THE GRIZZLY BEAR
Bearsare included by zoölogists in that order whose typical forms are, besides themselves, the dog, cat, and seal, and they belong to the higher of those sub-orders into which this group of carnivora has been divided.Ursidæhold a middle place among bear-like beasts, and although their generic history is not so complete as that of others, Dr. Lund’s discoveries in Brazilian bone-caves brought to light a fossil form that Wallace regards as representative of an existing American species. Their palæontological record carries them far back among the fauna of earlier geological periods, and connects the sub-ordinal section which contains existing arctoids with insect-eating and pouched vertebrates on one side, and on the other, with the precursors of monkeys, apes, and men.
In their most general structural traits bears possess the characteristic features of all carnivores—their abbreviated digestive tract, developed muscular systems and sense organs, and highly specialized teeth. At the same time this genus is considerably modified, and on that account bears were placed amongFissipedia, which are practically omnivorous. Finally,Ursidæare plantigrades with muscles fused in plates, and so exhibit the ungainliness, the awkward and comparatively slow and restricted movements peculiar to the genus.
THE GRIZZLY BEAR.[From a photograph by Ottomar Anschütz. Copyright.]
THE GRIZZLY BEAR.[From a photograph by Ottomar Anschütz. Copyright.]
THE GRIZZLY BEAR.
[From a photograph by Ottomar Anschütz. Copyright.]
Geographically they are nearly cosmopolitan. Their species, although not numerous, inhabit arctic and tropical regions, and live in the lowlands of Europe, Asia, and America, as well as among the mountains of both continents.
The grizzly bear is confined to the New World, and there is distributed from about 68° north to the southern border of the United States, chiefly in the main chain of the Rocky Mountains and on their eastern and western slopes, but also among the ranges between these and the Pacific. It has been called by many names. Lewis and Clark, who may be said to have discovered this animal, speak of it indifferently as the white and brown bear. Cuvier said he was not satisfied that any specific distinction existed between the latter and our grizzly, which has also been identified with Sir John Richardson’s “barren-ground” species of the Atlantic area. Audubon supposesUrsus horribilisto have formerly inhabited this province, but the only basis for such an opinion is found in his interpretation of some Algonkin traditions. The present title—horrible, frightful, or terrible bear—is a translation into Latin of George Ord’s namegrisly, given in 1815. As it is commonly written, however, its significance is lost, the reference being to color instead of character. Dr. Elliott Coues and others have remarked upon this discrepancy, but it is now too late to make a change. The naturalist Say (“Long’s Expedition to the Rocky Mountains”) first described this species, although its physical features are well given by Captains Lewis and Clark, and it was mentioned before their time. Since then the animal’s dimensionshave been often and also differently determined. Lockwood (“Riverside Natural History”) very properly gives no ultimate decision. Lord Dunraven (“The Great Divide”) speaks of having shot “a middling-sized beast weighing about eight hundred pounds.” Richard Harlan (“Fauna Americana”) says that the animal’s “total length is 8 feet 7 inches and 6 lines; its greatest circumference 5 feet 10 inches; the circumference of its neck 3 feet 11 inches, and the length of its claws 4 inches 5 lines.” Captain Lewis measured tracks “eleven inches long and seven and a half wide,exclusiveof the claws,” which are reported by different observers to be of all lengths between four and seven inches; and the truth is that no one has been in a position to pronounce definitely on a single point respecting this animal’s weight and size. It is the largest and most powerful beast of prey in the world. So much may be said confidently, but beyond that data for positive statements are not extant.
With regard to the grizzly bear’s habits, they are variable, like the color of his coat, which may at one time and place justify the name he bears, and at another be almost black.Ursus horribilispreys upon all the large game of North America; he is, as H. W. Elliott (“Our Arctic Province”) observes, “a most expert fisherman,” and appears to be equally partial to wild fruits and carrion. These brutes consume large quantities of mast, they dig up thepomme blancheand other tubers and roots, and it is said that their relatives of the black species are sometimes devoured. Nothing edible comes amiss to a grizzly, from the larvæ of insects to spoiled salmon, or from buffalo-berries to theanimal itself. But it must be admitted that accurate information is wanting upon many particulars connected with his way of life. Hibernation, for example, which is a trait varying greatly in its completeness among species of different genera, appears to be absent in this case. These animals go about both by day and night, in cold weather as much as in warm. There are perfectly reliable accounts of their having been encountered at all seasons, and in situations which were peculiarly favorable for going into winter quarters if the animal had desired to do so.
Again, the grizzly’s exploits as a hunter are involved in much obscurity. It does not require great skill for him to catch buffalo, or supply himself with beef on a cattle range. TheBovidæin general are not particularly intelligent, and no doubt an ambuscade which might be successful with them is managed without much difficulty. With deer, however, it is not the same. Caribou and elk, the black and white tailedCervidæ, are not to be had by any man without a previous acquisition of considerable knowledge, without the power to put this in practice according to varying circumstances, and without great practical dexterity in several directions. Bears are not exempt from the requirements pointed out. All that is true of instinct restricts itself in every instance of efficiency to the fact that transmitted faculty makes acquisition rapid and promotes the passage of deliberate into automatic action. Apart from the advantages he possesses in this way, a grizzly bear needs to learn in the same way as a man. There are occasions constantly occurring in which mind must be exercised in a manner such as experiencehas not prepared him to meet, and where the animal acts well or ill, successfully or unsuccessfully, according to his individual capacity.
John D. Godman (“American Natural History”) calls it “savage and solitary.” All the more powerful beasts of prey might be similarly characterized. The influence of organization, inherited tendencies, and their daily life, indispose creatures of this kind towards association. Moreover, they are most generally rivals in their usual habitats, both as hunters and as suitors during the pairing season. We have no accounts, like those given of lions and tigers, to show how males behave toward each other under the antagonisms implied in contact, but everything points towards conflict. Still, as there are conditions which bring the former together in certain localities, so grizzlies sometimes congregate. Möllhausen (“Diary of a Journey from the Mississippi to the Pacific”) reports that at Mount Sitgreaves, and in its surrounding eminences, their dens were so numerous that Leroux (a famous guide and hunter of those days) had never seen the same “numbers living together in so small a space.” They had all gone when Möllhausen’s party was there, owing to the freezing of waters in that vicinity. Those places where they had tried to break the ice were often found, and many trails well marked in snow showed that the bears had “made their journey to the south in troops of eight or more,” each detachment going in single file.
Nevertheless, “Old Ephraim,” as mountain men call him, having inspired all who ever penetrated into his haunts with a wholesome respect, has naturally beenexposed to misconstructions. His character is frequently represented as more fierce and morose than it really is. Writers say of him that he will not tolerate the presence of a black bear, or the variety of this species, according to Baird, the “cinnamon,” in his neighborhood. They tell how their boundaries are sharply defined, and remark that occasionally small numbers of these less formidable members of the family live as enclaves within the grizzlies’ territories, but are rigorously confined to their own limits.
This is one of those wholesale statements with which descriptive zoölogy is full. No doubt there are plenty of grizzly bears that would kill any poaching relative of theirs unlucky enough to encounter them. As a general fact in natural history, however, the theory of the separateness of distribution among AmericanUrsidæwill not stand. Many direct observations show it to be otherwise, and Schwatka (“Along Alaska’s Great River”) is fully supported in saying that he doubts the truth of this statement from his own experience. On Cone Hill River he saw “four or five black and brown bears in an open or untimbered space of about an acre or two.”
There are spots in India appropriately called “tigerish.” Any one who knows the beast’s ways would naturally look for it in these sites. But it is very doubtful if the physical features of localities have much to do with selection by this species, apart from the fact that when he feels himself to be in danger, a grizzly gets into the most inaccessible position possible. He loves cover under all circumstances, although it is not uncommon in secluded situations to find these animals far out in open country;but timber and brush seem to be more or less accidental accessories so far as his preference is concerned. The animal needs a constant supply of water, and if this can be had, broken and intricate ravine systems suit it as well as thickets or forest land. Its partiality for swamps depends upon their productions, and the fact that game is apt to be found in them. Independently of special considerations of any kind, the propensity to conceal itself is a natural and necessary outgrowth of the habits and character of all predatory creatures. They do so universally, and a grizzly, like the rest, much prefers a wind-row, precipitous arroyo, or brake, to any plain whatever which is not overgrown in some way.
Grizzly bears do not climb trees. They are said to shake them in order to procure fruit, and also for the purpose of dislodging men who have taken refuge among their branches; in general, however, the animal sits up and claws down the boughs within reach.
Probably that conventional expression, the “bear hug,” has no significance anywhere. Some bears hug tree stems in ascending trunks adapted to their embrace, but Asiatic species of all kinds simply sink their claws into the bark of boles they would be utterly unable to gain any hold upon otherwise, and climb like cats. This arctoid is too heavy for that; he is over-sized, in fact, like the greaterFelidæ, for any arboreal gymnastics. The writer can find no reliable evidence to show that this or any other bear attempts to inflict injury by straining the body of an enemy within its arms. A grizzly will grasp and hold a man or beast while biting, or striking with the claws ofits hind feet, and blows from its forearm are delivered as frequently and not less effectually than is customary with the lion, but beyond teeth, talons, and concussion, no authentic mention is made of modes by which its victims are put to death.
All young vertebrates are playful in youth, and if taken early enough, some would be found even in species commonly regarded as untamable, that for a time at least might be domesticated. AmongUrsidæuntrustworthiness is the rule. They are quite intelligent, capable of being taught, and competent to understand the necessity for being peaceable. Yet if one judges from reports they are more unreliable than the cats. Relatively these animals are not so highly endowed, and this fact, coupled with inherent ferocity, and an organization by which passion is made explosive, accounts for the character they bear. Cubs ofUrsus horribilisgrow savage very soon. Lockwood and others regard the species as incapable of being completely tamed. As far as that goes, however, the same is true of every wild beast able to do harm. These animals are kept under the same conditions as other show creatures, and seem to be in much the same state. It is nevertheless probable that either from a greater degree of insensibility or less mental capacity, they always remain more dangerous than mostferæ. This brute has nothing of the phlegm about him that his appearance suggests. He is morose, surly, and rough at all times, and even more liable to sudden and violent fits of rage than a tiger.
Either, as seems likely from what we know of the animals in question, on account of the fact that those whohave had an opportunity to observe them were exclusively occupied with describing their destructiveness, or because grizzlies have few of those traits that make many species interesting, their records are very barren indeed. A solitary being like this could not possess the engaging qualities Espinas (“Sociétés Animales”) and Beccari describe among those that live in association; but other creatures are so placed without losing all attractiveness. It does not take long to tell the little that is certain about a grizzly’s ways when left to himself. Besides what has been already said, we know that they appropriate game not killed by themselves, and will steal meat wherever it is found. Audubon saw one swimming in the Upper Missouri after the carcass of a drowned buffalo, Roosevelt had his elk eaten, and four of them visited Lord Dunraven’s camp, carrying off all the food they could find. He says “they scarcely ate any of the flesh, but took the greatest pains to prevent any other creatures getting at it.” This is not always the case, however. That they bury provisions is sure, but it is sometimes done very imperfectly, even when there is no physical difficulty in the way of completeness. On rocky soil the cache is simply covered with leaves, branches, and grass. Lord Dunraven, however, tells of a hunter who watched a grizzly burying its prey with the greatest care, concealing it completely, and finishing off his work in the most painstaking manner. Animals that have this habit need not watch their food as a tiger does his “kill,” and when the interment was accomplished to this one’s satisfaction, it went away. Before getting far, some “whiskey jacks” (a kind of magpie) thathad been intently observing his doings began to unearth the deposit. Then he came back, drove them off, and repaired damages. This happened several times, until the bear flew into a violent passion, and while ramping around after the manner of these beasts he got shot. The author had a pony killed on one occasion, and the murderer buried its remains in the most slovenly manner possible.
These bears collect salmon during the spawning season on the banks of streams. They also scoop them out of the water with their claws, and dive after single fish. There are no full accounts of the manner in which prey is taken among these quadrupeds, but the creature’s conformation makes it impossible that any of the deer kind could be captured except by stratagem. A grizzly can make a rapid rush. His lumbering, awkward gallop carries him forward so rapidly that on rough ground a man would have to be very fleet of foot to have any chance of escape. Colonel Markham states that the charge of an Indian hill bear is so swift that it cannot be avoided, and it appears from all accounts that so far as speed goes, at least for a short distance, theUrsidæhave in general been underrated. In cover or upon open spaces, one of these bears always rises up when its attention is attracted, and it does the same if alarmed or angry, if wounded or intending to attack. It does this in order to see more clearly; for the sight, although it is not positively defective, cannot compare with that of many other species, and independently of the advantage gained by elevation, its short neck circumscribes vision while the body is in a horizontal position. The hearing is acute and the sense of smell highlydeveloped. J. R. Bartlett, while acting upon the boundary commission between the United States and Mexico, says that at his encampment by the geysers of Pluton River his party found signs of these animals’ proximity, but that they managed to avoid meeting the intruders, chiefly, as he supposed, by means of their scenting powers. Lieutenant J. W. Abert, while hidden with a companion at fifty yards from three grizzlies, was detected in this way, and the majority of observers have remarked upon the goodness of their noses. It is also said that they have an aversion to human effluvium, and that a warm trail will cause one to turn aside more certainly than the sight of a hunter. This needs confirmation, and may be taken with the same reservation which should attach to Godman’s statement that the grizzly “is much more intimidated by the voice than the aspect of man.” No doubt bears may have failed to push a charge home because their intended victim screamed with terror, but both in this case and in that just mentioned, while speaking of the influence of odor, so soon as such experiences are created into general truths, they can be met with facts by which they are stultified.
Nothing, so far as the author knows, has been advanced upon the subject of a male grizzly’s paternal virtues or conjugal affections. As is the rule with fierce beasts, offspring depend upon the mother for care and protection. Two or three cubs are born together in spring, and they have been seen in her company from infancy up to an age when apparently able to shift for themselves. Very little is known, however, about the importantsubject of their training, the length of time during which they are under tutelage, or the degree to which tenderness and solicitude are developed in females of this species by maternity. A tigress robbed of her young has become a familiar simile for expressing desperation and inappeasable anger, but it has little foundation in truth, and many reports to the same effect in this animal’s case, appear upon a wide survey of the evidence to be equally doubtful. Colonel R. I. Dodge (“Plains of the Great West”) most likely comes as near the truth as it is possible for any one to do in the present state of knowledge, when he remarks that although a she-bear will often fight desperately in defence of her cubs, it is just as probable that they may be abandoned to their fate if the mother supposes herself to be in danger.
As might be imagined, grizzly bears can, for the most part, only be got the better of by being killed. They are occasionally trapped, however. The instrument is an ordinary toothed spring trap, to which a log is attached by a chain. When sprung it is impossible either to break or unloose it, and the furious animal goes off with the entire apparatus, but is much hampered by this encumbrance, and leaves a trail as easily followed as a turnpike.
Of necessity such a beast of prey as this has gathered around it a perfect fog of superstitions, traditions, false beliefs, and incredible stories. The author is familiar with the scenes in which most of these exploits and wonders are said to have been wrought, as well as with the men who relate and oftentimes believe them. As a class, they are not perhaps greatly superior in culture and mentaldiscipline to those savages among whom their lives have been passed. Like them, their observations are generally accurate, and the inferences drawn from experience absurd. Travellers who associate with undeveloped men anywhere soon learn to make this distinction. Moreover, the trapper or hunter seen in general and most frequently met with in books, no more resembles some exceptional members of this class, than that blustering, melodramatic assassin, the would-be desperado, does the quiet, self-contained fighting-man of the frontier, and a wider difference than these classes present cannot be found among alien species in nature. If one is fortunate enough to find favor in the eyes of a true mountain man, he will do well to listen to what is said, and compare as many experiences with him as possible.
Among reports most rife upon the border is this, that if a fugitive pursued by a grizzly bear keeps a straight line around a hillside, the animal is certain to get either above or below him. The writer has heard men swear that they have tried this and seen it tried, but would be loath to trust in this device himself. Many persons are also convinced of the truth of a very prevalent account to the effect that a puma can kill one of these bears, and frequently does so. Nothing can be offered on the basis of personal experience or observation either in corroboration or rebuttal of this opinion. We have seen that there are good grounds for crediting the fact of Indian wild dogs assaulting tigers successfully, and the same is not impossible in this instance. Theodore Roosevelt (“Hunting Trips of a Ranchman”) says “any one of the big bearswe killed on the mountains would, I should think, have been able to make short work of a lion or a tiger.” At the same time he remarks that either of the latter “would be fully as dangerous to a hunter or other human being, on account of the superior speed of its charge, the lightning-like rapidity of its movements, and its apparently sharper senses.” The fact of an animal’s antagonist being a man has evidently no relation to the question of relative prowess. Those advantages attributed toFelidæmust of course tell in conflict with any animal proportionately to the degree in which they exceeded like traits upon the part of an adversary. Cougars greatly excel the grizzly bear in those qualities mentioned, but how far they might counterbalance its great superiority in strength is another matter.
Nearly all that has been said of the subject of this sketch relates to his behavior towards human beings. Records of that character are not wanting, and it should be possible to give a correct idea of the grizzly as he appears in literature without overloading the text with quotations. Those traits to be considered in this connection are courage, ferocity, aggressiveness, and tenacity of life, all of which are represented very differently, according as the writers describe them from hearsay or personal observation, and as they refer to animals existing in dissimilar times and places, with or without reference to the fact that this is a creature which has undergone much modification under unlike conditions of existence. No one can delineate the features of this species in its entirety, but most persons attempt to do so, and their accounts are liable to the sameobjections which have been made to premature conclusions and want of discrimination in other instances.
The statements of those who know this animal do not disagree very conspicuously with respect to its character as a formidable foe. Dr. Elliott Coues, who, besides being a distinguished naturalist, had opportunities for acquiring a special knowledge of the grizzly bear, speaks of it in his “History of the Expedition of Lewis and Clark” in terms which afford a curious contrast to those of men who were less well informed. In mentioning the difficulties encountered by these explorers, he observes that “this bear was found to be so numerous and so fierce, especially in the upper Missouri region, as to more than once endanger the lives of the party, and form an impediment to the progress of the expedition.” Lord Dunraven says that on “The Great Divide” these bears “did not appear to mind the proximity of our camp in the least, or to take any notice of us or our tracks. A grizzly is an independent kind of beast, and has a good deal of don’t-care-a-damnativeness about him.” Godman asserts that it is “justly considered to be the most dreadful and dangerous of American quadrupeds,” while Audubon and Bachman, and, it may be added, the great majority of all who have had any personal acquaintance with the brute, refer to it in a similar way. Frederick Schwatka, for example, reports that “everywhere in his dismal dominions at the north he is religiously avoided by the native hunter.... Although he is not hunted, encounters with him are not unknown, as he is savage enough to become the hunter himself at times.... Indian fear of the great brown bear I found to be coextensivewith all my travels in Alaska and the British Northwest Territory.”
The other side in these opinions is represented by nobody more positively than Alfred G. Brehm (“Thierleben”). So far as one can judge from his work, he knew the animal of which he writes only by report, and if the text of his article is to be taken as an indication of the authorities consulted upon this subject, they were so few that it is not surprising he wandered far from reality. This author’s views upon the character ofUrsus horribilismay be thus given in English: “In its habits the gray bear is similar to ours; like these, it hibernates; but its walk is staggering and uncertain, and all its motions are heavier.” Brehm states that in youth the grizzly climbs trees, that he is a good swimmer, “a thorough thief, and is strong enough to overpower every creature in his native country.” When lassoed, he can drag up the horse. “Former writers have characterized him as a terrible and vicious animal that shows no fear of man, but, on the contrary, pursues him, whether mounted or on foot, armed or unarmed.... On all these grounds the hunter who has overcome Old Ephraim, as the bear is called, becomes the wonder and admiration of all mankind,” including the Indians. “Among all their tribes the possession of a necklace of bears’ claws and teeth gives its wearer a distinction which a prince or successful general scarcely enjoys among us.” He must, however, have slain the animal from which these trophies were taken, himself. “Statements of this nature,” remarks Brehm, “are some of them false and others greatly exaggerated. They were spread and believed at a time when the far Westwas but little visited, and when the public demanded an exciting story about a much dreaded animal that was fitted to play in the New World the same part that the famous beasts of prey did in the Old.” This, with much more to the same effect; and then, after a passing notice that Pechuel and Loesche found no grizzlies that would stand, he quotes General Marcy at length to show that they are rather harmless, cowardly, contemptible creatures, and dismisses the beast in disgrace.
Marcy relates (“Thirty Years of Army Life on the Border”) that when he reached the haunts of grizzly bears, he expected to see destructive monsters in a perpetual rage, like Buffon’s tigers. It was his belief that they would attack mounted men with rifles as soon as they came in sight, that these bears desired nothing more than to fight, in season and out of it, irrespective of time, place, or circumstances, and without reference to odds or any former experiences of the results. Not finding any such extraordinarily besotted idiots as this, the soldier, who seems to have been as fit to decide upon questions of comparative psychology as he was to give opinions in canon-law, became possessed with conceptions that are counterparts of those announced by Brehm. Those extracts made from the latter were taken from a very voluminous and undoubtedly valuable work on natural history, but its author has said nothing concerning the anomaly of a beast of prey twice as large as a lion and fully as well armed, being naturally timid and inoffensive, nor offered any suggestions with respect to those conditions which changed what must necessarily have been the brute’s inherited character, beforeit began to avoid mankind; neither has he, apparently, taken more than the briefest glance at those accounts of the grizzly which give the results of personal observation. This animal is not customarily a hibernating one, it is not in the habit of climbing trees at any age, its reputation was far from being the outcome of a demand made by popular credulity. A grizzly bear could easily drag a horse up to him if he had hold of its riata. The Indian who killed one single-handed with a bow and arrows or trade-gun performed a feat second to none that can be imagined in the way of skill and daring, but thousands of rifle-carrying mountain men have done the like who took small credit to themselves, and got little from anybody else. This whole description is, considering its source, of the most surprising and unexpected character.
There are not many accounts of grizzly bears declining to fight; but it is evident that in this respect the animal, like every other beast that has been discussed, is more or less aggressive, according to the locality where it is found. Those bears Lewis and Clark encountered on the Upper Missouri in 1804, are like the grizzlies of the Yukon to-day, but their relations, that have been shot for nearly a century, know about rifles and conduct themselves accordingly. Theodore Roosevelt (“Still Hunting the Grizzly”) expresses this change very well. “Now-a-days,” he observes, “these great bears are much better aware than formerly of the death-dealing power of man, and, as a consequence, are far less fierce than was the case with their forefathers.... Constant contact with rifle-carrying hunters for a period extending over many generations ofbear life, has taught the grizzly, by bitter experience, that man is his undoubted overlord, so far as fighting goes; and this knowledge has become a hereditary characteristic.” With every advantage in arms, it is yet as dangerous to meet this brute fairly as to encounter a tiger on foot; and wherever that superiority has not been of long standing, grizzlies act like those that stalked Clark, charged Fremont, confronted Long, and killed Ross Cox’s voyageur on the Columbia.
Colonel Dodge, referring to those that had become familiar with firearms, says that “a grizzly never attacks unless when wounded, or when he is cornered.” This is, however, too general a statement. As one rides out of the Tejon Pass into the Tulare Valley, there is, a little to the right, an indentation or pocket in the foot-hills, in front of which stand some huge bowlders. From behind one of them a bear rushed out and destroyed the famous Andrew Sublette before he had an opportunity to defend himself. So far as that goes, the result might have been equally fatal if he had fired, for the writer used to carry his rifle, and it was far too light a weapon for such game as this. Goday, who was as renowned a paladin of the plains as he, related the circumstances of his death, and said that many similar cases had occurred in his experience. He added that one night, while sitting, as we were then, by the hearth of his little house at the mountain’s base, there was a commotion outside at the corral, and going out in the darkness to see what was wrong, an immense bear rushed at him, and it was only by an instant that he got inside first. Many persons have been assailed by grizzly bears theynever saw until too late, and the writer, except for the good fortune of being pitched over a precipice, would have been another. Some authors have a curious way of accounting for these incidents. They say that they occur because the animal was actually cornered, or if that statement cannot be made to fit the circumstances, its attack is attributed to an impression that it could not get away. There is no need to dwell upon this explanation. It is merely a blank assertion upon the part of those who know nothing about what the beast thinks or feels, and it is plainly one-sided in so far as it omits to take cognizance of the constitutional temper and tendencies of the creature whose acts are discussed.
No writer of any note except General Marcy has, so far as the author knows, denied that a grizzly bear soon comes to bay, and that he then devotes his energies to destruction with entire single-mindedness. Those who have met him, alike with those who have acquainted themselves with any completeness with the observations of others, know that this brute’s patience under aggression is of the briefest, and his inherent ferocity easily aroused. When it is injured, the animal is exceptionally desperate, and fights from the first as a lion, tiger, and jaguar are apt to do only in their death rally. Colonel Dodge expresses the best opinions upon this point in saying that “when wounded, a grizzly bear attacks with the utmost ferocity, and regardless of the number or nature of his assailants. Then he is without doubt the most formidable and dangerous of wild beasts.”
“In some way it has come about,” says Lockwood,“that ... Bruin has secured for himself an almost superstitious respect.” The way he did so has just been mentioned. Men had reason to fear him, and their veneration followed as a matter of course. It was because he proved “most formidable and dangerous” that Schwatka found among the Chilkat Indians the highest clan called brown bears, and for a like reason the native warrior wore his claws as a badge of honor.
Ferocity, prowess, and tenacity of life appear most conspicuously in accounts of actual conflict. Enough has been said with respect to the first-named trait, and no one ever called the others in question. Major Leveson (“Sport in Many Lands”) is of the opinion that grizzly bears should only be met with the heaviest rifles—“bone-smashers,” as Sir Samuel Baker calls them. Lighter weapons are too often ineffectual, and Dall (“Alaska and its Resources”) reports that when the poorly armed natives of that province occasionally venture upon an assault of this kind, they assemble in large parties, watch the bear into the recesses of its den, block up the entrance with timber prepared for this purpose, and fire volleys into him as he tries to get at them. It will be denied by some, on anatomical grounds, that the Alaskan bears are grizzlies, but we are not concerned here with structural distinctions, and in character there is no difference. Colonel Dodge mentions the case of two soldiers at Fort Wingate who had an unfortunate encounter with one of these beasts, but does not give the details. Roosevelt, however, had the tale from the surgeon who attended them, and relates it (“Hunting Trips of a Ranchman”) as follows: “The men were mail-carriers, and one daydid not come in at the appointed time. Next day a relief party was sent out to look for them, and after some search found the bodies of both, as well as that of one of the horses. One of the men still showed signs of life; he came to his senses before dying, and told his story. They had seen a grizzly and pursued it on horseback, with their Spencer rifles. On coming close, one fired into its side, when it turned, with marvellous quickness for so large and unwieldy an animal, and struck down the horse, at the same time inflicting a ghastly wound upon the rider. The other man dismounted and came up to the rescue of his companion. The bear then left the latter and attacked him. Although hit by the bullet, it charged home and thrust the man down, and then lay on him and deliberately bit him to death, while his groans and cries were frightful to hear. Afterward it walked off into the bushes, without again offering to molest the already mortally wounded victim of his first assault.”
It is commonly believed that feigning death will prevent a bear from inflicting further injuries. In many cases this is no doubt the case. Few unwounded animals tear a dead body, except in the act of devouring it. This stratagem must always be of doubtful efficacy, since beasts of prey would generally be acute enough to detect it. The ruse, however, may have been tried upon grizzlies with success; they are not brilliant beasts, so far as can be discovered; but this device sometimes fails. A hunter told the writer, over their camp-fire in the Sierra Nevada, of his brother’s death, which he witnessed. They were shooting in those mountains, and he was on a steep escarpment of rock, his companionin the ravine beneath. A deer was roused and shot by the latter, when a large bear rushed upon him, struck the rifle out of his hands, and knocked him down, but without causing any serious injury. He said that he dared not fire for fear of infuriating the animal, and shouted to his brother to pretend to be dead. This was done; the beast walked round him, smelt at his body, and finally lay down close beside it. Suddenly he seized upon one of the arms and bit it savagely. The unfortunate man probably could not control respiration sufficiently, or there was some involuntary muscular movement. At all events, this is what happened, and the pain caused him to start up with a loud cry, upon which the bear rose erect, grasped him with his arms, and, in the language of the narrator, “bit the top of his head off clean.”
Roosevelt relates that a neighbor of his, “out on a mining trip, was prospecting with two other men near the head-water of the Little Missouri, in the Black Hills country. They were walking down along the river, and came to a point of land thrust out into it, which was densely covered with brush and fallen timber. Two of the party walked round by the edge of the stream; but the third, a German, and a very powerful fellow, followed a well-beaten game trail leading through the bushy point. When they were some forty yards apart, these two men heard an agonized shout from the German, and at the same time the loud coughing growl or roar of a bear. They turned just in time to see their companion struck a terrible blow on the head by a grizzly, which must have been roused from its lair by his almost stepping on it; so close was itthat he had no time to fire his rifle, but merely held it up over his head as a guard. Of course it was struck down, the claws of the great brute at the same time shattering his skull like an eggshell. Yet the man staggered on some ten feet before he fell; but when he did, he never spoke or moved again. The two others killed the bear after a short, brisk struggle, as he was in the midst of a most determined charge.”
Everybody makes an oversight sometimes, and although this accomplished sportsman and careful writer is very free from the blemishes that usually disfigure observers of wild beasts, there is a slip of the pen here. How did he know this bear was not waiting for the man it killed? Nobody saw it until in the act of striking, and why the brute “musthave been roused from its lair by his almost stepping upon it” does not appear. There is at least a probability that its acute senses warned it of the approach of a heavy man walking carelessly through brush, and of two others tramping round the cover within forty yards.
The bear’s temper, disposition, and power of offence seem to be underrated with respect to the species at large. Whether because its appearance is less impressive than that of animals which have gathered about them most of the world’s gossip, or for any other reason to which this inappreciation may be attributed, both in Europe, Asia, and America, theUrsidæin general have undoubtedly less reputation than they seem to deserve, and less than the deeds they do and have done in all countries would apparently have brought with them as a matter of course. Poorly armed and primitive populations throughout theearth think differently, however, about them. In the folk-lore of Europe and Asia this creature is conspicuous. The great hunters write of it in a respectful strain. No man who ever stood before an enraged bear thought lightly of its prowess. A host of well-known names are appended to statements concerning destructive arctoids in the Scandinavian Mountains and the Pyrenees, in the Himalayas and Caucasus, the highlands of Central India, and the forests and plains north and south of “the stony girdle of the world.”
There is every reason why this beast should be formidable wherever it has not encountered modern weapons; and that it is so its whole literature attests. Richardson’s name (“Fauna Boreali Americana”),Ursus ferox, translates his own experiences and those of native tribes. Colonel Pollock (“Natural History Notes”) asserts that “in Assam bears are far more destructive to human life than tigers,” and more than one authoritative statement to the same effect has been made concerning those of India. It happens curiously that the ancient documents of China preserve the descriptive title which has been conferred upon the great bear of America. In Dr. Legge’s edition of the Chinese Classics, the Bamboo Books have a note appended by some native scholiast to Part I., relating to the reign of Hwang-te, in which his general Ying-lung, while fighting against Ch’e-yew, is said to have been assisted by “tigers, panthers, bears, andgristly (grizzly) bears.”
The grizzly is so difficult to kill that he has the reputation of being nearly invulnerable. It is quite true that the species possesses great tenacity of life, and that inextremity the animal is capable of doing extreme injury. “One of the most complete wrecks of humanity I ever saw,” says Colonel Dodge, “was a man who had shot a grizzly bear through the head. Both were found dead together.” Roosevelt killed one with a single shot. Following his trail among the Bighorn Mountains, he and his companion, while “in the middle of a thicket, crossed what was almost a breastwork of fallen logs, and Merrifield, who was leading, passed by the upright stem of a great pine. As soon as he was by it, he sank suddenly on one knee, turning half round, his face fairly aflame with excitement; and as I strode past him with my rifle at the ready, there was the great bear slowly rising from his bed among the young spruces. He had heard us ... though we advanced with noiseless caution, ... but apparently hardly knew exactly where or what we were, for he reared up on his haunches sideways to us. Then he saw us and dropped down again on all fours, the shaggy hair on his neck and shoulders seeming to bristle as he turned toward us. As he sank down on his fore feet, I raised the rifle; his head was slightly bent down, and when I saw the top of the white bead fairly between his small, glittering, evil eyes, I pulled trigger. Half rising up, the huge beast fell over on his side in the death throes, the ball having gone into his brain.” Generally it is not so soon over. Captain Lewis mentions a case in which one did not succumb until eight balls went through its lungs, and several into other parts of the body. This officer also relates that one of his party was pursued for half a mile by a grizzly he had shot through the lungs, and whichit finally took eight men to kill. Lewis said he would “rather encounter two Indians than one grizzly bear.”
On the other hand, this powerful and ferocious creature may occasionally be destroyed or beaten off with seemingly inadequate means. Single Indians sometimes killed it; white hunters with “pea-rifles” often; and Roosevelt reports that he had a stallion that disabled one by a kick in the head. A similar account is given by Colonel Davidson (“Travels in Upper India”) of an incurably vicious English thoroughbred at Lucknow, which fractured a tiger’s skull when condemned to be devoured by this beast. Major Leveson, who had met most species ofUrsidæ, regarded the grizzly as “by far the largest and most formidable of his race, ... one of the most dangerous antagonists a hunter can meet with.” But he knew that weapons before which the black rhinoceros and African elephant are powerless, prove too much for this animal also, and therefore refers “the numerous accidents that have occurred in hunting the grizzly to insufficiency of weight in the projectiles generally used.” If the hunter be “armed with a large-bore breech-loading rifle, and keep his wits about him,” he has the advantage, barring accident. But even then, “should the bear not be shot through the brain or heart, unless his assailant maintain his presence of mind, and put in his second barrel well and quickly, the chances are that the latter will come to grief, if his comrades fail to come to the rescue.”
Leveson relates the following experience of his own: “We were encamped on the Wind River ... when at daybreak one dreary morning a cry of alarm rang throughcamp, and I was awakened by our people hurrying to and fro in noisy confusion.... As I drew near to the clump of red cedars whence the sound of firearms issued ... one of the half-breeds came running back and informed me that the row was occasioned by a grizzly, that had tried to carry off one of the baggage ponies, but had been driven off by the guard, who fired at him, and that in revenge he had carried off an Indian boy who had charge of the dogs. Guided by the shouting, which still continued, and accompanied by Pierre, who carried a second gun, I entered the copse and found a big grizzly evidently master of the situation; for although three or four of our Blackfoot scouts were halloaing around him, he did not appear to mind them, but confined his attentions to Crib, a bull-terrier, that pluckily kept him at bay by dancing about all round him, without risking a mauling by getting within striking reach of his claws. I was mounted on a thoroughly broken Indian mustang ... and rode pretty close up before I saw that the boy was lying on the ground apparently so badly hurt as to be insensible, while the faithful old dog was doing what he could to protect him by harassing his huge antagonist.
“On my riding up to about twenty yards’ distance, ‘Old Ephraim’ raised himself on his hind legs, and cocked his head knowingly on one side, as if he were going to make a rush. Whilst he was in this attitude, his brawny chest being fully exposed, I gave him the contents of both barrels almost simultaneously, which rolled him over on his back, where he made several convulsive movements with his paws.... Dismounting, I took my secondgun from Pierre, and gave him the coup de gràce behind the ear, when, with a peculiarly melancholy, whining moan, he stretched out his great limbs and breathed his last.”
The boy, though wounded, was feigning death and escaped, but it must be admitted that the ruse was tried under exceptionally favorable circumstances. “Many and many a spirit-stirring yarn,” says Leveson, “have I heard related by hunters, around the watch-fire, of their encounters with the much-dreaded grizzly.” Bear stories are greatly alike, he adds, and concludes his description by saying, in much the same way as Colonel Dodge (“The Black Hills”), “from my own experience, I should always give ‘Old Ephraim’ a wide berth if I were not armed with a thoroughly serviceable breech-loading rifle throwing a large ball.”
The annals of hunting preserve the name of no greater or more adventurous sportsman than he who gives this opinion. It is one which every one who has encountered the grizzly bear will agree to, and it might also have been arrived at from studying the literature of this subject alone.
Norwood Press:J. S. Cushing & Co.—Berwick & Smith.Boston, Mass., U.S.A.