Talk:American black bear/Archive 1

Brown or black bear for royal hats?

The black bear page says the British Army use black bear pelts for the bearskin hats of the Royal Guard, and certainly lots of other websites (PETA's, for example) suggest the black bear is used. However, the Wikipedia page on the bearskin hats states quite clearly that the hat is "made from the fur of the Canadian brown bear and is dyed black. This is because the brown bear has thicker fuller fur". The brown bear being a different species from the black bear with its own Wikipedia page. I am wondering if anyone can clarify exactly which species is used to make the hats and give a reliable citation for that? On the bearskins page, one of the citations given for the use of brown-bear fur links to an article in the Independent that says black bears are used. So I am confused.Musha1 (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm on the habitat the first thing about forests should be: "They prefer forested areas with low lying vegitation and shrubs, with thick brush" or something --168.216.27.208 16:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Andrew Lilly[reply]

There was a conflict of data within the page about the weight of new born cubs. I have resolved it from Animal Diversity Web, which is usually reliable on such matters. seglea 21:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is the wrong place, but "Females typically weight about 40 kg" this doesn't sound right to me.

yes, it does sound a bit low, but it agrees with data from the US Fish and Wildlife service page in the External Links list seglea 18:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked there, and it says "from 125 to 400" pounds, not specifically mentioning females. 40 kg would be about 85 pounds only. The us forest service external link says "females between 150 and 400 pounds". The bear center external link says: "Wild females usually weigh between 90 and 300 pounds". So, none of the three external links is anywhere near saying "Females typically weigh about 40 kg", note the "typical" in there - it's not the minimum. My suspicion is, the number was doubly converted from pounds, so 200 pounds (which seems to be a typical weight for femals, from all 3 external links) -> 90 kg and then wrongly 90 pounds -> 40kg. 15 May 2005

Looked also on Animal Diversity Web, which says females weigh between 39 and 236 kg, and males between 47 and 409 kg, so modified the page accordingly.

Sorry, that one was my fault; I wrote a lot of this article. Unfortunately I am terrible at using the metric system. If there are any Canadians out there who see any inconsistencies please correct them, sadly Americans think in pounds :(

On an unrelated note, if anybody knows anything about the black bear in Mexico, please, write something. (Si hay alguien que sabe algo sobre el oso negro norteamericano, por favor, escriba algo en este articulo.)

As far as bear encounters go. After hundreds of bear encounters in the Canadian Rockies, I'm a bit leery of the advice given. "While yes - you can indeed scare a black bear off quite easily IN SOME CASES. I have found it is best to treat all bears no differently than you would a stray german sheppard, or pit bull roaming your neighborhood. Regardless of any situation they are indeed unpredictable.

The rule I have adhered to (although thankfully never having to practice it fully), after the above rule (basically giving them their space), is when you actually are under attack:

a. if the bear has cubs - play dead! Regardless of species, if it has cubs it's primary concern is likely for the cubs - period! Once it realizes you are not a threat, it will likely leave the area with it's cubs.

b. if it's a grizzly, play dead - you have zero chance of fighting a grizzly off regardless of the situation, so put your head between your legs and hope for the best (or kiss yer a$$ good-bye!).

c. if it's a black bear (no cubs) fight for your life to your last breath. Most black bears run about the same weight as a healthy large human male (and often less). You may prove too much of a challenge for the bear and it will leave. DO NOT scream and yell until you are under attack. Sometimes noise can be a trigger for bears to attack.

(for some reason or another they particularly seem to dislike the "clickity click" of cameras...go figure.

"If you play dead grizzlies may leave you alone but black bears will begin to eat you or drag you away" This is entirely untrue. In fact, its the opposite situation. Black bears will think you are dead, and grizzlies will definitly eat you. Generally speaking, the bear encounters in the wild should differentiate between black bears and Grizzlies as the only recourse to an attacking Grizzlie bear is a good life insurance policy, whereas Black Bears will tend to avoid you.

NDR, July 28th

I've added a paragraph clarifying the differences between black and brown bear behavior and discussing the minimum level of firearm which should be used in defense. As the spate of recent attacks have highlighted, a black bear that approaches and attacks is not bluffing.

The risks of black bear sows with cubs is somewhat overblown in this article, but better safe than sorry so I've left it alone. The fact of the matter is black bear sows won't defend their cubs with the same ferocity as brown bear sows. Researchers examining black bear cubs in the wild rarely have trouble with the sows. The only attacks I've heard of have been slashing attacks made prior to the bear's retreat. Black bear sows tend to be relatively small and are usually not confident enough to try to bluff or knock down a full grown human in defense of their cubs.

Hmm. I spend time in the woods myself, and I don't agree with you, sir in this:

a. A bear's main concern is for its cubs alright, but here is a big difference between a black bear and a grizzly: the grizzly will try to take you down pre-emptively, the black bear will not; black bears are much more likely to bluff charge but a grizzly won't wait that long. Also, playing dead is effective on grizzlies because they don't like eating dead things, preferring fresh meat. On a black bear this tactic would be useless: they will drag you sorry butt off. Don't believe me?-Ask any park ranger worth his salt.

b. Many black bears are more than the weight of a healthy human male, or at least they are in the Eastern U.S. (ones in my native New York easily get away with being three hundred pounds.) It is wise to fight back, but equally it is wise to make yourself a formidable looking opponent the bear won't want to take on IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Well, perhaps the bears in the eastern US have different behaviorial factors. Clearly you don't have grizzly bears in NY (we do in the Canadian Rockies), so quite frankly I think what you've read about grizzlies makes good kindling. There are NO absolutes regarding bear behavior. As I mentioned, treat each bear as you would a large stray dog (or a large tatooed biker-type) he may be a nice dog (or fellow) but he might rip your head off for no reason either. Bear in mind (sorry for the pun) that the Canadian Rockies has far, far less human encroachment upon the ursus family. Likely this has an impact on the generalized behavior of these animals as well(much like has been theorized with mountain lions - which is what I think your confusing your last sentance with!). To advise someone to "look threatening to a bear" so they won't attack you is about the MOST foolish advice I could imagine! That particular tactic, is attributable to large cats, NOT the ursus family. Hell, the Craigheads figured that out in the 60's for God's sake!

Interestingly, some of the folks with the most current and extensive experience are the guys on the Karelian Bear Dog teams in western North America. These guys interract almost on a daily basis. I was fortunate enough to spend the afternoon with one of these teams one day, and truly the lessons we are learning about grizzlies through this type of behavioral managment is astounding! These dogs are SMART too (I suspect they could do quadratic equations if they had calculators!)!

Actually, I have met up with a bears, once two summers ago while doing a little hiking with a friend in Adirondack State Park (it is pretty remote up there, as 1) the park is bigger and older than Yellowstone and 2) It is some of the most remote available habitat in the Northeast.) It was a big fella, it had just come down a tree, and I basically acted like I was completely off my rocker-flapping my jacket open, holding my arms over my head, shouting at him-he took off. Then again, maybe you're right-I did have my friend with me.....

As a person who has studied bears, I hought I could clear a bit up here. First, grizzly preference for fresh meat is crap, they often eat carrion, especially in spring right after the emerge from dens (see Frank Craighead's book "Track of the Grizzly"). The common confusion here is why playing dead seems to work. See Stephen Herrero's book on Bear Attacks. Grizzlies attack people most often because they were disturbed, and the motive is to reduce what they perceive as a threat. When you stop moving, and stopping acting threatening (to them) they leave. Black bears very seldom attack at all, they run away or climb trees to escape what they perceive as threatening. BUT, the rare case when they do attack seem to be predatory. That is, their motive is to not subdue you but to eat you. Too many variables for an all-in-one advice on what to do in a bear encounter. Paddling bear 16:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Paddling Bear[reply]

Cool article!

I like the quirky attitude from which much of this article appears to have been written. It's not so uptight and professional as many of the articles on Wikipedia. It doesn't sound as if it were written by a computer and personally, that appeals to me. Of course, articles like this probably aren't nearly as accepted by Wikipedia. I wish they were, though.

Beer

"In August 2004, the New York Times reported that a wild black bear was found passed out after drinking about 36 cans of beer in Baker Lake, Washington, USA. The bear opened a camper's cooler and used its claws and teeth to puncture the cans. It was found the bear selectively opened cans of Rainier Beer and left all Busch beer unconsumed."

There's no citation for this, nor would the bear care(or possibly even tell the difference) between the two. Moreover, beer usually isn't very sweet tasting, and wouldn't appeal to the bear. I would reccomend removing it. 209.33.36.146 09:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find it in the NYTimes archive, but did find a BBC article on it, so I added a cite. -- Kaszeta 13:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this, and someone sent me a photo of the pile of cans (not to say this proves it's true). I thought the other beer was in bottles. I always assumed it was a true story of a bear getting into a few cans of beer, then blown up by internet legends-writers. Paddling bear 16:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Paddling Bear[reply]

Weight and strength

I can't believe any black bear weighed over 300 kg, let alone 400 kg. More, can a black bear's forepaw blow is strong enough to kill an adult elk? That's truly impossible. In contrast, attacking a healthy adult elk may prove fatal to the black bear, and it rarely does this. ___________________________ Wild male black bears of breeding age usually weigh between 125 and 500 pounds, depending upon age, season, and food. The record is 880 pounds in Craven County, North Carolina, and a close second from northeastern Minnesota weighed 876 pounds on September 5, 1994. Wild females usually weigh between 90 and 300 pounds with the heaviest known female weighing 520 pounds in northeastern Minnesota on August 30, 1993. Black bears in captivity may exceed these records. (source - http://www.bear.org/Black/Black_Bear_Facts.html)

Amusingly 880 pounds equals 399.16128 Kilogram, so 400 kg is right for the very heaviest (source - http://www.asknumbers.com/WeightConversion.aspx)

For UK readers, 880 pounds equals 62.86790 Stones Bearly No In 16:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That 880 pound bear was rare, and it's a record, so your right to suspect 400 kg as unusual - it was. Citations show large ranges in bear weights because it depends on age, habitat quality, etc. Also, although bears are very strong, I think that bit on one blow killing an adult elk may be for grizzlies. It may be possible for a black bear too, but such things are undoubtedly very rare, so to bother putting it here without some corroboration seems needless. I do know someone who witnessed a smallish female bear easily flip over a full dumptster; several hundrend pounds of metal and trash for a bear that weighed ~150 pounds. Paddling bear 16:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Paddling Bear[reply]

Hmm, Paddling, what you say does make for good discussion. I have heard of instances of black bears in Pennsylvania growing to very large sizes, exceeding the 400 lb. mark. Since you seem to know your stuff, could it be because of a combination of garbage and the fact that the second growth forests of PA are, in short, a bear's smorgasbord? I wonder....

PS-Perhaps an elk may be much, but a white-tailed deer looks like a possibility...

I haven't reviewed this page in a long time, but yes, PA has high average weights. Bears don't follow Bergman's rule (larger toward higher latitudes) their size and weight depends on food resources (and age/gender). Studies do show that habitual garbage-eating bears are very large but PA is at the edge of the range for some northern plant foods yet still in range of southern foods so it's good habitat. Generally, coastal plain weights are higher than high mountin weights (coastal NC vs W. NC for example). Paddling bear (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletation of possible vandalism

Due to the fact that the following paragraph appears to have been nonsencical gibberish I have removed it from the section titled "History and controversy"- "Remember NEVER Oproch a any bear they will eat you they are the biggest threat to America and are on top of Steven Colbert WARNING board."

The metric birth-weight range that is given of 2.0 to 4.5 kg is not equal to the imperial birth-weight range that follows in parenthesis of (7 to 16 oz) can someone please verify which (if either) is correct and edit thisMikederry (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)miked[reply]

This was a mistaken conversion. It has been fixed to 200 to 450 g. DGERobertson (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How To advice on bear encounters

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)[reply]

Black bear encounters

Black bears rarely, if ever, attack people. Whis key Rebel lion 19:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even more of a reason to clean up that stupid section of bear attack advice. Desertsky85451 19:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing small stones? A lot of the black bear advice is useful, though overstated if you ask me. Why no mention of rock throwing? When leading backpacking trips in the Sierras, throwing small stones was the first thing we were taught, after banging pots and pans and standing tall. I once successfully got a backpack (with some candy in it) back from a black bear attempting to steal it, by pelting it with small stones as I chased it. While I'd feel guilty if I happened to blind a black bear, there are those here suggesting firearms. --Zachbe 14:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You risked your life to get a bag containing candy back? Your joking right!? If I had the choice between backing slowly away from a predator or confronting him with stones..... Billtheking 17:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, I'd pelt the bear with the candy to get it to run away! Tom e r ^talk 05:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay seriously... It is imperitive not to HABITUATE (or food condition) wild animals. Food conditioned bears lead to human-wildlife conflicts, and generally are the root cause of the few black bear attacks documented. I live in an area with MANY black bears, and have been close enough to practically touch them. Use whatever means necissary to haze an animal. Throwing rocks is often advised. Seriously they are tough animals, if you manage to give them a bruise, all the better, they will remember that taking food from humans is dangerous, and not continue with that habit. My community has ongoing 'Bear Aware' campaigns, dealing with securing garbage and food sources in our rural community. Food conditioned bears generally end up dead, as they cause problems in communities, and are shot by conservation officers. 'A Fed Bear is a Dead Bear. WestCoast222 (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by 130.184.206.250

Because of the unusual wording and strange placement of this contribution, and the fact that it replaced existing material with no explanation, I am reverting and moving the text here for review. Could possibly be worthwhile with editing (Bruins ==> Bears) and proper references, but I'll let someone else with more knowledge on the subject decide that. --KeithB 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruins played a major role in the cultural identity of the American frontier, especially Arkansas. Economic exploitation in tandem with cultural masculinity in the state resulted in a society that held black bears at the heart of its frontier psyche - at least until they were extirpated in the late 1920s. Arkansas, once known (informally) as the "Bear State," was left bearless from the 1930s until re-introduction of ursus Americanus in the 1950s. Much the same occurred throughout the American south - until re-introduction efforts in the past few decades.

While parts of this are true, it doesn't really add anything to the page on bears, in my opinion.

Notice of import

A copy of this article was moved to wikibooks using the Import tool (with all revisions). If this article was marked for copy to wikibooks or as containing how-to sections, it can now be safely rewritten.

If contributors are interested in expanding on the practical information that was in this article, please do so on the wikibooks side. For pointers on writing wikibooks, see Wikibooks:Wikibooks for Wikipedians. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 11:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking the link given takes me to a page saying there's no such Wikibook, so I'll replace it with a howto template. --Allen 20:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Bears

There should be more information on the black bear such as what the bear likes to do, how it survives in the fall, what does it do when its gone to sleep for the winter besides sleep things like that.

Bear track image

Sorry to stick my question here, I didn't know how to make a new subject line. Pollinator, your photo of a bear track from Hemingway, SC doesn't look like any track I've ever seen. If you get this, email me to discuss if you want. It looks like it has long fingers, which bears don't have. I can probably get a clearer photo of a bear track to use. Paddling bear 18:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Paddling Bear[reply]

I also recognized that the photo did not look like a bear track, so I went and took a photo showing both the front and hind tracks and posted it. Provophys 05:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Range

From what I'm reading of the article, it seems to indicate that the subspecies, w/ the exception of americanus are, in most cases, highly localized. Is there any way to get a map showing the range of the species, esp. one showing the ranges of the various subspecies? Tom e r ^talk 03:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Can the main editor verify the photo of the track in mud? I'd done a lot of tracking, and it doesn't look at all like a black bear. Looks more like an alligator to me. Long fingers for one, wrong overall shape for another.

There is no such thing as a "main editor" on Wikipedia. I recommend asking your question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals to find a greater range of knowledgeable editors in this field. Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 04:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Bear Photo

Someone keeps changing the caption on the white black bear to read "albino". This is a non-albino white colour morph (it has dark eyes). Not all white animals are albinos. Messybeast 18:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the term for a low-pigment but non albino animal is leucism. Michael1115 (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I live in British Columbia, where we are proud to be home of a large number (essentially all) of the white black bears. They are generally known as Sprit, or Kermode Black bears here in BC. As per general education to the public, the cause of the spirit bears white fur is caused by a recessive gene, similar to the idea of how a human can have red hair. The white form of black bears is essentially a hold over from the ice age. In British Columbia, most spirit bears are found on one (large) island on the Central coast, Princess Royal Island, however they do occure everywhere occasionally.WestCoast222 (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IS THE NICEST

In this article, there is graffiti at the start of the introduction. I was going to edit the comment, but I could not locate it in the "edit this page" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.194.140 (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Bear sightings in Ohio

A Black Bear was spotted in Geauga County, Hambden Twp. on May 9, 2006. ref. Paul Thomas paulthomas@wkyc.com [GPS +41.60, -081.16]

A Black Bear was reported by four people in Tuscarawas County, Warren Twp. on Sunday, July 7, 2002, in a cottage neighborhood near Atwood Lake Park. ref. Darrin Lautenschleger, Park Ranger. [GPS +40.53, -081.28] Musicwriter 04:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The state of Ohio has bears in low density all through the eastern counties, so I don't think we need to list single signtings. My source is a map in the Ohio report at the Eastern Black Bear Workshop (proceedings published every 2 years). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddling bear (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diet section

Is it really necessary to have a list of the different species of Vegatation, Fruit, ect and their scientific names? I think it makes the section look ugly. I hope someone will repond because I am going to change it and I don't what an edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.133.131.53 (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External link

I would like to offer an external link to www.covebear.com on the American Black Bear page - can this please be reviewed and approved by Wikipedia editors? The website has a lot of information about black bears. New to Wikipedia. BlackbearEditor01 20:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the WP:COI and WP:EL policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's commendable that you should ask. I've visited the site and, you're correct, it does contain some nice stuff about black bears. Nonetheless, Wikipedia is not simply a collection of links. The normal procedure for you would be to expand the article with references using, perhaps, that site as a reference, especially if the provenance of the information on the site is well established. Since you say you're new to Wikipedia, to hone your skills around external links, I'd suggest you read, at the very least, LINKS, SPAM, COI and NOT. Cheers and good luck to you. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 20:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New England

the map shows bears ending at the Connecticut border. This is not so. That state has a permanent population. They also wander into Rhode Island every spring. One was just spotted in Narragansett, about a mile from the Atlantic Ocean. Maybe he knows the state beaches open on Memorial Day! The map is also skimpy in showing the bear's distribution in rural nortwest New Jersey, which is extensive. John celona (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, the 'permanent' populatin in CT is only in the NW corner, and although it's a large scale map, it looks like that is included. Secondly, 1 lost bear wandering near the RI coast shouldn't be enough to move the map of bear range (where bears are likely to be) 100 east. A last point is that state agencies don't have precise enough data to update their range maps every year, and bears are expanding in several places (NJ, OH, etc for a few) but I think we should use accepted maps, perhaps with comments about updates, not make up our own map. Paddling bear (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Range Map is Incorrect

I'm a Minnesota native and Black Bear populations are common in the central part of the state, and specimens can even be found near the northern suburbs of the Twin Cities. Nevertheless, the range map seems to indicate one will only find them in the northern third of the state, when they are found throughout at least two thirds of the state. The range map should therefore be revised; I noticed the source used was quite old -- from 1780 -- and a newer source should therefore be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.77.120 (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go out there and exterminate them all and make the range map on Wiki accurately reflect the correct range. Just joking- I'll see if I can find a map while I'm off work tomorrow but can't make any promises. I really like the article though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.26 (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't believe it is correct, as black bears are commonly sighted in Ohio. I have found several other maps that could replace it, but I would like someone else's input first. --Daj12192 (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted nonsense

Have deleted the following nonsense:

Black Bears are also sympatric with cougars and may compete with them over carcasses.

If anyone knows what was originally stated before vandalism, please re-incorporate corrected text. Thanks.--Technopat (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with it. "Sympatric" means that their ranges overlap or are the same. I'm going to revert your deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings UtherSRG, my dictionary gives (my bold type):

(of animals or plants) of related species or populations occurring within same geographical area; overlapping in distribution

which coincides with the Wikipedia article I linked and you have reverted.--Technopat (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constant Vandalism?

Now I'm no Wikipedia uber-user - but of all the pages I watch, Black Bear seems to be constantly vandalized! Anyone have any explanations? This page does not even seem to get many people viweing it! According to the statistics, was only viewed 96 times in 2008/11.WestCoast222 (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's really weird, are the people who register accounts just to vandalize this article.BC_{talk to me} 21:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ill add this article to ClueBot's blacklist (so it reverts vandalism more then once per day). Tim1357 (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Record black bear

http://www.wqow.com/global/story.asp?s=9478042 Green Squares (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raised importance rating

[1] An attempt is made to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.[2]SriMesh | talk 03:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]