Talk:Grizzly bear/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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?

"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)

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 [1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 See Effects of climate change on terrestrial animals 99.181.153.29 (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

When did their ancestors arrive in North America?

The first paragraph states that the grizzlies' ancestors arrived in North America 100,000 years ago, but the Range section states that the grizzlies' ancestors arrived in North America 50,000 years ago. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geordie.birch (talk • contribs) 06:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Both are true. The article should explain this. We presume that the bears were here when it was warmer than it is now and that they disappeared later and returned later. There is interesting speculation that the short-faced bear was why because the brown bear shows up again right after its extinction.

Barnes I, Matheus P, Shapiro B, Cooper A (2002) Dynamics of Pleistocene population extinctions in Beringian brown bears. Science, 295, 2267–2270. "The climatic and environmental changes associated with the last glaciation (90,000 to 10,000 years before the present; 90 to 10 ka B.P.) are an important example of the effects of global climate change on biological diversity. These effects were particularly marked in Beringia (northeastern Siberia, northwestern North America, and the exposed Bering Strait) during the late Pleistocene. To investigate the evolutionary impact of these events, we studied genetic change in the brown bear, Ursus arctos, in eastern Beringia over the past 60,000 years using DNA preserved in permafrost remains. A marked degree of genetic structure is observed in populations throughout this period despite local extinctions, reinvasions, and potential interspecies competition with the short-faced bear, Arctodus simus. The major phylogeographic changes occurred 35 to 21 ka B.P., before the glacial maximum, and little change is observed after this time. Late Pleistocene histories of mammalian taxa may be more complex than those that might be inferred from the fossil record or contemporary DNA sequences alone. Throughout the late Pleistocene Beringia formed a largely ice-free subcontinent connecting the Old and New Worlds. This period saw a number of major events including global climatic change, the movement of humans into the New World (∼13 ka B.P.), and a large-scale extinction of megafauna (∼12 to 10 ka B.P.). Because no obvious climatic or environ environmental events appear to explain the extinction and recolonization of brown bears in eastern Beringia, alternative explanations need to be considered. There is a marked inverse correlation between the chronology of brown bears and the much larger, hypercarnivorous, short shortfaced bears in eastern Beringia (Fig. 3A). Although the two species coexisted for at least 10,000 years (;45 to 35 ka B.P.) during the interstadial, short-faced bear fossil dates are concentrated between 35 to 21 ka B.P. when brown bears were absent. Furthermore, brown bear recolonization (;21 ka B.P.) is precisely coincident with the last record of short-faced bears in Beringia."

Chapter 15 in Causes of Evolution: a Paleontological Perspective, Ross, R. M., and Allmon, W. D. (eds.), Univ. Chicago Press, pp. 422-465 (1990). QUATERNARY MAMMALS OF THE GREAT BASIN: EXTINCT GIANTS, PLEISTOCENE RELICTS, AND RECENT IMMIGRANTS Timothy H. Heaton "Some mammal extinctions can probably be attributed to direct competition. Short-faced Bear was the largest native bear of North America when Brown Bear immigrated from Asia during the last glacial. These two bears are of similar size and carnivorous habit, and they have been found associated at Labor-of- Love Cave in Nevada (Emslie and Czaplewski, 1985) and Little Box Elder Cave in Wyoming (Kurten and Anderson, 1974). This suggests the possibility that Brown Bear drove Short-faced Bear to extinction.

Honing or homing.

May we stop the WP:EW? According to OED, this is something of an WP:ENGVAR issue; hone, v⁴ … originally U.S., by confusion with hone, sharpen (my paraphrase): "To head directly for something; to turn one's attention intently towards something". Home, v (5): "be guided to a target or destination". The definition from home seems most apt, but is this article perhaps in U.S. English? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC) 'honing' does not make sense in this context. 91.85.55.23 (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"Hone in" is generally recognized as an error in US English, although some are beginning to argue that the error has been committed enough times to have established itself as acceptable usage. It is surprising that anyone would edit war to restore this variant, which arises from confusion of similar-sounding words and is avoided in careful writing. --Amble (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

Grizzlies are not even a sub-species, let alone a separate species. That does not mean that they shouldn't be protected from extinction. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2012 (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)

Looks good to me as well, but it's just been zapped again.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

please look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animals#IUCN_status_-_species_and_subspecies Bulwersator (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation 25 where it supposedly provides evidence of bears increasing species richness, does not imply such a clear conclusion, the effects of bears digging was found to have modest effects and decrease richness in some cases. Suggest removal of the citation and in-article reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.160.248 (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Predation of humans

The "Conflicts with humans" section states,

they almost never view humans as prey; bears rarely actively hunt humans

while the supporting citation [2] actually states, "There are also rare instances of Grizzly Bears preying on people for food." Given that the reference cited only uses the term "rare" and especially since numerous examples can be cited of predation of humans by grizzlies as well as consuming the kill as food ([3], [4], [5], [6] for a few), I think that it inaccurate to use the phrase "almost never" which is not at all the same as "rare," and should be struck. I propose replacing this wording with,

only rarely do bears actively hunt humans or view them as prey

And, if necessary, adding some references documenting examples of such.

David F (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2013 (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)

As a professional biologist, I would disagree with you. The top predators have not been replaced by man in any ecosystem. That is the problem. Grizzlies are a critical ecosystem component. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim187 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Middendorffi

Personal names in taxonomy are properly capitalized thus: Ursus arctos Middendorffi rather than "Ursus arctos middendorffi." (Middendorff was the Russian officer after whom the Kodiak is designated.) Wyeson 08:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Pun?

There is something wrong with the section entitled "Pun" at the very beginning of this article. Most glaring is the use of an entirely irrelevant reference [5] about the naming of an island in California -- the placement of the ref makes it seem like it is supportive of the assertion that Ord had acted purposefully in characterizing the bear as horribilus, rather than (as most sources tell us) acting in error because of a misunderstanding between grisly and grizzly. The reference needs to be deleted, which I will do unless guided otherwise here. Reference [6] is also irrelevant.

Whatever caused Ord to create the Latin name, it was not intended as a pun. He either misunderstood or overrode the common name that members of the Lewis and Clark party had given the bear. In any event the entire discussion is inherently apocryphal. There are theories about what motivated Ord, but he seems to have given no indication himself about his thinking.

Here's what I think is needed: get rid of the assertive title "Pun," and rewrite the section to make it clear that Ord's motivation was unclear, but that there is at least the possiblility that the Lewis and Clark folk who named the bear were referring to its appearance, not its nature. I will let these comments percolate a bit, and unless there is an objection, I'll take a shot at the rewrite. pagnol (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Grizzlies are not Even a Subspecies

Wherever North Amarican Brown bears live inland, especially in the mountains, they develop the characteristics, or most of them, of what we call grizzly bears. Wherever Brown bears live in coastal regions or in the lowlands near rivers, they are larger and seem less likely to be active hunters, hence don't resemble what we call grizzly bears. It is very likely that there is no cladistic group that one could call the grizzly bears. That is, grizzly bear populations probably arose independantly when Brown bears began to live in upland areas. This also seems to be true in Eurasia, although no one I know of has ever claimed species or even sub-species status for the upland populations. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The whole notion of subspecies is problematic. Even species is a not-very-well-defined idea. The history of classification of the Great Panda, for example, has it sometimes a bear, sometimes not, even briefly part of the raccoon family. DNA data just opens an even larger can of worms with lots of reclassification seemingly called for. We might just as well accept that species/subspecies is at least somewhat in the eye of the beholder, but nonetheless useful. pagnol (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 October 2013 regarding footnote source 120

I would like to request a revision to the sentence under the Bear Viewing section that references source 120 and states that owners of bear viewing companies make money from bear viewing and hunting. Not all of the bear viewing companies participate in hunting or guided hunting. Some bear viewing companies exclusively offer viewing opportunities. Please make an edit that notes that while some companies profit from bear viewing and bear hunting, there are others that are solely focused on bear viewing. Thank you.

69.161.23.194 (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Partly done: I've removed that half-sentence to remove any implication. Pretty obviously, some companies will do one, some the other, and some both. It doesn't need spelling out. I've also removed what was FN120 (alaska.org), as it was a promotional link with no informative value. Thanks for pointing out this slight POV issue. --Stfg (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Post-glacial range

Any information on the bear's post-glacial range in eastern North America? I am interested in what happened to it. Volcanoguy 14:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Google the great naked bear of New York Raggz (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2015 (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)

All grizzly bears are brown bears. Scientifically there is no such thing as a grizzly bear except as the name of all (or some) brown bears in North America. When a grizzly bear walks and swims to Siberia, it then is no longer a grizzly bear. Raggz (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2015 (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: [7]. It's Figure 13, on page 56 of 98. --Mathew5000 11:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There are 3 ranges. 1. pre-Holocene They once reached New York. 2. Pre-settlement when they ranged over most non-deserts in western North America (to Kansas and Texas) and N Mexico. 3. Modern The last in Colorado and Mexico were in the 1970's. Raggz (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2015 (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 [8], 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)

See the California grizzly. No, they are not extinct, they still exist in the Rocky Mountains, and there is a debate as to the last one, although the Tulare County record is the most widely accepted. Raggz (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

brown & grizzly bears

The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos ssp.) is any North American subspecies of brown bear, including the mainland grizzly (Ursus arctos horribilis),

There is only one North American subspecies of Ursus arctos horribilis that has scientific support, this is the Kodiak bear. There were once hundreds of subspecies of the brown bear accepted by science and there are many old references that describe now discarded subspecies.

There is no sub-species of brown bears that is only found in North America other than the Kodiak bear (and the Kodiak bear is a brown bear. Ursus arctos horribilis is a brown bear for science, there is no grizzly in science. Now we can and should call it a grizzly because this is its common name here. We also need to make it clear that grizzlies are are common name in North America for the same bear that is called the brown bear worldwide. So what do we need to do? Raggz (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The grizzly bear is the North American name for the brown bear. This article focuses on the North American grizzly where the name brown bear refers traditionally to the massive broad-skulled coastal bears while the name grizzly bear refers to more narrow skulled interior brown bears. Raggz (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

April 23, 2013: I updated the map using more current distribution data. It can be found here:

Grizzly bear habitat image updated to reflect current distribution.This is an update of work done by user:Cephas using current (2002) data from the Western Canada Wilderness Committee.

-Grizzlies are not on Vancouver Island, this is a myth. -I only updated the Western Canadian Range, I don't have a source for the USA points or eastern Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim187 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Maxim187 (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The map is wildly misleading. Grizzlies in the southwestern deserts? In the mountains of Arizona, New Mexico, etc, yes, but most certainly not in the deserts in historic times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.104.208 (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The grizzly was at one time in New York and in Durango Mexico. See Mexican grizzly Raggz (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Downgrade the Class to start class

The lead is totally inaccurate and requires a serious effort to revise it. Does anyone want to help? Meanwhile, does anyone object to the proposed downgrade? Raggz (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The lede does have problems but they don't justify downgrading the article to Start class. Dger (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

RENAME: Brown bears in North America

All grizzly bears are really brown bears. If a grizzly bear wandered to Siberia it would then no longer be a grizzly bear. Raggz (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That's true but if it walked back again and ended up in Canada or the US it be a grizzly bear. Dger (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Change the population of grizzlies in Canada to 15,000, not 25,000

In the "Range and Population" section, this sentence is inaccurate: "In Canada, there are approximately 25,000 grizzly bears occupying British Columbia, Alberta, the tundra areas of the Ungava Peninsula and the northern tip of Labrador-Quebec." The book it cites is from the 1950s. A 2012 report estimated there are 15,000 grizzly bears in Canada. Link here: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/docs/Grizzly_Bear_Pop_Est_Report_Final_2012.pdf 75.157.255.232 (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the request! I believe the text in the article cites 25,000 grizzlies in British Columbia, etc. However, I believe the reference given cites 15,000 in British Columbia, not counting Alberta and other areas of Canada. Also, later in the article text, a 2008 source cites ~16K grizzlies, with a number of great precision than 15,000. I've added the 2012 count specifically in reference to British Columbia. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 09:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grizzly bear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/09/12/news/local/news03.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:00, 23 June 2016 (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)

It probably meant use.Yolo McSwagginz93 (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Edit

In the fourth paragraph of the "Conflict with Humans" section it says "Aversive conditioning using rubber bullets, foul-tasting chemicals, or acoustic deterrent devices attempt to teach bears unpleasant associate humans with unpleasantness," the problem being that it seems like the writer was saying 'attempt to teach bears unpleasant associations with humans', then switched to: 'attempt to teach bears to associate humans with unpleasantness' at or right before associate, creating some very odd wording. The article is protected and I'm new to having an account so I can't do anything about it, can someone please help??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolo McSwagginz93 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I've reworded that bit, hopefully improved now. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2017

For this sentence make the following change:

Was:
In the North Cascades ecosystem of northern Washington, grizzly bear populations are estimated to be less than 20 bears and only one sighting of a grizzly bear in the last 10 years has been recorded.[34]

Is:
In the North Cascades ecosystem of northern Washington, grizzly bear populations are estimated to be less than 20 bears. One sighting of a grizzly bear in 2010 has been recorded.[34]

Delete the current [34] reference and replace with this one.

34. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/rare-grizzly-bear-photographed-in-north-cascades/
Erraticboulder (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Adopting orphans

I've heard on TV that the mothers have been known to adopt orphaned-cubs, someone should add that in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.6.124 (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

What about the sub-species of Grizzly, then?

So, if the latest discovers in genetics say that there is ONLY ONE SUBSPECIES of Grizzly, owned in the realm of Brown Bear, then someone could clarify how is possible that still are presents subspecies of Grizzly, like the Californian and mexican ones (extinct), IF the Grizzly is itself, overall, only one sub-species of Brown bear? How Wikipedia could fix this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Grizzly bear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930193527/http://wildlife1.wildlifeinformation.org/000ADOBES/Bears/Bears_IUCN_ActionPlan/bearsAP_chapter7.pdf to http://wildlife1.wildlifeinformation.org/000ADOBES/Bears/Bears_IUCN_ActionPlan/bearsAP_chapter7.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015043034/http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A001 to http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A001
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324205052/http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~joyce/davis/Miller%20bear.pdf to http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~joyce/davis/Miller%20bear.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Etymology of "Grizzly"

Just a comment from personal opinion. Under "Meaning of "grizzly"" the text says: ...interpreted as either "grizzly" (i.e., "grizzled"—that is, with golden and grey tips of the hair) or "grisly" ("fear-inspiring", now usually "gruesome")...

These are both taken from reasonably modern U.S. English. Whilst it is highly possible and even probable that this is the root, perhaps there is another meaning, which is the one I always assumed.

In England, grizzly used to mean: grumbling and complaining. Like "For heavens sake, stop your grizzling". It is difficult to describe, but it is the noise that children make when e.g. they are being made to do a chore they don't want to do. It is exactly the noise that Grizzly bears make, and it had never occurred to me that there was another possible meaning. Likewise colloquially, old people who are constantly complaining are humorously referred to as "Grizzly old gits", like the "Old Gits" in the "Harry Enfield and Chums" comedy sketch TV show.

Whilst Grizzly Bear is indubitably an american name for the North American Brown Bear, it should be born in mind that when they were first encountered, presumably during pioneer days, the American language would have more akin to archaic UK English than to modern U.S English. Pdadme (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2018

Henry Bastable (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Grizzly Bears

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Gulumeemee (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2018

i want to change a picture Bearpicture47 (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bearpicture47:  Not done What picture? What's the new picture you'd want to replace it with? Link a URL. You'll have to describe the changes you want to make. -NottNott 18:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove Eurasia and North America from the page.

It’s a page about a subspecies from the Americas, when the most common subspecies is from Europe and Asia. But um the page is wrote “Brown bears originated in Eurasia and traveled to North America approximately 50,000 years ago”.

But Eurasia and North America aren’t continent. - 191.180.142.106 (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC).

Removal of "Unique behaviours" under "Biology"

This section only has "The grizzly bear has been observed to be an extraordinarily talented dancer as pictured by David Attenborough in the Planet Earth II series." This is a terrible description since in the documentary it's supposed to show them scratching them selves. While the video is supposed to be humorous it isn't saying that the bears are "dancing" just because and it's stupid to say there "talented dancers" in this article. I say we should remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxGame5o (talk • contribs) 18:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2019

Change URL of "Lake Park National Park and Preserve" to following URL (in quotes), "https://www.nps.gov/lacl/index.htm" Mwhenderson (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: Wikilinked per WP:EL. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Gataylor6 (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)gataylor6 Oct 7, 2019

Could a comment be added to the section "Evolution and genetics", subsection "Ursus arctos - the brown bear"?

"The genome of the grizzly bear was sequenced in 2018 and found to be 2,328.64Mb (mega-basepairs) in length, and contain 30,387 genes ."

Suggestion

This article was a good read. It is not small (6616 words of "readable prose size") so could use another lead paragraph for a better article summary. Otr500 (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Weird size claims

I removed the paragraph below from the Appearance section, making size claims differing from first paragraph, supported only by the Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats, hardly a scientific source, and a fact sheet about the KODIAK bear? 109.228.176.49 (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Occasionally a huge male grizzly has been recorded, whose size greatly exceeds ordinary, with weights reported up to 680 kg (1,500 lb). A large coastal male of this size may stand up to 3 metres (9.8 ft) tall on its hind legs and be up to 1.5 metres (4.9 ft) at the shoulder.

Sources

• The ADFD ref is reliable, and the Kodiak bear is a subspecies of the grizzly, thus this is an applicable statement. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of Grizzly bear#Appearance is talking about the average or general size. This paragraph is about larger than normal and is fine. As Elmidae notes above the sources are acceptable. Polar bear#Physical characteristics has the regular size bear and the largest sourced to Guinness Superlatives. Muskox#Physical characteristics also talks about the standard size and larger zoo specimens. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• I tried some fact-finding, but this seems a bit convoluted. The article lists a number of other subspecies as subspecies of Grizzly, while Subspecies of brown bear lists them all as distinct subspecies of Brown bear. I'm starting to think there is a confusion between the common usage of "grizzly" (basically brown bear) and the Ursus arctos horribilis subspecies of brown bear. Might it be useful to separate this article into two, one with the "mainland grizzly", as the ingress calls U. a. h., and one on the common usage of "Grizzly bear", describing the term and linking to subspecies of brown bear referred to as such? 130.239.144.241 (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Weight of cubs

Article says they are born weighing 450g or 4500g at different places. cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 03:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)