re: What would be the earths top predator?

quote:

---

Wolves are smart and if they teamed up in large masses they would be pretty insane. But that's not what is being asked. A wolf would not be the top predator.

---

Then how are humans considered a top predator. One can't do jack.

Killer bees have to be up there.

Polar bears weigh 1200 pounds and can swim for days in freezing waters. They dive down and eat 200lb seals. I don't think a Tiger would really want to face a polar bear.

quote:

---

The polar bear is an excellent swimmer and often will swim for days.[64] One bear swam continuously for 9 days in the frigid Bering Sea for 400 mi (687 km) to reach ice far from land. She then travelled another 1,100 mi (1,800 km).

---

quote:

---

Studies have also photographed polar bears scaling near-vertical cliffs, to eat birds' chicks and eggs

---

quote:

---

Polar bears weigh 1200 pounds and can swim for days in freezing waters. They dive down and eat 200lb seals. I don't think a Tiger would really want to face a polar bear.

---

Polar bears are magnificent animals. They're magnificent swimmers and they are technically marine mammals, like whales and seals. They do deserve our research and respect.

And exactly zero fricks were given-



I actually had this conversation at lunch today with a slight twist: what was the apex predator at the end of the dinosaurs' era?

quote:

---

Which is why the bear and the tiger will never inherit the Earth. Sure they're powerful as shite, but if that really mattered, why isn't the gorilla in charge of the world? It's the intelligent that rule, not the physically strong

---

Tigers are very intelligent. And a silverback gorilla would wreck a wolf's shite.

quote:

---

Tigers are very intelligent.

---

Not nearly as intelligent as a wolf. Cunning, sure, but wolves and dogs have the most powerful brain in the mammal predator department (save whales).

quote:

---

And a silverback gorilla would wreck a wolf's shite.

---

A wolf, but what about a pack? Granted, I think the two would probably avoid each other and not come into conflict. Wolves wouldn't frick with gorillas and vice versa. I think they'd just ignore each other. Gorillas just like lounging, and they're bulky as shite to where there's no real reason a wolf would want to do anything with them. No reason those two species couldn't coexist if they lived in the same environment.

quote:

---

Land: Wolves

---

A pride of lions would frick up a pack of wolves any day of the week.

quote:

---

You think gorillas travel alone?

---

No, but a pack of wolves attacking a pack of gorillas just seems really unfeasible to me, and vice versa. I just don't see why they'd be enemies at all. The wolf wouldn't frick with them and the gorilla wouldn't frick with the wolf. It's just apples and oranges here. They're not competing at all even if they lived in the same place. It's not like bears and tigers.

Polar bears are very impressive, but have been observed submitting kills to brown bears during feeding encounters. That doesn't necessarily mean much if push comes to shove, but I think a polar bear would come out second best against a big brown and certainly a Kodiak island boar.

Polar bears are smaller today than they were 60 years ago. Amur or Siberian tigers have also suffered from the scarcity of large prey animals, and are now smaller than most wild Bengal tigers in northern India.