This article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

MammalsMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofmammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. CaliforniaMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theU.S. state ofCalifornia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. ExtinctionMid‑importance This article is a part ofWikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource onextinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit theproject page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theimportance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in theTop 25 Report. The week in which this happened: September 21 to 27, 2014 (22nd)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between26 August 2021 and25 December 2021. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Enmah2001.

Above undated message substituted fromTemplate:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment byPrimeBOT (talk)18:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "Historically, all North American grizzlies were grouped together as one unique species until DNA testing revealed that they should properly be grouped taxonomically in the same species as the smaller, European brown bears."

This is not correct, does anyone wish to discuss this before I edit it?Raggz (talk)18:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What parts of the state were grizzlies found in?--NapoliRoma (talk)04:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing. So the California grizzly is extinct, and they are considering attempting a deextinction. On the other hand, the California grizzly, according to the article, only is anextinct population and not a subspecies. So what is there to "deextinct"? Wouldn't that just be a matter of repopulating the region it used to live in, as long as the same subspecies continues to exist in other regions? --93.212.250.204 (talk)13:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same subspecies doesn't exist in other regions. The California population was genetically distinct (but not genetically isolated) from other populations of grizzlies. Also, these deextinction plans are pretty shaky science to begin with. Cloning could only work with existing genetic samples from the California grizzly, probably yielding a gene pool that was not viable in and of itself. Back-breeding could never be completely certain of removing all non-California grizzly genes and might produce the same phenotype using a wildly different genotype. Simply bringing in outside specimens would not restore the California subspecies, but simply introduce a different subspecies to the region. Finally, even if you could produce a genetically viable population that was 100% California grizzly by genetics, there would be no actual California grizzlies to raise the first generation leading to probable behavioral differences. --Khajidha (talk)12:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are scientifically entirely correct. (See Miller et al. 2006) The ecosystem that John Muir described is extinct though. It has been argued that the grizzly could not compete in a now segmented landscape and that the black bear is far better adapted now. Then there is the issue of crossing freeways ....174.50.170.71 (talk)22:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pupulation is NOT a sub-species, mind you.

Perhaps this may be a "grizzly" analogy, but one could think of the successful and complete genocide of a human group, to understand the plight of the CA grizzly. Sure, you could re-introduce another group that may even resemble the canonical population, but it won't be the same. Don't think too hard about that analogy please.Noble Metalloid (talk)00:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Grizzly is a subspecies of brown bear, then why the Californian grizzly is a subspecies of grizzly? This don't make sense at all! I'll quote from Grizzly page:

However, modern genetic testing reveals the grizzly to be a subspecies of the brown bear (Ursus arctos). Rausch found that North America has but one species of grizzly.[13] Therefore, everywhere it is the "brown bear"; in North America, it is the "grizzly", but these are all the same species, Ursus arctos.— Precedingunsigned comment added by62.11.0.22 (talk)23:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link onCalifornia grizzly bear. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20130126001258/http://www.californiachaparral.com/agrizzlybearnm.html tohttp://californiachaparral.com/agrizzlybearnm.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)08:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who can I contact about a sighting of one of these Bears? These are not extinct. I saw a momma Bear and two cubs in Weitchpec, CA. on Hoopa Indian territory in 2011.2601:380:8380:7CA0:F96C:4794:1C28:E622 (talk)09:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

???DeleteMeuse (talk)18:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between23 August 2023 and1 December 2023. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):DeleteMeuse (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated byDeleteMeuse (talk)18:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting a couple of sources here to see if they might be useful in this article. One is a Washington Post story. The other is a scientific research paper that this story cites and that this story is based on. Here is The Washington Post article dated April 25, 2024:Science tells a new story about the California grizzly. I paraphrased the title. The WAPO story says the Grizzly has been historically misrepresented. Here is the scientific research paper url:[1] published by Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Biological Sciences.— Precedingunsigned comment added bySteve Quinn (talk •contribs)09:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The intro here is positively unencyclopedic. ""Grizzly" could have meant "grizzled" – that is, with golden and grey tips of the hair – or "fear-inspiring" (as a phonetic spelling of "grisly").[8][9] Nonetheless, after careful study, naturalist George Ord formally classified it in 1815 – not for its hair, but for its character – as Ursus horribilis ("terrifying bear")." Why is there argumentation in the opening? Why are we using the word "moniker"?--jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇}15:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• B-Class mammal articles
• Mid-importance mammal articles
• WikiProject Mammals articles
• B-Class California articles
• Mid-importance California articles
• WikiProject California articles
• B-Class Extinction articles
• Mid-importance Extinction articles
• WikiProject Extinction articles
• Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report