From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Template:WikiProject California

Template:Facfailed

Contents 1 Grizzlies 2 Rem text 3 Added section on firearms 4 Doubtful subspecies 5 Queued images 6 California Grizzlies 7 Information Website 8 How to deal with bears 9 NPOV on the photo in Habituation to human areas 10 Taxonomy and conservation status 11 Question about the bear image 12 Title 13 Firearms 14 Problem Bear JJ1 in Germany 15 Grizzly Bear not a "sub-species"? 16 Bears and fishermen in close contact 17 How To 18 Picture of fighting brown bears 19 Brown Bear Peer Review 20 ==largest bears

[edit] Grizzlies

Looks like a non-native English speaker added the fact that grizzlies are known to steal prey (including dead food) from tigers, wolves and pumas. In addition, grizzlies can kill tigers. God only knows where . . . do brown bears and tigers share habitat anywhere? Escheffel 05:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Comment--Borwn Bears and Tigers can be found sharing the same territorial range in Western Siberia.

• brown bears and tigers share habitats in Asia, and 'tigers' might have meant 'pumas', because pumas have so many other names, including 'red tigers'. User:George cowie 17:01, 3rd June '06

Who's doing the math for converting kilograms to pounds? 130 kg = 288 lbs, 700 kg = 1,550 lbs.

[edit] Rem text

Removed text: Brown bears have also been found Robbery the kills of tigers, wolves, and pumas. and Two male tigers were found killed by brown bear in the year 2000. (sic)

I'm not quite sure what this means. It adds little to what is otherwise a well written article, so on balance I decided to remove rather than rephrase it. Andrewa 15:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If it's true, then it is an interesting fact that could be added to a trivia section or something. But I question whether it's true or not. Lengis 04:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, part of it's habitat is in siberia, so it may be possible.

No, it's not. Brown bears are actually opportunists which often spy on other predators, including puma and tiger to usurp their kills. But that does not usually succeed, as tigers can drive off brown bears most of the time. :Please sign your posts on talk pages. I still think the grammar of the removed text is so poor that what it means is guesswork. Andrewa 04:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I am not suggesting to put it back or something. I just give and answer to your question. I agree that the removed text is indeed some sloppy writing without any solid ground. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.15.122.35 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, I have some comments here, according to Amur Tiger (the page can be seen here: http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/Lion-Tiger/14f54bde.jpg), Tigers only predate on Brown Bears at a smaller size then themselves, however, the very fact that Tigers do ocasionally predate on Brown Bears is extreemly impressive. Now, some comments I do have is that according to this site: http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/article.cfm?issueID=18&articleID=143 (or: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1169/is_n4_v36/ai_20925079), Bears steel a total of 26% of a Cougar's food requirement, and, although Black Bears have been tooken into account aswell, cosnidering the Grizzly's larger size, and higher levels of aggression, it is likely to have tooken up a decent percentage of that number in Yellowstone (Black Bears mayvery well have taken a higher number of kills, due to the fact that they are much more common, as I'm not sure what te exact numbers are for each Bear species). There are also many instances mentioned Bears steeling from Wolf kills, which many Grizzlies became extreemly succesful at.. Even if they where of the same size, a Brown Bear would have stronger fore-limbs and shoulder muscles then a Tiger (although most likely weaker rear-limbs), as the Bear has a build designed to optimize strength, whereas the Tiger's is one more for speed. I have sources for this aswell if it is requested (for the Bear's higher strength for its size), though, a Tiger can bite harder for its size, though, this may not play much of a role in a conflict. In general, both animals may want to avoid a real conflict, as the animals wouldn't want to get wounded needlessly (specially if the Bear can instead eat some berries), meaning that in general, the Tiger simply staying by its kill may be enough to keep the Bear from attacking, unless it is really large, and knows it doesn't risk much. As more comments to you: 1) the size for the Brown Bears living with Tigers is drastically under 300-600kg on average, as, even the largest Bears, those on Kodiak Island, and the Alaskan Peninsulas, that have access to protein rich salmon "only" have males averaging at 389 kg, and females at 207kg (according to this site: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Ursus_arctos.html), meaning these Bears that do not have access to salmon would likely be sugnificantly smaller; more around the size of the Bears of Montana or similar regions. 2) California Grizzly mentions an account of a Grizzly "scalping" a Human with a single paw swipe, meaning that its claws may not be as sharp as a Feline's, being non-retractable, but they aren't exactly dull either, as from that they apear plenty sharp enough to do damage. 3) a Brown Bear's jaws may be weeker then that of a Tiger, but they aren't exactly week either, as they have to chew very tough roots, etc, with them, and also ocasionally eat bone. There is also a short video of a Bear picking up another similarly sized Bear and shaking it with its jaws (here: http://content.bbcmotiongallery.com/wmv/26/60/2660-3_LO.wmv), and California Grizzly also mentions a pit-fight in which a Grizzly broke a Bull's back by bitinh it, both pointing to the Bear's jaws not really being week. 4) This site: http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/yell/vol14-1-2a.htm mentions once instance of a Bear running for two miles at an average speed of 25mph, and another Bear going two miles at an average speed of 28mph. Bears may look asthough they are "fat", although, they only really are a couple of weeks before hibernating, and at other times this aparent "fatness" is only caused by their thick furr. 67.142.130.38 00:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

67.142.130.19 23:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added section on firearms

I've added a short section on which firearms are considered minimum for defending against a brown bear attack.

[edit] Doubtful subspecies

Is anything more known about the Ursus arctos subsp. stickeenensis ?? Where does it live etc? Thanks GerardM 07:21, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

All the Google references appear to be Wikipedia-generated. A-giau 18:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aha! Yes, I've just stumbled onto this too. Suspect a joke. Alternatively, it may be a vestige from past over-division. Some old papers listed literally hundreds of subspecies, some others just list dozens.

Some sites that don't list it and should if it were genuine:

• omne-vivum
• Lioncrusher
• San Francisco State University

Unless we can come up with some verification, I propose to remove the references. Andrewa 01:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed text:

• Ursus arctos stickeenensis

from the list of subspecies as a probable joke with no verification. Andrewa 14:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Probably not a joke. Stickeen seems to have been a common spelling of Stikine Territory, so it probably describes a bear of that territory. RPellessier | Talk 06:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This bear was still on the dutch page, started searching .. Used Stikine, Found Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis) on the page Species at Stikine Flats Other references: Ursus sitkensis (Merriam, 1896:73, Type locality ¨near Sitka, Alaska.¨ Sciencemag.org: Sitka Bear, Ursus sitkensis Merriam,. from. Sitka (pay site) At ITIS.gov we find that it is a subspecies of the Brown Bear Creation matters mentions the Sitka Islands Bear (but Sitka is on the Baranof Island) Brown Bear states that the Sitka Bear is more related to the Polar Bear--BobRomeo (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Queued images

[edit] California Grizzlies

Out of curiosity, have there been any proposals to reintroduce the grizzly to California? It would seem only right, given that its image appears on the state flag. Funnyhat 23:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The California grizzly is extinct as the article notes. There are no major plans in the works for other subspecies either. Here is one person's personal campaign. Rmhermen 14:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Brown bears do have populations in California, but they are not the original Californian subspecies User:George cowie 17:03, 3rd June 2006

[edit] Information Website

Cool, I like this website, Its got a lot of info!

Me too!!!

[edit] How to deal with bears

I have here a leaflet from the Algonquin park in Ontario, Toronto telling me how to deal with the black bears there. It says make noise and try to scare the bear. Do NOT lie down and play dead. Fight the bear off the best you can in the rare case it does attack you.

Apparently bears wouldnt attack if the person appears bolder bigger, noisier and like a difficult catch. Which makes sense.

I think playing dead is quite dumb... its jaws are huge and a hungry bear will easily pick your arms and legs apart, if it does attack you with the intention to eat you. Ideally you'd INCREASE the cost of the hunt by being or looking difficult. A dead fresh meat on the ground would be good for it.

The suggested way of dealing with black and brown bears is different, due (I think) to the different behaviour of each species. What you describe is suitable for black bears, as if they decide to attack it's likely to be for food, so playing dead won't help. A brown bear attack is more likely to be in defence of territory or cubs, so playing dead will probably give the bear the impression that you aren't a threat. --Batneil 15:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The simple rule of thumb is; if it's a Black Bear, your best shot is to fight back as they can easily be intimidated. If it's a Brown ( Grizzly ) bear, fetal position. http://www.nps.gov/kefj/trip_planning/Safety/Bear%20Safety.htm this is just one of the many references on the subject. Quoting from the page "If a bear actually makes contact… In rare instances black bears perceive humans as prey – if you are attacked by a black bear fight back. Try to focus your attack on the bear’s eyes and nose. If you are attacked by a brown bear, surrender! Chances are it is only trying to neutralize a perceived threat."

The 'dealing with bears' advice here and in the article is pretty spotty. Modern bear encounter management involves different responses based upon the bear's behavior. If someone plays dead in front of a hungry bear, they could well become bear food. An aggressive shout at that bear and raising arms or standing near companions may scare that curious bear away and end the encounter. Playing dead in front of a startled, defensive bear is generally not advised, but assuming a non-agressive posture and backing away may limit the bear's defensive counterattack. Appearing big and scary to a startled defensive bear may result in provoking an attack.

An Alaskan F&G biologist says that "most people would manage their bear encounters pretty well if they hadn't heard or read some half-truths about bear encounter management." He illustrates this with stories about people who backed away from a curious bear until the bear lost its natural wariness of humans, and then after backing for a hundred yards, the person plays dead, becoming an almost irresistable object for a curious bear's attention.

He explains good bear encounter management as intuitive, and similar to strange dog encounter management. If you accidentally step on a Rottweiler, or somehow find yourself face to face with him over his food dish, it would be wise to not provoke attack and to leave the location. But if a strange dog were approaching you, it would be better to stamp your feet, make noise, and scare him away.

Also see:

• http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/safety/safeconduct.htm

RPellessier | Talk 17:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV on the photo in Habituation to human areas

This photo is from the Sierra Club's magazine, and in my opinion is clearly meant to be propaganda, especially with the caption inserted.

Anyone else agree?

Sdr 09:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taxonomy and conservation status

First up, from my reading, the name Ursus arctos only appiles to the Mexican grizzly bear, all the other types of brown bears are subspecies of U. arctos. So the lead on this page needs adjustmet to reflect this.

Also isn't a bit misleading to list the conservation staus in the taxobox as lower risk, when the status of different subpspecies varies from secure to endangered?--nixie 01:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

All subspecies are part of a species. Gene Nygaard 01:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

All brown bears are Ursus arctos, the binomial name of the species. The extinct mexican grizzly bear were Ursus arctos nelsoni, with "nelsoni" as the subspecies name.--Menah the Great 23:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Can Brown bears really grow to 13 feet tall and weigh 3000 lbs?

[edit] Question about the bear image

What subspecies of brown bear is that? A kodiak? Lengis 05:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Chubby fella... 惑乱 分からん 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Shouldn't the article be Brown bear instead, in keeping with the Manual of Style? --日本穣 Nihonjoe 00:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be, yes. Andrewa 04:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has voiced any objection to this, I've gone ahead and moved it. Does anyone have a bot that could go through and fix all the double and triple redirects? There are a lot of them. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 20:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it souldn't, in accord with WP:TOL naming guidelines, which support caps for animals. See also Category:Bears

[edit] Firearms

Wikipedia is not a how-to. Some work went into it, but I'm wondering if the elaboration on firearms to kill a Brown Bear is warranted in such detail. Marskell 21:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this new section is valid. I elaborated on the misuse of Pepper Spray like an insect repellant. Removed warning shot, bear defense classes coach not to do this, unless another bear defense means is pointed AT the bear. RPellessier | Talk 06:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit much with this: In the past decade, a number of high-powered handguns have been produced in the United States for use in handgun hunting and bear defense. These include the .454 Casull revolvers produced by Taurus and Ruger and the .500 Smith & Wesson produced for that company's supersized "X" frame revolver. While these cartridges, properly loaded, are sufficient to kill any bear, their enormous recoil and weight make them difficult to deploy quickly in the field. Their utility in defense against brown bears is still a matter of great controversy. There are so many similarly powered guns in the world.. is it an advert? -- maxrspct in the mud 17:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem Bear JJ1 in Germany

Germany can't decide whether to kill or sedate a problem bear that wandered in from Austria. The bear is described as killing livestock for fun instead of for food.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,419807,00.html

THE BEAR IS DEAD. They killed him. --maxrspct in the mud 19:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is really great. Now europe can really tell the Indians that they have to protect their tigers and the Africans their rhinos. Hypocrites!!

Good point! but don't put this on the article unless there is a piece written on the comparison out there. --maxrspct in the mud 12:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that the Indians and and Africans have a greater population density than all developed countries, except Japan. Therefore, if a bear does enter our home in our land, it shouldn't because there's plenty of space to go elsewhere. But in the developing countries, its humans who are expanding into the animals territories. They need to control their populations the way the developed world has.

[edit] Grizzly Bear not a "sub-species"?

According to the Grizzly bear page, grizzly bears are not a subspecies based on the latest DNA evidence. Instead, grizzlies and Brown bears are the same species, and differences in appearance are the result of habitat, diet, etc., not sub-speciation.

Whichever view is correct, these two pages Grizzly bear and Brown bear should at least both be saying that "There may be some dispute about whether grizzlies are a separate subspecies, etc." At this point, these two articles are simply in conflict. Comments? NorCalHistory 21:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is "sub-speciation" supposed to mean? Differences in habitat, diet, etc are what CAUSES sub-species to diverge from the parent species through gradual evolution. Grizzlys are a sub-species of brown bear, this is a known fact. 64.236.245.243 17:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This topic were addressed more clearly in the article. It's not common knowledge that brown bears and grizzlies are the same species. And what about the California grizzly? Lagringa 20:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the word sub-species, scientifically doesn't really mean anything. Its a term devised to fill a hole in the theory of phylogeny. A "sub-species" is a small part of that species that is on its way to becoming reproductivey isolated. When it is reproductively isolated, then it is a new species. In a way, all animals are sub-species of something because we are constantly evolving differences and could become reproductively isolated at any time. Gene flow, counters this and often a Grizzly bear may reproduce with a brown bear, thus preventing speciation and at that, sub-speciation.

[edit] Bears and fishermen in close contact

A few recent news stories:

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/bears/story/8021983p-7914996c.html http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/bears/story/8021984p-7914998c.html

RPellessier | Talk 21:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/bears/story/8027397p-7920595c.html

RPellessier | Talk 06:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bear bites power cable, electrocutes self:

http://www.adn.com/front/story/8067062p-7958666c.html

Lots of bear photos, photo of electrocuted bear was second photo on August 15:

http://www.adn.com/photos/wildlife/bears/v-photo_gallery_0

RPellessier | Talk 01:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How To

This strikes me as a bad idea, unless we can cite sources on how to safely ward off bears when they attack. Desertsky85451 18:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of fighting brown bears

This is my own picture, do you think it's interesting enough to warrant a place in the article or is it too blurry? I noticed there are two pictures of Kodiak bears, maybe one would suffice? And this picture can be put in it's place? Let me know what you think. Mackan 16:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brown Bear Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.^[1]
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.^[2]
• Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[3]
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.^[4]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. ^[5]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Rlevse 15:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Rlevse 15:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==largest bears

Someone writes: The largest Kodiak bear, according to the Gary Brown's Great Bear Almanac, weighed over 1100 kilos (2500 pounds). Can you give me a quote of what the author did say in that book, as this weight is too extreme for the Kodiak, which only averages 300 kg - 360 kg for a male?

Actually the piece above regarding Bears stamina is incorrect. Polar Bears have speacial adaptions of translucent hair and black under skin which gives rise to maximum heat retention. Brown bears do not have any such adaptions but actually have remarkable stamina for digging out dens in solid ground. Grizzlies have been known to run for miles, and will battle each other for longer periods than the Tiger ever could. Brown bear jaws are also very powerful, where they may be somewhat down on the Tigers mechanical efficiency but sometimes much bigger to offset. Grizzlies have a huge size range, due to geographic locations, where we might see averages of 200kg, 300kg or even 500kg, especially at Mcneil or Brooks river, where Grizzly have attained 1300lb on occasions. As regard claws, Grizzlies have perhaps the finest set in the animal kingdom. Some are huge, curved and sharp but some are shorter and blunt. There are several cases of Brown bear having killed Tigers, and even captive Lions in fights.