Animal Planet's "Dragons"

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:12:06 GMT, "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> True. And they didn't really have horses for food, until the
> Europeans came by. The native horses died out more than 10 000 years
> ago, I don't recall exactly when, but I remember understanding that
> it happened about the same time the socalled sabertooth tiger
> disapeared, before the North American "Indians" came to North
> America.

Last I heard the megafauna's extinction in the Americas roughly
coincided with the arrival of humans from Asia.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 07:23:29 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> > So what is it that polar bears take that's 10 times their size?
>
> Whales.

Which whales.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 20:00:58 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> And in fact, male to male of each species, the ratio is over 3 to 1(1000
> pounds for polar bears, 3300 pounds for beluga whales, males of each
> species).

Oddly, the site you gave puts male polar bears at 1700 pounds. That
makes it a mere 2 to 1 ratio.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:ch6h41pbpqha1e2imfl0jiapn2km7vsvqs@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 20:00:58 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
> <autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> And in fact, male to male of each species, the ratio is over 3 to 1(1000
>> pounds for polar bears, 3300 pounds for beluga whales, males of each
>> species).
>
> Oddly, the site you gave puts male polar bears at 1700 pounds. That
> makes it a mere 2 to 1 ratio.

That is not exactly odd; it is more like par for the course.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:ch6h41pbpqha1e2imfl0jiapn2km7vsvqs@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 20:00:58 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
> <autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
> > And in fact, male to male of each species, the ratio is over 3 to 1(1000
> > pounds for polar bears, 3300 pounds for beluga whales, males of each
> > species).
>
> Oddly, the site you gave puts male polar bears at 1700 pounds. That
> makes it a mere 2 to 1 ratio.

Other sites indicate that averages for both are around 1000 pounds and 3300
pounds respectively. What can I tell ya, I haven't weighed too many polar
bears or beluga whales.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 06:20:02 GMT, "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news😛_Sdnb8urIqSpNvfRVn-iQ@comcast.com:
>
> > The whales that according to Humpty outweigh polar bears by a
> > ratio of 10 to 1 actually barely clock in at twice the polar
> > bear's weight.
> >
> >
>
> Well, the biggest beluga does weigh seven times the smallest
> polar bear.

Ah, but if you read up on how they take them (and Jeffie's mentioned
it himself), it doesn't count as predation anyway, because they're
just sitting and waiting for the whale or seal to come by, like an
animal fishing.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:u07h41l8e7d3m8tic5rqrtnat2ihb6linb@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 06:20:02 GMT, "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com>
> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
> > "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > news😛_Sdnb8urIqSpNvfRVn-iQ@comcast.com:
> >
> > > The whales that according to Humpty outweigh polar bears by a
> > > ratio of 10 to 1 actually barely clock in at twice the polar
> > > bear's weight.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Well, the biggest beluga does weigh seven times the smallest
> > polar bear.
>
> Ah, but if you read up on how they take them (and Jeffie's mentioned
> it himself), it doesn't count as predation anyway, because they're
> just sitting and waiting for the whale or seal to come by, like an
> animal fishing.

I thought such a distinction wasn't being made. However, if you'd like, we
can retroactively allow this distinction to be made, and forget that all
following posts were even made.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:TMednY4CIbWkKtXfRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:u07h41l8e7d3m8tic5rqrtnat2ihb6linb@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 06:20:02 GMT, "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com>
>> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>>
>> > "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> > news😛_Sdnb8urIqSpNvfRVn-iQ@comcast.com:
>> >
>> > > The whales that according to Humpty outweigh polar bears by a
>> > > ratio of 10 to 1 actually barely clock in at twice the polar
>> > > bear's weight.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > Well, the biggest beluga does weigh seven times the smallest
>> > polar bear.
>>
>> Ah, but if you read up on how they take them (and Jeffie's mentioned
>> it himself), it doesn't count as predation anyway, because they're
>> just sitting and waiting for the whale or seal to come by, like an
>> animal fishing.
>
> I thought such a distinction wasn't being made.

It is not being made by anyone but you, moron. That is the point.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 06:28:20 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> I'm just noting that if it's TOO easy to kill your prey, odds are good
> they'll evolve a defense against it, or die out, right? There's an
> equilibrium that gets reached, and the equation tends to work out in such a
> way that the more difficult your prey is to kill, the better it is
> (nutritionally) for you to eat. If it weren't nutritionally good enough to
> eat, you wouldn't waste your time chasing it(if it were hard to catch), and
> if it was REALLY good for you, but easy to catch, the predators would
> survive like fatcats until they killed all the prey, right? Nature has a
> way of working out like that.

And quite often the defence is to simply breed really fast.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:t97h41hcpibib54okcms23pa6i78vd45lf@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 06:28:20 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
> <autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
> > I'm just noting that if it's TOO easy to kill your prey, odds are good
> > they'll evolve a defense against it, or die out, right? There's an
> > equilibrium that gets reached, and the equation tends to work out in
such a
> > way that the more difficult your prey is to kill, the better it is
> > (nutritionally) for you to eat. If it weren't nutritionally good enough
to
> > eat, you wouldn't waste your time chasing it(if it were hard to catch),
and
> > if it was REALLY good for you, but easy to catch, the predators would
> > survive like fatcats until they killed all the prey, right? Nature has
a
> > way of working out like that.
>
> And quite often the defence is to simply breed really fast.

Precisely.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:12:20 GMT, Matt Frisch
<matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> > How many humans have been hunted by lions?
>
> Likely an impossible number to produce, since it would be a practice that
> goes back LONG before recorded history, and even as it periodically occurs
> today, the people who are mostly at risk are the more remote tribesmen.
>
> The incident Rupert is talking about is this one:
> http://www.fieldmuseum.org/exhibits/exhibit_sites/tsavo/maneaters.html
>
> A pretty major exception to the general rule that humans are not preyed on.

Lions don't 'normally' hunt humans (though that may be a 'relatively'
recent development since humans invented spears, etc.), and those
individuals that do seem to develop a taste for humans (or simply
discover that it's easy if you're good).

Leopards, tigers, and jaguars, OTOH seem to think humans are just
another kind of yummy monkey, and whether they take humans or not is
based solely on their assement of the risk-benefit ratio (though
apparently tigers often prefer people's dogs over the person
themselves).

Sharks also happily eat people (and this happens in areas where seals
aren't common, so it's not only mistaken identity). So do wild dogs,
hyenas, and wolves (unless you assume that European reports from
previous centuries were all bullshit).

IOW, the list is about what you'd expect for a primate of over size
and social behaviour.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:ge7h41th1qi1nag27a4g11lqbssqb0t3ke@4ax.com...
> Sharks also happily eat people (and this happens in areas where seals
> aren't common, so it's not only mistaken identity). So do wild dogs,

Actually, sharks are remarkably particular about what they consume, far more
so than originally thought. Bites on humans USUALLY appear to be little
more than "tests", to see if they find humans tasty enough to eat. Given
that most sharks capable of consuming people, the ones that are likely to be
the culprits in shark attacks, are physically CAPABLE of tearing people
clean in half if they so desire, that their bites don't result in more human
fatalities is an indicator that they simply might be testing to see if they
want to eat us. It's not conclusive, but the evidence of their extreme bite
power is abundant, so why don't shark bites on humans almost ALWAYS end in a
fatality?

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:29:54 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> It takes a rather significant continued show of force to run them off, dude.

Not really - lions, like most predators, can't afford significant
injury, because then they can't hunt, and so starve. Thus if you're
armed and look like you're serious they'll back off. They may come
back later, when you;'re sleeping, of course.

> They move them to where they can eat uninterrupted. Because they are easy
> to push off a kill(being lone hunters), they have to do it to survive.

No, they don't. They take them so some shade where they can rest and
cool off (or rather, their mate moves it), they cool off enough to
feed, and then they eat up quick, on the hope they'll finish before
they get run off. They only time they move food is when they have
young that need it 'home delivered'.

> That sounds like a plausible reason(too hungry to ignore ANY possible prey),
> but it's not common for lions in general to spend a majority of their time
> in solitary hunts.

Wrong. Old males live that way.

> > Also, lions get run off their kills by hyenas in some places.
>
> SOLITARY lions, by a PACK of hyenas, yes. Get more than a couple of lions
> in one place, and it's easy for them to drive off even the most persistent
> of hyenas, at least until they've had their fill.

Wrong. Some areas packs of hyenas drive off prides of lions. It all
depends on the dynamics of the areas.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:aq7h41dva6pend5i28607vdm4ddgb0ba9m@4ax.com...
> > They move them to where they can eat uninterrupted. Because they are
easy
> > to push off a kill(being lone hunters), they have to do it to survive.
>
> No, they don't. They take them so some shade where they can rest and
> cool off (or rather, their mate moves it), they cool off enough to
> feed, and then they eat up quick, on the hope they'll finish before
> they get run off. They only time they move food is when they have
> young that need it 'home delivered'.

http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-leopard.html
under "What Makes a Leopard Special?"

So, leopards do it, but it would appear that cheetahs, jaguars, and cougars
all climb trees but nothing is said about their activities when up there,
and not to eat up there, but a quickie search isn't revealing much in the
way of eating habits. Ah well. I suppose for the sake of argument I'll
concede that point to you.


> > That sounds like a plausible reason(too hungry to ignore ANY possible
prey),
> > but it's not common for lions in general to spend a majority of their
time
> > in solitary hunts.
>
> Wrong. Old males live that way.

"it's not common for lions IN GENERAL"... I thought it was pretty clear, but
I guess not.

> > > Also, lions get run off their kills by hyenas in some places.
> >
> > SOLITARY lions, by a PACK of hyenas, yes. Get more than a couple of
lions
> > in one place, and it's easy for them to drive off even the most
persistent
> > of hyenas, at least until they've had their fill.
>
> Wrong. Some areas packs of hyenas drive off prides of lions. It all
> depends on the dynamics of the areas.

Let's just say that without at least a 5 to 1 numbers advantage in favor of
the hyenas, my money would always be put on the lions in that instance.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 04:51:30 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Animals which regularly kill creatures that are of any significant size do
> not generally view modern humans as any kind of threat, mainly because we do
> not LOOK like we can do much. There are exceptions, of course, mostly among
> the primates(who are significantly more intelligent than most animals,
> comparatively).

Actually, humans look big to many animals, because they tend to equate
height with size.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news😛38h411saqv82t81r4nh5pknpa3cj69d7n@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 04:51:30 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
> <autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
> > Animals which regularly kill creatures that are of any significant size
do
> > not generally view modern humans as any kind of threat, mainly because
we do
> > not LOOK like we can do much. There are exceptions, of course, mostly
among
> > the primates(who are significantly more intelligent than most animals,
> > comparatively).
>
> Actually, humans look big to many animals, because they tend to equate
> height with size.

Standard fare for lions is wildebeest, zebra and other decidedly "tall"
quadrupeds. In comparison, we are generally no "bigger"(if big to animals
equates to tall).

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:07:17 GMT, Matt Frisch
<matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Some places? Happens all the time. It's the primary reason that the greedy,
> lazy male lions are permitted to share in the efforts of the hunters,
> because they are *so* big that they can keep the hyenas away. Hyenas and
> lions steal from each other (and anyone else) whenever possible.

The other reason being that they keep other big, lazy, males from
trying to steal the kill (and murdering the cubs).


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:56:58 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Lions have no natural predators, making them at least tied for top of the
> food chain, and it's arguable that there is no creature in their ecosystem
> that can pose a significant ongoing threat to them in any way(humans aside,
> and the only humans that present a REAL threat to them are the ones with big
> guns).

You know what a Masai warrior does for his manhood test, right?

> Human hunters aside, they have little to worry about, with respect to other
> animals.

And yet they get run off by elephants, and cape buffalos.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:ra8h4151mtvbqud9ngugb3foimjh2rabdm@4ax.com...
> > Lions have no natural predators, making them at least tied for top of
the
> > food chain, and it's arguable that there is no creature in their
ecosystem
> > that can pose a significant ongoing threat to them in any way(humans
aside,
> > and the only humans that present a REAL threat to them are the ones with
big
> > guns).
>
> You know what a Masai warrior does for his manhood test, right?

Yeah, he trusts a less-than-steady-handed and cataract suffering village
elder to cut off his schmuck with a hatchet. THAT takes balls. 😉

> > Human hunters aside, they have little to worry about, with respect to
other
> > animals.
>
> And yet they get run off by elephants, and cape buffalos.

To say that there is a "healthy respect" would probably be the best way to
put it. Run off carries with it the implication that one is seeking the
other out. Yes, if they run into each other, one side is run off, but it's
not like they seek to do that.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 03:47:05 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Elephants are not prey of pretty much anything, but that doesn't make them
> the top of the food chain in any way, it simply means that they are large
> enough to avoid being dinner for most predators(who are simply unable to
> damage them enough to kill them, as a generality). There are a few animals
> in the "food chain" which are not standard prey for anything, nor are they
> predators(except in that nasty bug eating cow kind of way *grin*), and
> elephants are in that group.

Young elephants are on the list of things lions take, if they are
unguarded by their elders. That's one of the reasons elephants run
lions off when they come across them.

> You're implying that hyenas are at the top of the food chain in africa? A
> scavenger, top of the food chain? I guess that's right up there with
> calling filter feeders predators... 😉

In some areas hyenas hunt more than lions do.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:24:33 GMT, Matt Frisch
<matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Irrelevant. You don't need to be on the top of the food chain to threaten
> someone else's existance. Elephants kill lions. Elephants are a threat to
> lions.

Elephants are a threat to just about anything they have a mind to
threaten. Primarily that means predators, but adolecent male elephants
are known to kill rhinos by chasing them until they fall over -
apparently they find the 'sport' amusing.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:vi8h4191piqr5qg9mh1canu1f2dmetec3b@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:24:33 GMT, Matt Frisch
> <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
> > Irrelevant. You don't need to be on the top of the food chain to
threaten
> > someone else's existance. Elephants kill lions. Elephants are a threat
to
> > lions.
>
> Elephants are a threat to just about anything they have a mind to
> threaten.

Which is exactly why saying they are a threat to lions is a useless
comparison.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:146dnY16f8jWQNXfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:vi8h4191piqr5qg9mh1canu1f2dmetec3b@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:24:33 GMT, Matt Frisch
>> <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>>
>> > Irrelevant. You don't need to be on the top of the food chain to
> threaten
>> > someone else's existance. Elephants kill lions. Elephants are a threat
> to
>> > lions.
>>
>> Elephants are a threat to just about anything they have a mind to
>> threaten.
>
> Which is exactly why saying they are a threat to lions is a useless
> comparison.

That is not a comparison, it is a statement.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:02:40 GMT, Matt Frisch
<matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> An individual hyena is not a match for an individual lion, but there are
> many, many more hyenas than lions. A *large* pride of lions is 15 members.
> Hyena packs have been documented into the 100+ range. The only thing that
> keeps lions from being extinct is the overwhelming size of dominant male
> lions. If not for them, hyenas would rob the lions blind, and kill them
> frequently.

I wonder if that competition is why lions are social in a way other
cats are not? And if it's why male lions are so much bigger than the
females (though competition for an entire pride of females would drive
size up, too)? Leopards deal with the problem of competition with dogs
and hyenas by stealth, and strong food high in trees. Lions have taken
a differnet route, apparently.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:11:51 -0800, "Malachias Invictus"
<capt_malachias@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

>
> "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:ch6h41pbpqha1e2imfl0jiapn2km7vsvqs@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 20:00:58 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
> > <autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:
> >
> >> And in fact, male to male of each species, the ratio is over 3 to 1(1000
> >> pounds for polar bears, 3300 pounds for beluga whales, males of each
> >> species).
> >
> > Oddly, the site you gave puts male polar bears at 1700 pounds. That
> > makes it a mere 2 to 1 ratio.
>
> That is not exactly odd; it is more like par for the course.

Yeah, after I posted this and read further down the htread I saw a lot
of Goslin's site's being quoted back to him, supporting the opposite
(and correct) view.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."