can a lion kill a bear?
921725
Recently in The Times, an article was published about 3 lionesses taking on a small elephant as there was a shortage of food. Unfortunately they killed it. Just shows how strong these beasts are\n\nI wouldn't be suprised if lions could kill a bear but not a 1 v 1. Anyway lions hunt in groups and not on their own...
895106
You are kidding, right.  You try taking a bite out of a live bear and see what happens to you.  You will be remembered as that stupid guy who tried to bite a bear!! LOL\n\nI don't care how big you are, the bear will be bigger and meaner, especially if you bit him.
780006
The .357 magnum has stopped bear attacks before and killed a bear, in AZ a bear got through a fence and attacked a girl in a camp who didn't wipe the smores off of her face the counselor shot the bear with his shorter .357 magnum, the bear didn't die really fast. \nThe .357 magnum has been proven though not to penetrate the skulls on bigger black bears and grizzly bears. The best gun would be a 12 gauge shotgun, they will stop a bear at closer ranges, they stop lions and bigger and nastier stuff in Africa. My uncle lived in Africa, the shotgun should do it, a rifle is a good choice, better at longer ranges and even close up, but you need a bigger one and sometimes it takes longer for the bear to sucumb to the wound. A rifle is significantly more powerful than any pistol. For black bear a .30/06, .338/06 or .35 whelen or even a .45-70 are good rounds. If it is charging a big rifle at least the .338. The .450 marlin which is a souped up .45-70 is an awesome round and can be found in short marlin lever actions which would help you in bear country and be better for grizzlies. The grizzly definitely would need a shotgun or .338 winchester mag at the least. I would prefer a .50 caliber BMG rifle but they have yet to make them compact and light. \n\nAs for handguns, the .44 magnum is the least minimum I would recommend. It is not the best but is a mild recoiler compared to some other except for the .480 ruger but that has less penetrations due to the heavier bullet but it is still a great pistol round. The .454 casul and or a S&W .500 magnum or whatever they call it would be good except you will pay a premium for the .500. Pistols are a last defense weapon and do not reliably kill but are better than nothing. \n\nIf you do have a bear problem always have someone with you with a shotgun and you yourself carry a .338 winchester mag or higher and or a .450 marlin. The two of you will be alot better off and only one can get charged at a time hopefully allowing the other to get a good shot. The best scenario is the shotgun guy gets charged and opens up with 3 rounds of one buckshot one slug and one buckshot, where the riflemen gets two shots in from the side at the heart while he is preparing to charge as it is difficult when they are moving. The side shot is better for penetration and kill, then a direct on shot, but both can be fatal if hit right. I have hunted bear, it is alot harder with a frontal shot because of the placement of the heart and the uncertainty of the head shot. Plus even at 100 yards I was scared!!!!! In Africa they will have the main hunter with the rifle and a guide with a rifle and then a couple others with shotguns. There are alot of nasty stuff over there like hippos, but they use shotguns and spears at times. \nBears are definitely not something with which I would like to tangle with . If it is just a camp gun, a .450 or .45-70 would be good or a .338. \n\nP.S.\nOf course an m-2 .50 cal BMG machine gun would probably be the best, its rapid rate of fire would ensure the bear would be dead but they are a little heavy and costly and hard to find outside of the u.s. army. \nBut, you sure do feel safer in camp with one of those and that is for just people! If bears attacked in numbers at least a .50 cal m-2 The bears would likely to hear the noise it makes and run away! \n\nExcept for that last part, hopefully this helps you!
807510
Do you mean who would be the winner?  I suspect the wolverine would be the winner.  It is a tough, muscular little animal, and is very strong for its size.  Wolverines have been known to kill animals as large as moose.  They can take the food away from animals such as polar bears and wolf packs.
441624
A group of animals is living in an area - foodsource = nuts. The ones with good crushing teeth will eat lots, reproduce and pass on the crushing design gene. Any with ripping design etc would be unsuccessful in gaining food and thus wouldn't reproduce and pass on the ripping gene. Eventually all members of the species have crushing teeth. Survival of the fittest etc. A lion with blunt teeth would not live long enough to pass on the genes
218705
Though the fight would be a good match I would have to put my bet on the Grizzley Bear. Although the tiger would be faster and more agile bears can definitly take a lot of crap from a tiger. Also once a bear has a tiger its all over. The sheer weight will crush it and the power is tremendous and will break many bones. My vote...Bear.
26068
DOES A BEAR - - - -  IN THE WOODS?
196149
The lion would win. The lion and the tiger are almost evenly matched in cunning, hunting skills and speed, however, the lion has the advantage of more muscle strength and thereby more stamina. As the fight will get stretched, the scales will tip in favor of the lion. This is the basic rule of one-to-one combat - that the longer the battle extends, the factor of physical strength becomes more and more decisive. So clearly, here, lion has the advantage. \n\nIn one of the programs on Discovery, a similar research was carried out in which the strengths and weakness of both these predators were matched. They made out models of them and calculated the force applied and all other factors in various consitions. The lion came on tops.
1179916
on account of the thick mane, the lion has a slightly reduced chance of throat injury, and both animals use that as a natural target. With equal weight, and a large mane, I would give the lion just a slight edge. \n\nsupport the commuter revolution: http://www.hallisystem.bravehost.com
1091295
Of course the bear. Can the strongest man match the aggression a bear will show in attack?\nForget the bear, how about a gorilla? The beast's blow can break the back of a leopard, what more a man. \n\nMaybe a strongman can pull a truck, I doubt bears will do that, but using strength by animals usually involves a dose of aggression, that's what separates man from beast.
168451
It's illegal to kill a Panda Bear in China. It's a well known endangered species, and the Chinese have wonderful breeding centers where they are trying to increase their numbers - so I hope no one would be eating them.
983760
yes..so I guess a bear does shit in the woods
458557
The only place outside sub-Saharan Africa that lions still survive is in the Gir National Park in India.  \n\nThe Gir National Park doesn't list any bears on its list of fauna that call the region home, but the park lies within the range of Sloth Bears (Ursus ursinus) so it is at least theoretically possible that these two could come into conflict.\n\nIn terms of human-bear conflict, sloth bears are by far the most dangerous bears in the world.  More people are killed or mauled by sloth bears than by leopards or tigers in India, and they injure far more people than black bears or grizzlies.  A lot of this has to do with the number of people who share their range, but they are by all accounts a rather ill-tempered beastie, and they have long claws.\n\nIt wasn't so long ago that lions had a much more extensive range.  In Roman times, they covered most of Eastern Europe, as well as pretty much all of southern Asia including the Middle East.  Habitat loss and hunting have reduced them to the African savannahs we now consider their quintessential home.\n\nBack then, they would have had fairly extensive interactions with brown bears.\n\nGoing back even farther in time, the American Lion or Cave Lion (Panthera leo atrox) ranged across North America as well.  A sub-species of lion, it would have been virtually identical to the modern lion, but about 10% bigger.  They are amply represented in the La Brea Tar Pits and other Pleistocene sites.  They would have been quite familiar with American black bear, grizzlies, possibly polar bears, and even the short-faced bear (Arcotdus simus) a long legged hunting bear.\n\nSo today it's unlikely, but it definitely happened quite a lot in the past.
298486
Assuming a confined area designed to make them fight.....\n\nThe crocodile easily wins.. It's armour like hide would easily deal with the lions claws, and in a biting contest, the croc wins again.  With large mamals, such as oxen etc crocs cripple thge legs first...hard for a lion to do to a croc!
253324
Ummmmmmm. Do bears Sh*t in the woods?
779102
It's quite possible.  I saw a tv show a while ago where a lioness (an animal which generally weighs less than even a baby elephant) survived a bite by a cobra, but a bite to a baby animal might be worse since its immune system is less well developed.  \n\nIt would really depend on how much venom got into the animal's system.
127136
I believe that if you tame a lion it will cease to be a lion.