Jump to content

Talk:Asian black bear

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Asiatic "Golden" Bear?

[edit]

What about the "undescribed golden color phase of the moon bear" mentioned here? Dysmorodrepanis 02:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without provocation?

[edit]

"......and have frequently attacked people without provocation".

Isn't this part of the sentence POV, and so to be removed, when the content of the article Bile bear is taken into account?--VKing (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is well attested in literature, both old and new that ABBs attack without provocation. See Attacks on Humans section for referencesMariomassone (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the problem is, that literature is POV on this subject?!--VKing (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the content of Bile bear is relevant to attacks on humans. All available literature I've so far seen comes to the same conclusion that ABBs have attacked people unprovoked. Not always, but enough times to warrant attention. Mariomassone (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like humans, animals can feel, that an other being has done, or is doing, something very bad to one or more of their kindlikes (or is "congeners" a better word in this context?). It's even very well thinkable, that they can tell each other in their own way, that this or that other being, they sometimes meet in their natural territory, is a very mean kind of being, because it kills and takes away some of their children. It can be a most natural reaction then, to strike first. In itself the attacked human may happen to be one, who didn't have something wrong in mind and didn't provoce the bear, but that doesn't mean, that the bear attackes human beings onprovoced. Maybe he himself already has lost 'somebody' to such a 'dressed naked ape, carrying a gun'. And yes, as indicated before, they may feel very well, what's happening in those bile bear cages. --VKing (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I think the word you want is "conspecifics" or simply "kin", another word for brother. As far as I am aware, the best documentation of black bear attacks come from India, from which the sources on the attacks come from. Hindus have no use for bile bears. It is a purely Chinese or Indochinese problem, so there is no way Indian/Himalayan black bears could "know" about this. What you are suggesting is Guilt by Association. It may be tempting for a bear to treat an innocent peasant in his field as a threat simply because he is human, but that does not change the fact that the person was not attacking or confronting the bear. HOWEVER, if you have a source supporting what you say, then let us see it.Mariomassone (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maye Hindus don't make bile bears out of them, but that doesn't say, that they don't at least treat (certain of) them rudely one way or another; (never heard of Indian holy bears). For instance peasants making farming land out of more and more of the bear's natural territory, at a certain point can drive the animal to a dead of despair.--VKing (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Book of Maneaters was published in 1931 and is hardly a reliable scientific source on black bear behaviour, aggressive or otherwise. All the scientific literature I've read ("Status of Asiatic black bears in protected areas of Nepal and the effects of political turmoil"; Stubblefied et al, 2007, for example) indicates that Asiatic black bears are shy and will avoid human encounters. The attacks outlined in the aforementioned research indicate no aggression, and in fact points out that most of the attacks occured while the bears were eating. The research indicates that the attacks in most of the researched were the result of "suprise encounters." Previous attacks in these areas were decades earlier. Nothing in modern scientific research supports the old hunter idea that Asiatic black bears engage in unprovoked aggression. This section should be removed, and given the significant evidence, I will remove the section in one week to allow others to observe the information for themselves. --Bentonia School (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Status of Asiatic black bears in protected areas of Nepal and the effects of political turmoil takes place in only one study area during a mere two month period, and is not meant to be an exhaustive investigation on black bear attacks, nor does it cover the species as a whole. Nobody is denying that normally black bears are shy around humans, the introduction to the section says so itself. As for your claim that "Nothing in modern scientific research supports the old hunter idea that Asiatic black bears engage in unprovoked aggression", aggressive behaviour by black bears is attested by Reginald Pocock and Gary Brown (author of Bears of the World), neither of whom are hunters. Also, this article is on black bears as a whole, not just populations in Nepal. The figures vary according to region;

Reports of livestock killing by Asiatic black bear and attacks on humans to the Forest and Wildlife Department are common, largely in the north western and western Himalayan region. For example, in Chamba District of Himachal Pradesh, the number of Asiatic black bear attacks on humans has steadily increased from 10 in 1988– 89 to 21 in 1991–92. http://www.pahalgam.com/mimes/Asiatic-black-bears-in-Pahalgam.pdf

Wildlife Departments of black bear attacking humans and killing livestock are common, largely in the north western and western Himalayan region. For example, in Uttarakhand, black bears accounted for 28.5% of 540 attacks on humans by large carnivores between 1991 and 2001. Of these attacks, 9% resulted in a human fatality (Chauhan 2004).... During 2008-09, 68 cases of human-black bear close encounters were reported (Table. 7). Of these, 40% of the encounters resulted in human injuries (all were unprovoked attacks), and in 17% cases, there was no harm to both. But when the black bear was harassed by people cases humans were injured (14%). http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/asiatic_blackbear_human_conflict_dachigam.pdf

It is notable that the second article does not class surprise encounters as provocation (deliberate harassment of the bear involved).Mariomassone (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

The subspecies chart should include the common name of each subspecies. I don't think I've ever seen one that doesn't have it. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caps of article

[edit]

Why are the caps "Asian Black Bear" rather than "Asian black bear"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity of article

[edit]

There seem to be a large number of sentences jumbled together without any rational arrangement. Some elements are repeated (e.g. the bears are more carnivorous than most other bears, tigers being their predator), others, possibly due to poor translations, are extremely confusing and sometimes contradictory!

Examples:

Section: Description, Paragraph1 

 The skulls of Asian black bears are relatively small, but massive, particularly in the lower jaw.

Relatively small compared to what? Presumeably brown bears but this is not clear. If they are 'small', they can not be massive!


Section: Description, Paragraph3: 

 Although their senses are more acute than those of brown bears, their eyesight is poor, and their powers of hearing moderate, the upper limit being 30 kHz.

There are 5 conventional senses. Is this trying to say that, for each one, the black bear's ability is better? If it only means have better sight and hearing then it should say that.

Also, just because the black bear can't hear frequencies above 30 kHz does not, by itself, indicate that the bear's sense of hearing isn't brilliant! It is not just the case of what frequencies can be heard, but also how sensitive the ear is to sound at those frequencies.


Section: Behaviour, Paragraph1: 

 Half of their life is spent in trees and they are one of the largest arboreal mammals. In the Ussuri territory, black bears can spend up to 15% of their time in trees.

This is odd! Its trying to present the picture that Ussuri bears are rather arboreal, spending 15% of their time in trees! Yet the preceeding sentence says that asiatic black bears spend half their time in trees, which would mean that the Ussuri bears are much less arboreal than most! In which case the second second should read ... However, in the Ussuri territory, black bears spend at most 15% ...

Perhaps the first sentence is a poor translation and should read woodland rather than trees?Glevum (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC) -- are there any sources-- statistical and empirical support for the periods of times that the bears spend in trees? where is it reasonable to find information regarding their activites? there is wildlife preservation sources that provide such statistical evidence? -- anaceus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.85.203 (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing bones, small is talking about height and width, and massive is talking about bone density or thickness. Volume vs mass. 2601:7:80:F0B:2E0:4DFF:FEC2:9039 (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.. i have deleted the previous image

[edit]

and have posted a link to an image which may be more appropriate-- though the link is not registering properly. perhaps someone can direct me to the appropriate means to reference the image? i do not think the previous image is a far representation of 'the asian black bear', and this seems a more suitable selection. -- nrks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANarChAriAN (talk • contribs) 20:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the picture being used

[edit]

is offensive to my sense of 'what a bear looks like' -- and i do not believe that it should be used. it is inappropriate. i do not know why it has been selected and am removing it. i recommend that a different picture be found and used-- a picture which is more appropriate. (i am referring to the 'standing bear' picture-- which makes the bear appear lumpy and 'un-bear-like)-- i am certain we can find a more complimentary picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.85.203 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a better picture, please use it. Anaxial (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i am not sure who is currently interested in this article

[edit]

do we have a roster of some kind of who are the active editors on this article? i would like to know who i am dealing with. if there is a small group of people with an interest in developing this article we can identify a direction which we label as 'progress' in terms of the articles improvement-- then we can begin to expand and move towards the goal of a perfectly realized 'black bear' article. but perhaps we can identify who are the active participants on this article, so that we may communicate more effectively and resolve issues in a democratic manner. - anc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.85.203 (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

american/asian black bear

[edit]

for starters-- the american black bear article also contains some deliberate mis-statements: for instance, a picture of what is identified as a cinnamon-colored black-bear (a brown bear)-- it may be reasonable for us to begin working here on the 'black bear' stub, and then working towards merging the asian/american black bear articles-- for example, in a primary article 'black bear', with minor stubs for sub-species, as we can identify them-- this will require more research. the issue, i think, is that any significant mis-statements, mistakes, incongruencies has a tendancy to 'corrupt' an article -- it is difficult to trust the information contained as a result of the mis-statements, or trust the perspective represented. thus, it may be necessary to start entirely new article in order to satisfy the desire for 'article integrity'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.85.203 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which picture do you believe is actually of a brown bear? I don't see any "deliberate mis-statements" in any of the pictures, but it would help if I knew which one you were talking about. I also can't understand why we would want to merge the Asian and American black bear articles. I'd strongly argue that, since they're different animals, with plenty of information on each of their respective pages, they should be kept separate. Anaxial (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asian black 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asian black 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asian vs Asiatic

[edit]

In journal articles, I read the species as Asiatic rather than Asian. Do we have a source for Asian or should that be changed? IUCN uses Asiatic too (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22824/0). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddling bear (talk • contribs) 19:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Products - giving permission

[edit]

Hey there...

Just reviewing the "products" section of this article, noticed that there is a complete lack of evidence that supports the claim that Asiatic black bear bile "cures many diseases, effectively treats the accumulation of blood below the skin, and counters toxic effects". There is a 'citation needed' tag after the claim, but this is irresponsible as it lays out legitimacy before it is proven otherwise. I do not believe this is a fact unless a direct link to a study published in a peer-reviewed, internationally recognized journal can be produced.

This is my first suggestion so please have mercy as I am not familiar with the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XWorldclassX (talk • contribs) 04:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Asian black 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution: Japan

[edit]

Under the main heading Distribution and Habitat, I would have expected a sub-heading on Japan given that there are numerous other references to Japan throughout. Would that be appropriate? Chalky 21:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efenna (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_black_bear&oldid=1194938642"