Fact Check: Bear weighed 110 pounds at just two years old!

Fact Check: Bear weighed 110 pounds at just two years old!

Published June 19, 2025
±
VERDICT
Partially True

# Fact Check: "Bear weighed 110 pounds at just two years old!" ## What We Know The claim that a bear weighed 110 pounds at just two years old is supp...

Fact Check: "Bear weighed 110 pounds at just two years old!"

What We Know

The claim that a bear weighed 110 pounds at just two years old is supported by a recent incident involving a black bear in Michigan. According to a report, wildlife experts managed to trap a black bear that had been living with a plastic lid stuck around its neck for two years. This bear was documented to weigh 110 pounds at the time it was rescued (NBC News).

In general, the weight of black bears can vary significantly based on age, sex, and environmental factors. Typically, a yearling bear (1-2 years old) can weigh between 80 to 100 pounds, which aligns with the reported weight of the Michigan bear. However, it is noted that some yearling bears can weigh more, depending on their habitat and food availability (Virginia DWR).

Analysis

The evidence supporting the claim comes from a specific case of a bear in Michigan that weighed 110 pounds at two years old. This particular bear had survived with a lid around its neck, which likely affected its ability to feed optimally. Despite this, it managed to reach a weight that is on the higher end of the expected range for a bear of that age.

However, the claim is somewhat anecdotal and does not represent the average weight of all bears at that age. According to wildlife experts, a typical yearling bear usually weighs between 80 to 100 pounds, with 110 pounds being on the higher side but not impossible (Virginia DWR). The variability in bear weights can be attributed to factors such as genetics, diet, and habitat quality.

The source of the claim, while credible, is based on a single instance rather than a comprehensive study of bear weights across different populations. Therefore, while it is possible for a bear to weigh 110 pounds at two years old, it is not the norm.

Conclusion

The claim that a bear weighed 110 pounds at just two years old is Partially True. While there is a documented case of a bear reaching this weight, it is important to note that this is not typical for all bears of that age. Most yearling bears weigh between 80 to 100 pounds, making the 110-pound weight an exception rather than the rule. Thus, while the claim is accurate in this specific instance, it does not reflect the average weight for all two-year-old bears.

Sources

  1. How to Judge the Age and Sex of Black Bears | Virginia DWR
  2. Michigan bear finally free of lid that was stuck on its neck for years

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: Transcript
00:00
911 was a false flag. For the
first 10 years, I did not think
anything other than the
official narrative then after
being shown a video, a close up
video of building number seven
coming down and that got me
going because it's obvious to
me that building seven was was
a controlled demolition because
the building collapses from the
bottom down. The trade centers
were unique in that they were
designed to withstand the
00:33
impact of a a a jet. From what
I understand the the outer
skeleton of the building. The
outer columns was like a a fish
net and you had these inner
core columns which was
substantial thick steel beams
to withstand four or five times
what the loads were. Got it.
The engineers always over
design a building. No steel
frame building has ever
collapsed before or since 9/
eleven. So that should say
something right there. And it
said that building seven it was
01:05
aggressive collapse that it was
caused by fire but progressive
collapse unlike the twin
towers, the twin towers
collapse from the top down.
That's a progressive collapse.
Sure. Floor by floor by floor.
But if you look at the videos
of building seven collapsing,
it collapses uniformly, it's
collapsing from the bottom, the
building stays intact all the
way to the bottom of the ground
and you could see the sides
caving in on it. For a building
to collapse uniformly which the
video show all the load bearing
it would have to have failed
01:36
simultaneously. Now, fire
doesn't act like that. I came
across an analogy of the twin
towers and if you could
visualize cast iron stoves
stacked. One on top of each
other. The stoves up at the
top. Yes, there's fire and
they've been damaged but the
stoves on the bottom, they
haven't been damaged. Okay. So,
the structure underneath all of
that is intact. So, it's
impossible for a building to
collapse near free fall speed
and increase. Without a
02:07
controlled demolition. You're
running into the path of most
resistance. I something else is
going on. I don't believe that
it was just the planes or the
fires I think that and they
examine the dust and they found
what they call thermitic
material which is like a
explosive incendiary which was
in the dust samples and that's
documented. There were reports
of the buildings were
undergoing a extensive elevator
renovation in the two or three
years prior to all kinds of
02:40
workers they had access to the
the core the cores of the
building and on the day of the
attack the the elevator company
would not assist in the
operations of the elevators and
the elevator company was the
elevator company it
subsequently went out of
business and a couple of years
after that
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Bear spotted in Vilnius after years of absence caused national uproar.
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Bear spotted in Vilnius after years of absence caused national uproar.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Bear spotted in Vilnius after years of absence caused national uproar.

Jun 21, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Bear wandered into Vilnius for the first time in years, causing a national stir.
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Bear wandered into Vilnius for the first time in years, causing a national stir.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Bear wandered into Vilnius for the first time in years, causing a national stir.

Jun 20, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: It is necessary to bear arms when tyrants take power.
Partially True

Fact Check: It is necessary to bear arms when tyrants take power.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: It is necessary to bear arms when tyrants take power.

Jul 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Trump has 34 Felony convicts. He was found guilty and lost his right to bear arms. Punishment has nothing to do with a criminal record. Only guilty matters
Partially True

Fact Check: Trump has 34 Felony convicts. He was found guilty and lost his right to bear arms. Punishment has nothing to do with a criminal record. Only guilty matters

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Trump has 34 Felony convicts. He was found guilty and lost his right to bear arms. Punishment has nothing to do with a criminal record. Only guilty matters

Jun 23, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: American consumers will bear the brunt of tariffs imposed by Trump.
True

Fact Check: American consumers will bear the brunt of tariffs imposed by Trump.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: American consumers will bear the brunt of tariffs imposed by Trump.

Jul 10, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Bear weighed 110 pounds at just two years old! | TruthOrFake Blog