Domestication of bears?
- Thread starter Ellie
- Start date
No. Bears aren't social creatures and have no pack or herd mentality. They also take a few years before they can breed so you're going to have to feed and house a large controlled population of bears for decades, if not longer.
A nation-state could probably do it but they'd have to be willing to first understand the mechanics of domestication and then be willing to devote a huge number of resources to the project for however long it takes. By the time a project like this becomes feasible technology has made it obsolete. Domestication of the moose is a good example.
In addition, carnivorous domesticates are rare for a reason - they're very expensive and difficult to feed properly. I know bears aren't fully carnivorous, but they need meat and tons of it. Can you imagine how much work it would take to get enough food for a bear? Cats work because even domesticated they catch their own food. Dogs are omnivorous and aren't that big anyway. But a bear? It's just impractical.
Cheers,
Ganesha
Cheers,
Ganesha
They do (did?), but they also made a point of killing the cubs at one year of age, because they become uncontrollably dangerous after that. The ferocity is another problem for you. Feeding a grizzly isn't a job I'd want to have, that's for sure.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=277501
Best candidate? Black bears. Best chance - Iceland in the little ice age.
Best candidate? Black bears. Best chance - Iceland in the little ice age.
Last edited:
Did not an early Czar fearing assassination sleep among tamed bears because human bodyguards can be tamed but bears cannot? But it's in the same category as Ramses II's pet lion and the traditional bears dancing to pipe and tabor. Bears can certainly be tamed -I saw impressive videos of a man playing and wrestling with a bear he had raised as a cub- but domestication is another matter entirely.
Besides bear are far from optimal as a source of food since they need a minimum of meat (yes, some cultures kept small dogs for food, but they were less... impressive). Unless a bear can be trained to bring back its prey, ideally taken where the hunter himself cannot easily go, e.g. a white bear bringing back the seals it killed? I doubt bears can be tamed to this degree -specially white ones, and you can't keep them in leash like the cormorants used for fishing
Besides bear are far from optimal as a source of food since they need a minimum of meat (yes, some cultures kept small dogs for food, but they were less... impressive). Unless a bear can be trained to bring back its prey, ideally taken where the hunter himself cannot easily go, e.g. a white bear bringing back the seals it killed? I doubt bears can be tamed to this degree -specially white ones, and you can't keep them in leash like the cormorants used for fishing
I don' think it could happen.
For starters, anywhere with snow will be a problem when the bears start to hibernate.
For starters, anywhere with snow will be a problem when the bears start to hibernate.
Minus polar bears, bears get around 80%-90% of their calories from plants. They're actually pretty similar to pigs in terms of being omnivorous with a large tilt towards plants.
Yeah, pandas are closer to 100% herbivorous, which I guess I didn't mention. Polar bears are almost entirely carnivorous. But basically all other bears are predominantly herbivores. Most of the meat they do eat is insects, or sometimes carrion. Bears hunt a whole lot less than people think they do. Some go their entire life without actually making a kill of a sizable animal.
Labrador coast. The Norse harvested wood there during the warm spell.
There's actually a long history of bear taming, both in Europe and Asia and bears generally seem to be quite tameable and trainable.
However, there hasn't ever been the overlapping situation of species, culture and environment that would push people into domestication. Don't mean it's impossible, it just means that the dice didn't shake out that way.
First thing you need to look at is possible economic utility. What do bears got that humans want?
Besides their gall bladders?
Traditionally, what do we get from big domesticates: 1) Meat, 2) Milk, 3) Eggs, 4) Wool, 5) Fur/Leather, 6) Draft Labour/pack carrying/cart or plow pulling, 7) Other labour, 8) Pest control.
Now, onto bears. Milk, Eggs, Wool and pest control are pretty much out of the running.
Leaves us with Meat, Fur/Leather, and Labour. Now, when you look at this, there's something to be said. Bear meat is edible, and even tasty. Black bears are comparable to pork, although not quite as nutritious. Bears are pretty strong, and in season appear capable of reasonable levels of sustained activity. And they make a good coat.
But this has to be cost effective. ie, the social or economic investment in domesticated bear meat, fur/leather and labour has to produce a return that makes it worthwhile.
How do we assess worth? In comparison to other alternatives. For instance - harvesting wild bears, using other domesticates, balancing the consumption of bears with the output.
Now some bears are more expensive than others. Polar bears are pure carnivores. Pandas are pure herbivores, but so specialized that they're almost useless. Brown bears are omnivores. Black bears are mostly herbivore/opportunist/omnivores with a diet that overlaps with swine.
Now, while bears may have potential as a food animal, or a draft labour animal, one of their problems is that they do poorly compared to the baseline domesticates - cattle and horses. Cattle and horses are much cheaper to keep, their work output is greater, and they produce milk. Cattle and horses are the powerhouse duo. They make it tough for the rest of the domesticates.
But other big domesticates do compete. We have Yak, Water Buffalo, Reindeer, Camel, Llama. What's their secret? These animals thrive where cattle and horses are either absent or difficult to sustain effectively. ie, they've found niches where through history or environment, the big competitors couldn't go.
So that's one option for bears. To domesticate bears, you need either an environmental situation, or a historical circumstance, which precludes or handicaps competing domesticates. Why domesticate a bear if you already have swine... or sheep... or cattle or horses...
Bears are comparable to swine in terms of their diet and in terms of the value of their flesh, but they're not economically competitive with swine normally. So you would need special circumstances, which causes them to replace swine. ie, a situation where raising bears is easier and cheaper than swine.
However, there hasn't ever been the overlapping situation of species, culture and environment that would push people into domestication. Don't mean it's impossible, it just means that the dice didn't shake out that way.
First thing you need to look at is possible economic utility. What do bears got that humans want?
Besides their gall bladders?
Traditionally, what do we get from big domesticates: 1) Meat, 2) Milk, 3) Eggs, 4) Wool, 5) Fur/Leather, 6) Draft Labour/pack carrying/cart or plow pulling, 7) Other labour, 8) Pest control.
Now, onto bears. Milk, Eggs, Wool and pest control are pretty much out of the running.
Leaves us with Meat, Fur/Leather, and Labour. Now, when you look at this, there's something to be said. Bear meat is edible, and even tasty. Black bears are comparable to pork, although not quite as nutritious. Bears are pretty strong, and in season appear capable of reasonable levels of sustained activity. And they make a good coat.
But this has to be cost effective. ie, the social or economic investment in domesticated bear meat, fur/leather and labour has to produce a return that makes it worthwhile.
How do we assess worth? In comparison to other alternatives. For instance - harvesting wild bears, using other domesticates, balancing the consumption of bears with the output.
Now some bears are more expensive than others. Polar bears are pure carnivores. Pandas are pure herbivores, but so specialized that they're almost useless. Brown bears are omnivores. Black bears are mostly herbivore/opportunist/omnivores with a diet that overlaps with swine.
Now, while bears may have potential as a food animal, or a draft labour animal, one of their problems is that they do poorly compared to the baseline domesticates - cattle and horses. Cattle and horses are much cheaper to keep, their work output is greater, and they produce milk. Cattle and horses are the powerhouse duo. They make it tough for the rest of the domesticates.
But other big domesticates do compete. We have Yak, Water Buffalo, Reindeer, Camel, Llama. What's their secret? These animals thrive where cattle and horses are either absent or difficult to sustain effectively. ie, they've found niches where through history or environment, the big competitors couldn't go.
So that's one option for bears. To domesticate bears, you need either an environmental situation, or a historical circumstance, which precludes or handicaps competing domesticates. Why domesticate a bear if you already have swine... or sheep... or cattle or horses...
Bears are comparable to swine in terms of their diet and in terms of the value of their flesh, but they're not economically competitive with swine normally. So you would need special circumstances, which causes them to replace swine. ie, a situation where raising bears is easier and cheaper than swine.