bear. Are they not smaller today than decades ago due to the bears reduced access to it's natural food (meaning seals) due to less ice during a good portion of the year which hinders there ability to catch seals. Food for thought, but my money on reduced average sizes would be mostly due to lack of quality nutrition. Reduced availability of quality food, food as in fat / protein rich.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 4, 2018 16:53:30 GMT -5
Interesting stat. Also interesting to see that the average weight for both species has gone down in the past 40 + years. What would you attribute that to? Loss of habitat and or quality food availability? As for the grizzly; this is a Yellowstone grizzly. Yes, they are the most famous of U.S. grizzlies, but they are not large as grizzlies go. Yellowstone is not a land rich in bear-foods. It was during the 1970s that dumpsters were made bear-proof. Bears were consuming lots of human foods from the dumpsters ( sugars and breads mostly ). By the way, this chart ends in 1985. There has been some size increase since 1995 when the wolf was reintroduced into the park. Grizzly boars feed heavily upon wolf kills. Mature sows sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by tom on Apr 4, 2018 20:04:18 GMT -5
I'm curious as to how the average weights shown in the table were determined. I could see in modern times where captured or radio collared animals were darted and data taken while the animal was out, but what about the early dates 1900- ? or are these merely estimates based on measurements taken on animals that were hunted and killed?
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 5, 2018 3:08:17 GMT -5
I'm curious as to how the average weights shown in the table were determined. I could see in modern times where captured or radio collared animals were darted and data taken while the animal was out, but what about the early dates 1900- ? or are these merely estimates based on measurements taken on animals that were hunted and killed? Good question. Early days I have no idea. But I have a problem with their modern methods too. Biologists drug, measure, and weigh bears and of course give each a check-up. My problem is, when they put on record the average sizes and weights, they include bears from five years old and up. Sexually mature does not mean full-grown. This is no different that doing an average of men in America, and having eleven-year-old boys and up being measured and weighed for the averaging. When I look at a chart, I write down the weights of male grizzlies 10 years old and up and then average my findings. According to this, 10+ years old ( full-grown ) male grizzlies of Yellowstone average about 500 pounds.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 6, 2018 5:04:08 GMT -5
The largest Tiger subspecies ever compared with the Kodiak Grizzly and the Alaskan Peninsula Grizzly ... wildfact.com/forum/ Let's take a closer look - Posting below...
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 6, 2018 5:13:33 GMT -5
Ngandong tiger: Shouder height - 120 cm / 120 centimeters is equal to 47.24 inches. Body length - 240 cm / 240 centimeters is equal to 94.49 inches. Mass - 410 kg / 470 kilograms is equal to 1,036.17 pounds (avoirdupois) Alaska Peninsula brown bear: Shoulder height - 112 cm / 112 centimeters is equal to 44.09 inches. Body length - 217 cm / 217 centimeters is equal to 85.43 inches. Mass - 410 kg / 410 kilograms is equal to 903.90 pounds (avoirdupois) Ngandong tiger shoulder height - 47.24 inches = 3 feet 11 inches. / body length - 94.49 inches = 7 feet 10 inches. / Mass - 1,036 pounds. Peninsula grizzly shoulder height - 44.09 inches = 3 feet 8 inches. / body length - 85.43 inches = 7 feet 1 inch. / Mass - 903.9 pounds. From my point of view... The tiger is 3 inches taller at the shoulder. The tiger is 9 inches longer. I have no doubts that the Alaskan Peninsula Grizzly would be heavier than the Ngandong Tiger. When I look at the estimated weights given to prehistoric big cats and compare them to bears of near-equal height and length and in knowing that a bear is the bulkier animal, I clearly see that prehistoric cats are nearly always over-estimated. Case in point: For a short time, in AVA, it was all the rage when the news came out that a tiger had killed a grizzly bigger than himself. As the truth was found, the tiger measured 14 inches longer than the heavier bear, which turned out to be a sub-adult and very fat grizzly. I will edit and say: The weight advantage of the Alaskan brown bear would not be huge. In fact, I would consider this a size-parity face-off. Also I will say that regardless of two different points of view, I have only the highest respect for Tigerluver who created this comparison. Regardless of his "name" he is a verified biologist and has always been an unbiased poster.
|
|
|
Post by tom on Oct 12, 2018 13:12:05 GMT -5
Per Brobears request.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 12, 2018 15:12:28 GMT -5
Thank you Tom. This artist has the giant tyrant sea bear as the biggest ( left to right ), then the two giant short-faced bears, then the grizzly as number #4. After him the Florida spectacled bear and then the black bear.
|
|
|
Post by tom on Oct 12, 2018 17:00:41 GMT -5
I can't make out the writing beneath each bear but I would have guessed the far left Bear to be a Polar bear. After looking up Giant Tyrant Sea Bear i see it's an extinct sub species of Polar Bear. Interesting, learn something new everyday.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 13, 2018 4:17:17 GMT -5
I can't make out the writing beneath each bear but I would have guessed the far left Bear to be a Polar bear. After looking up Giant Tyrant Sea Bear i see it's an extinct sub species of Polar Bear. Interesting, learn something new everyday. Yes, Ursus maritimus tyrannus was actually the intermediate bear between a grizzly and a modern polar bear. Biggest of the Genus Ursus. Missing here are the giant ground sloths and glyptodonts.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 21, 2018 4:21:00 GMT -5
Where are you Gurahl? How about a cave bear/Kodiak bear comparison? I really feel that a cave bear ( Ursus speleaus ) with a shoulder height of 5.5 feet ( 168 cm ) should be equally as heavy as a giant short-faced bear ( Arctodus simus ) with a shoulder height of 6 feet ( 183 cm ). If not equal, very close. The cave bear is overwhelmingly the brawnier of the two bruins. A big Kodiak bear: shoulder height 5 feet / A big cave bear: shoulder heighr 5.5 feet. 5 feet is equal to 152.40 centimeters
5.5 feet is equal to 167.64 centimeters
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 3, 2018 17:42:55 GMT -5
Consider that we now know that U.a.tyrannus was actually Ursus arctos priscus, the Pleistocene brown bear. 850 kilograms is equal to 1,873.93 pounds (avoirdupois)
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Nov 3, 2018 18:00:59 GMT -5
Very nice comparisson Brobear. Damn, my bear (Ursus arctos middendorffi) is very small compared to the others, lol.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 3, 2018 18:17:52 GMT -5
Very nice comparisson Brobear. Damn, my bear (Ursus arctos middendorffi) is very small compared to the others, lol. The Pleistocene brown bears of Europe were probably the biggest bears of the genus Ursus. Bigger than polar bears and cave bears.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Nov 3, 2018 18:24:02 GMT -5
Brobear...the south American short faced bear (Arctotherium angustidens) was actually larger, max weight accepted was about 3850 lbs. (about 1750 kg). I also noticed that Middendorffi and Simus have the max weight, while the other 2 bears, Maritimus and Angustidens, have the average weight.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Nov 3, 2018 20:22:35 GMT -5
My god Tyrannus was a big bear.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 4, 2018 1:48:06 GMT -5
Consider that we now know that U.a.tyrannus was actually Ursus arctos priscus, the Pleistocene brown bear. By Ghari Sher: Well, Ursus "maritimus tyrannus" is pretty likely not to be a valid subspecies, but I would be more cautious to name Ursus arctos tyrannus as a valid subspecies instead, since they do have to be a phylogenetically distinct form of bear to the already-named mainland brown bears of late Pleistocene Europe, known as steppe brown bears - Ursus arctos priscus. All this is discussed in Pleistocene Grizzly. Ursus arctos priscus was a highly carnivorous bear with some polar bear-like features, but he was a brown bear.
|
|