Talk:Grizzly bear

Map

The range map is wrong. I know for a fact there aren't any Grizzlies in Oraon. It should look more like this. 76.2.28.172 03:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

mmmph. It is pretty terrible. The current range map shows them as extending well into Quebec. Anyone care to redraw it? 65.213.77.129 (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to begin drawing a new range map, but it is quite clear that the current one is wildly misleading and factually useless. I will remove it and try to find a better one. Garethshort (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently grizzlies have moved on to Vancouver Island in the last century. Another map modification! Erocifellerskank (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The map doesn't seem consistent with the article, which seems to suggest grizzlies are found as far as Theodore Roosevelt Nat'l Park in North Dakota. Also there are reports of grizzlies in Lander,WY which is a little outside of the map range. Hypertall (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at the map legend? --CutOffTies (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Tone tag

Someone had added the following tag to the section now entitled "Encountering a Grizzly Bear in the wild":

I have Did you delete that section or the safety camping in bear territory? Both sections were well written and highly informative. If they need revision that can be done easily, but they should still be up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.169.231 (talk • contribs)

I think this article reads very POV as environmentalist propaganda, it doesn't cite any sources supporting the decision to delist the endangerment rating, and makes no effort to quantify the damage done to humans by grizzlys such as attacks on livestock, and the hunting section is written as an attack on hunting. It also mischaracterises keystone species as being crucial to the survival of all other species, which any biologist can tell you is patently false. Top predators are the easiest species to go extinct without serious damage to other species in the ecosystem, and particularly when that top predator is replaced by another top predator(man). Predation on a top predator by a smarter top predator actually helps increase the preyed upon species evolutionary fitness and survivability, as an evolutionary biologist can attest, you get an arms race of brain capacity, which is why big cats, wolves, and bear are all smarter in the modern era than thousands of years ago, just as the species they prey upon get smarter, larger brain capacity. 97.94.189.111 (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

huh?

At the bottom of the article in the see also area is this phrase - "There has been a discovery of a new breed of grizzly bear known as "the jackaleenes" which are a cross breed between the grizzly bear and the panda." Not only is this in the wrong area of the article, but it is unsourced, not to mention unlikely, as the range of the grizzly bear and the panda are a couple of thousand miles apart. If anyone can verify this fact it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. vanis314 15:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I took care of it. That jackass has done that several times to this article already but he's on a dynamic IP and it doesn't all show in the contribs. I presume it's the same person because the sentence added is the same every time. Anyway, thanks for picking that up. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 17:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the reference to "Mountain View Missouri" from the grizzly's range, and modified the entry on a small remnant in Colorado's San Juan Mountains. No proof has been found to support this.Dukeford (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Who's the largest?

Witch bear is the largest one? (In weight and hight)

Is it the Polar, Grizzly or the Kodiak bear? Jørgen88 22:47, 11 November 2007 (U

It seems to be a toss-up between the Kodiak bear and the polar bear, but the latter is commonly assumed to be the largest species of bear; note that the Kodiak is not a species, but rather a subspecies, therefore, it's indeed correct to call the polar "the largest bear species." In my opinion, Kidiaks and polars are roughly the same, and it's very hard to be correct since individuals in the wild are hard to weigh, so for now, we should accept the evidence given... that the polar bear is the largest of all bear species. The grizzly bear is much smaller than both previously-mentioned bears.--96.232.49.220 (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Description section seems confusing to me. The first paragraph claims that Grizzlies are the largest bears, but the last paragraph claims they are smaller than other Brown bears. Which is it? I know they aren't the largest bears overall, that being the Polar bear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plow76 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Grizzlies are categorically not the largest of bears. That title goes to the kodiac and polar bears which are both much larger than grizzly bears. --LiamE (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)The source never said they were

I thought Grizzly's were the biggest, Kodiak bears are Grizzly Bears, so it is basicl inbetween Polar and Grizzy/kodiak . . . hmmmm . . wonder who is really bigger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.196.132 (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The largest bears are both the Polar and Russian bears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.140.176 (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

These comments point out a very major short-coming of the article: there is no discussion of the size of these bears, much less a discussion of relative sizes. BabelBoy (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Teleporting bear nonsense

In three edits the 23rd of February 2008 65.78.121.166 added three separate bits of nonsense vandalism about bears teleporting to attack people. The last bit was subtle enough to be taken as oddly worded but relevant.* I've removed it, and am explaining here lest someone mistake my action for anything else.

• The addition of the sentence "Currentally there is no protection against the appearing grizzleys so any interaction with them will most likely result in death." at the beginning of the section on reintroduction.

Hatchetfish (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this true? Can bears teleport when they attack? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.68.154 (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the appearance of the word superfamilies in Ursidae vandalism? Shouldn't it be subfamilies?--Questions?answers!(X) (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

outrunning grizzly bears on downhill slopes

This paragraph was deleted and replaced by a statement that a human just can't outrun a grizzly:

"Another effective escape measure is to run away from the grizzly on a downhill slope. This works effectively because a grizzly bear's front legs are normally only four fifths as long as its hind legs. While this is not true regarding all bears, it is indeed true in the case of grizzlies, and has been proven so by certain Alaskan gaming orginizations. Campers must use caution, however, as most bears in the continental United States are actually brown or black bears, and these bears can indeed run the same speed on any slope. Attempting to outrun a charging bear, except in the aforementoned case, would prove fatally ineffective, as almost all bears are quite capable of outrunning a human."

The comment about shorter front legs than rear legs causing slower run speeds downhill is true for grizzlys and black bears too, has nothing to do with the hump on their backs as far as i know.

Grizzly bears can not climb trees, that is how you escape if encountered. Two people I know have played dead and survived to tell. Black bears can climb trees but they normally will not chase you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.40.13 (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

However, there appears to be a race called Grizzly Downhill or something, so I'm not sure if the information is incorrect or not. If it's a myth, it should be labelled as such and reintroduced to the article --Enric Naval (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

editied the rather funny section to hopefully conform to the standards and thus removed the tag. (Nice one to whoever wrote that, it was pretty funny). Ben 21:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

==Range== hi An interesting side note is that grizzly bears are now being seen more frequently in the high arctic. This apparent "expansion" of range is difficult to explain and has been theorized as being linked to global warming. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grizzlydog (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 December 2005.

Can somebody add information on the range of grizzlies? Nothing in the current article mentions their range within North America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.225.246.225 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 12 January 2006.

Added a map. -Ikkyu2 17:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

the map says their range stops at the u.s.-mexican border. i really doubt bears respected imaginary lines that weren't even concieved of yet. someone should get a more accurate map to show their true range of habitat. comments Lue3378 10:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a map showing a dip into Mexico in this pdf: [1]. It's Figure 13, on page 56 of 98. --Mathew5000 11:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization?

Shouldn't this article be located at Grizzly bear? I see no reason that "bear" needs to be capitalized. If I forget to effect this move within three days, bug me on my talk page. --Cyde Weys 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's also the Polar Bear page as well. I recall the Wikiproject species group debating this for a long time, and so far, there's no strict consensus, so it can go either way. —Khoikhoi 22:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sub-species question

The Brown bear page still lists the grizzly bear as a separate sub-species, despite the DNA evidence discussed here. At a minimum, there should be conformity between the two pages saying something like, "There appears to be a lack of consensus as to whether the grizzly bear is a separate subspecies of the brown bear, etc." At this point, the two articles are simply in conflict.

NorCalHistory 21:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The comprehensive bibliography I compiled on this issue, which took me several hours, was deleted without comment (although much of the article text I contributed remains in the article). Go back in the article history and read it if you're really interested. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Climbing trees

I am particulary concerned by the way this has been phrased in the section. it makes it sounds like that the first thing you should do should you see a grizzley is run and climb up a tree, which isn't the case at all. also the fact that grizzleys can't climb trees is false. A simple google search to yellowstone national parks advice [2] on grizzleys says this isn't the case if the branches are spaced far enough apart. Also the act of running from a bear is likely to increase its anger. While it is still a solution it is not the first one recomended anywhere that I have come across warnings about bears. Philbentley 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This movie (http://www.fws.gov/video/wmv/grizbear512stream.wmv) may be converted into OGG/Theora and added to the article as it is a free work, produced by the US government (like the photo in the taxobox). I'll do this later unless someone else is up for some encoding. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 12:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Grizzly's can climb tree's but not as well as black bears can! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.196.132 (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Treadwell Trivia

In the trivia section, Treadwell lived among bears in Katmai National Park, not Kodiak. If someone can confirm this, please change.

Colbert

While I'm a big Colbert fan, I think maybe the comedy is taking away from the legitimacy of the entry.

Grizzly, Seperate Speicies Than Brown Bear?

Some people think that the grizzly is a 9th speices seperate than than the brown. March 18 2007

every one there is only 15,00 grizzlies left in Canada, there going to get instinked, we got to help them!

Well said. The Cap'n (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Safety in Hiking

The section discussing the saftey of hiking in bear territory makes repeated use of the word "you" and it reads like a manual or safety pamphlet. Perhaps a bit of cleanup is in order. Rugz 01:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation needed

What does this mean: "This causes 9% of human-caused grizzlies, together with other human-related causes"? And this: "The Mexican Grizzly bear is extinctBear Specialist Group 1996. IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Retrieved on 2008-04-09.."? JehoshaphatJIJ (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This sentence in the Competition section doesn't make sense: Thus, the bear will sit down and ease its ability to protect itself in a full circle.12.35.230.2 (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Population data

The population estimate for BC is greatly understated. Despite the stupidity of government at times, they would not anually authorize over 1000 tags if the population was in the 1400 range, even they would not legally condone the harvest of over two-thirds of the quote population. Just refer to the Limited Entry Hunting Synopsis for BC (LEH) and sum the total of available grizzly tags and then consider the additional number retained for hunting guides, the population in BC must be fairly roubust to continually support annual harvest of over 1000 individuals. 208.114.186.208 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC) PS-If you want people to take you seriously extinction might smell but is not literally spelt with stink and has nothing to do with instinct. what cha up ta cuzin bemis

Appearance on the "Late Show"

Should it be noted somewhere that David Letterman read verbatim from the "Range" section of this article on the Wednesday, June 18, 2008, episode of the "Late Show" on CBS? He was making fun of NBA team names by offering a million dollars to anyone who could produce actual proof of a "Memphis Grizzly." — Roger (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

California?

"but is most commonly found in Canada and California" should probably read "but is most commonly found in Canada and Alaska". I live in California and every school child is taught that the only grizzly left in the state is the one on the state flag. 76.21.17.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC).

It was vandalism. I've removed it, thank you for mentioning it! Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think somebody should add a section about the sad history of the California grizzly, which was deliberately hunted to extinction in 1860 to 1890. I am not qualified to write this. The last known California grizzly, so the story goes, was "Old Reelfoot," who roamed the Siskiiyou Mountains along the California/Oregon border in the 1870's and 1880's. His footprints were easily identifiable because he'd lost three toes in a leghold trap, and he was notorioius for killing cattle in the area (so they say). Old Reelfoot was brought down by a rancher and a ranch hand in 1890 and was stuffed and placed in the Jackson County (Oregon) historical museum. Eventuayy, he disappeared. Grizzly Peak, near Ashland, Oregon, and and Ashland High School football team, are named for Old Reelfoot.68.116.40.228 (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the California State Library [3], the last grizzly bear in California was shot in Tulare County in 1922. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.39.174 (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Bloodlust

Is it true bears are prone to berserked to kill at the smell of blood? Murakumo-Elite (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grizzly_Bear&oldid=261362037 is almost certainly vandalism, but unfortunately, the previous text was little better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.61.115 (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Is the superfamily thing in URSIDAE vandalism?

Improvement needed

This article talked nothing whatsoever about their life cycle and their "hibernation" both are very important and should be added.

"The History of Grizzly Hunting in BC"

Given the detail and scope of this new addition, is it a candidate for spinoff? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Video

I thought that a video of a grizzly bear in an enclosure would be a good idea for the article so I added it. Does anyone have a problem with a video? Joe Chill (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

name

Beach house is about a house on the beach and Beach House is about the band. In most similar cases capitalizing the band name takes you to the band rather than the thing its named after. So shouldn't Grizzly bear be about the bear and Grizzly Bear be about the band? Honestly, I was surprised to find the actual bear at this title. 67.187.92.105 (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Mismatched subject

I rewrote this sentence:

The grizzly bears that reside in the American Rocky Mountains are not as large as Canadian or Alaskan grizzlies. This is due, in part, to the richness of their diet, which in Yellowstone consists mostly of whitebark pine nuts, tubers, grasses, various rodents, army cutworm moths and scavenged carcasses. None of these, however, match the fat content of the salmon available in Alaska and British Columbia.

The trouble is that it starts talking about the southern bears, then says "the richness of their diet" where "their" refers to the northern bears. It sounds like the southern bears are smaller because of their richer diet of pine nuts and tubers.

I'm still not entirely happy with the results, but at least the subjects match. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of references

Information about the IUCN redlist is repeatedly deleted, arguing that it only relates to brown bear. However, the references specifically apply to "Brown Bear, Grizzly Bear, Mexican Grizzly Bear" (emphasis added). Can someone explain what I'm missing, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ya im not sure, the source looks good to me and should be kept.MilkStraw532 (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

"Yellowstone grizzly bears: New cause célèbre for effects of global warming? For the first time, a US appellate court has ruled that the federal government must continue to protect an animal – in this case, Yellowstone grizzly bears – in part because of consequences of global warming." by Todd Wilkinson, The Christian Science Monitor December 6, 2011 99.181.153.29 (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)