|
Post by brobear on Feb 12, 2023 4:59:37 GMT -5
/\ Reminds me of the Californian grizzly bear’s diet which is 85% carnivorous. These bears are certainly the best hunters of bovine during their time. I have never seen any data on the diet of the California grizzly, although I do assume that he consumed a high percentage of meat, considering his large size. It was King Kodiak that showed me that there were no bison in California. However, there were range cattle in California which were later rounded-up and named "Texas Long-Horn" cattle.
|
|
|
Post by oldindigosilverback on Feb 12, 2023 6:16:23 GMT -5
/\ I think you were the one who posted the diet of the Californian grizzly on the Domain.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Feb 12, 2023 8:01:46 GMT -5
/\ I think you were the one who posted the diet of the Californian grizzly on the Domain. I might have estimated such a figure, considering the huge size told about these bears. Here is a map of the brown bears of California, made when the experts of the times had divided the American brown bears into so many subspecies. Where you see yellow (californicus) were the biggest California grizzlies.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Feb 12, 2023 8:06:07 GMT -5
Besides the range cattle, it is possible that the California grizzlies hunted juvenile and possibly female elephant seals. Certainly not the bulls. Also, there were Steller sea lions.
|
|
|
Post by Gorilla king on Feb 12, 2023 8:47:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Gorilla king on Oct 19, 2023 19:44:51 GMT -5
New Record of California Grizzly Bear
Abstract
On May 31, 1956 the partial skeletal remains of a California grizzly, Ursus arctos californicus Merriam, were found in the Santa Monica mountains approximately 3.5 mi NNE of Malibu Beach in Los Angeles County, California. The discovery site was the bed of an intermittent stream on the chaparral-covered northwest slope of Saddle Peak at an elevation of 1700 feet. This area lies specifically within the north central portion of Sec. 16, T. 1 S, R. 17 W (USGS 7.5 minute series, Malibu Beach Quadrangle, 1950). The bones recovered were partially buried in humus and silt, and show evidence of weathering, particularly on the left side of the skull. The animal had been lying on its right side, which yielded most of the material found. …
www.researchgate.net/publication/270363871_New_Record_of_California_Grizzly_Bear
|
|
|
Post by Gorilla king on Jan 11, 2024 5:45:32 GMT -5
California grizzlies were smaller in size and not the livestock killers reported in historical accounts, study says
(a) Biplot showing stable isotope values for California grizzlies and their potential food items statewide across the pre and post periods. (b) Biplot showing the individual grizzlies in the pre (gray) and post (red) 1542 periods. Credit: Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (2024). DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2023.0921
phys.org/news/2024-01-california-grizzlies-smaller-size-livestock.html
Coupled social and ecological change drove the historical extinction of the California grizzly bear (Ursus arctos californicus)
Abstract
Large carnivores (order Carnivora) are among the world's most threatened mammals due to a confluence of ecological and social forces that have unfolded over centuries. Combining specimens from natural history collections with documents from archival records, we reconstructed the factors surrounding the extinction of the California grizzly bear (Ursus arctos californicus), a once-abundant brown bear subspecies last seen in 1924. Historical documents portrayed California grizzlies as massive hypercarnivores that endangered public safety. Yet, morphological measurements on skulls and teeth generate smaller body size estimates in alignment with extant North American grizzly populations (approx. 200 kg). Stable isotope analysis (δ13C, δ15N) of pelts and bones (n = 57) revealed that grizzlies derived less than 10% of their nutrition from terrestrial animal sources and were therefore largely herbivorous for millennia prior to the first European arrival in this region in 1542. Later colonial land uses, beginning in 1769 with the Mission era, led grizzlies to moderately increase animal protein consumption (up to 26% of diet), but grizzlies still consumed far less livestock than otherwise claimed by contemporary accounts. We show how human activities can provoke short-term behavioural shifts, such as heightened levels of carnivory, that in turn can lead to exaggerated predation narratives and incentivize persecution, triggering rapid loss of an otherwise widespread and ecologically flexible animal.
royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2023.0921
|
|
|
Post by Gorilla king on Jan 11, 2024 6:06:29 GMT -5
So this is really a big change for this bear, we thought it averaged somewhere between 850 to 1000 lbs, but now according to the study above, it only averaged around 200 kg (440 lbs), which is comparable to modern Yellowstone grizzlies.
|
|
|
Post by oldindigosilverback on Jan 12, 2024 2:56:31 GMT -5
So this is really a big change for this bear, we thought it averaged somewhere between 850 to 1000 lbs, but now according to the study above, it only averaged around 200 kg (440 lbs), which is comparable to modern Yellowstone grizzlies. If that is its average weight, it is sadly below that of the average male Ussuri brown bear . This means that the accounts of them killing bison will have to sadly be dismissed unless there are exceptional specimens above 1000 pounds (brown bears have a wide weight range).
|
|
|
Post by Gorilla king on Jan 12, 2024 5:18:43 GMT -5
So this is really a big change for this bear, we thought it averaged somewhere between 850 to 1000 lbs, but now according to the study above, it only averaged around 200 kg (440 lbs), which is comparable to modern Yellowstone grizzlies. If that is its average weight, it is sadly below that of the average male Ussuri brown bear . This means that the accounts of them killing bison will have to sadly be dismissed unless there are exceptional specimens above 1000 pounds (brown bears have a wide weight range). It looks like the average is definitely below the Ussuri brown bear. The are no accounts of them killing bison as there was no bison in California at that time. Anyhow, by all accounts in this thread (mostly from hunters), this subspecies definitely had some huge specimens over 1000 lbs.
|
|
|
Post by oldindigosilverback on Jan 14, 2024 0:07:58 GMT -5
Now that the average weights of the Californian grizzly has been greatly reduced by updated information, do we need to dismiss the bear killing bull accounts?
|
|
|
Post by oldindigosilverback on Jan 14, 2024 0:08:55 GMT -5
Hunter accounts are only trust worth if modern scientific data backs them up in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Gorilla king on Jan 14, 2024 6:18:33 GMT -5
Now that the average weights of the Californian grizzly has been greatly reduced by updated information, do we need to dismiss the bear killing bull accounts? I dont think so. The grizzlies used for those fights were most likely the largest and strongest specimens. For example, this grizzly that fought a longhorn bull weighed 887 lbs:
Reply #6:
beargorillarealm.proboards.com/post/3066/thread
|
|
|
Post by oldindigosilverback on Jan 14, 2024 15:50:42 GMT -5
/\ According to Ursus Artos, it was the larger Californian grizzlies (the male in the upper weight range) which were sadly used for bull baiting.
But seeing an 887 pound grizzly can kill a 1500 pound bull despite the fact both got killed shows some strength on the bear's part.
|
|