Return to Answer

One thing not addressed by previous answers, but worth considering, is that bears are very intelligent animals. In fact, both horses and bears are very intelligent (possibly as or moreso than dogs): This is what makes them easy to train. But it also begs the question: what incentive does the bear have?

A horse forms a very close bond with its rider, in part because it is a social animal and its social dominance heirarchy enables it to interact with dominant members of the herd (humans, especially its rider; with dogs, this is sometimes seen as a parental relationship, since wolves operate in family pack units and dogs are widely considered to be infantilized wolves). Horses' social dominance heirarchy and pack/herd mentality allows it to respond to threats (charging, rearing up) as if it were challenging a competitor or protecting the herd, differently than it would respond alone in the wild (running away in terror). In short, horses feel protected.

They also become docile when subjected to domination, even mistreatment (sadly). That is why they tolerate being ridden, long term.

Now consider the bear: even in a scouting expedition (for which the bear is ideally suited), what incentive does the bear have to suffer the harsh conditions of war alongside its master? The bear does not need its master for protection such as from carnivores, which is the key social contract between men and horses; or rather (unlike the dog) it is not familiar enough with human technology to understand that being with its master will protect it from the ranged weapons of rival humans; in the absence of ranged weapons, a bear is capable of fighting and scouting on its own: the rider is merely dead weight.

The bear would respect its master but not be led around by him, certainly not into battle. Brown are one of the few species that don't immediately respect men as the apex predator and aren't dependent on them for protection from other predators; when the human thinks "we're in trouble", in the (apocryphal) words of Tonto from The Lone Ranger, "What do you mean 'we', human?"

One thing not addressed by previous answers, but worth considering, is that bears are very intelligent animals. In fact, both horses and bears are very intelligent (possibly as or moreso than dogs): This is what makes them easy to train. But it also begs the question: what incentive does the bear have?

A horse forms a very close bond with its rider, in part because it is a social animal and its social dominance heirarchy enables it to interact with dominant members of the herd (humans, especially its rider; with dogs, this is sometimes seen as a parental relationship, since wolves operate in family pack units and dogs are widely considered to be infantilized wolves). Horses' social dominance heirarchy and pack/herd mentality allows it to respond to threats (charging, rearing up) as if it were challenging a competitor or protecting the herd, differently than it would respond alone in the wild (running away in terror). In short, horses feel protected.

They also become docile when subjected to domination, even mistreatment (sadly). That is why they tolerate being ridden, long term.

Now consider the bear: even in a scouting expedition (for which the bear is ideally suited), what incentive does the bear have to suffer the harsh conditions of war alongside its master? The bear does not need its master for protection such as from carnivores, which is the key social contract between men and horses; or rather (unlike the dog) it is not familiar enough with human technology to understand that being with its master will protect it from the ranged weapons of rival humans; in the absence of ranged weapons, a bear is capable of fighting and scouting on its own: the rider is merely dead weight.

The bear would respect its master but not be led around by him, certainly not into battle. Brown are one of the few species that don't immediately respect men as the apex predator and aren't dependent on them for protection from other predators; when the human thinks "we're in trouble", in the (apocryphal) words of Tonto from The Lone Ranger, "What do you mean 'we', human?"

One thing not addressed by previous answers, but worth considering, is that bears are very intelligent animals. In fact, both horses and bears are very intelligent (possibly as or moreso than dogs): This is what makes them easy to train. But it also begs the question: what incentive does the bear have?

A horse forms a very close bond with its rider, in part because it is a social animal and its social dominance heirarchy enables it to interact with dominant members of the herd (humans, especially its rider; with dogs, this is sometimes seen as a parental relationship, since wolves operate in family pack units and dogs are widely considered to be infantilized wolves). Horses' social dominance heirarchy and pack/herd mentality allows it to respond to threats (charging, rearing up) as if it were challenging a competitor or protecting the herd, differently than it would respond alone in the wild (running away in terror). In short, horses feel protected.

They also become docile when subjected to domination, even mistreatment (sadly). That is why they tolerate being ridden, long term.

Now consider the bear: even in a scouting expedition (for which the bear is ideally suited), what incentive does the bear have to suffer the harsh conditions of war alongside its master? The bear does not need its master for protection such as from carnivores, which is the key social contract between men and horses; or rather (unlike the dog) it is not familiar enough with human technology to understand that being with its master will protect it from the ranged weapons of rival humans; in the absence of ranged weapons, a bear is capable of fighting and scouting on its own: the rider is merely dead weight.

The bear would respect its master but not be led around by him, certainly not into battle. Brown are one of the few species that don't immediately respect men as the apex predator and aren't dependent on them for protection from other predators; when the human thinks "we're in trouble", in the (apocryphal) words of Tonto from The Lone Ranger, "What do you mean 'we', human?"

One thing not addressed by previous answers, but worth considering, is that bears are very intelligent animals. In fact, both horses and bears are very intelligent (possibly as or moreso than dogs): This is what makes them easy to train. But it also begs the question: what incentive does the bear have?

A horse forms a very close bond with its rider, in part because it is a social animal and its social dominance heirarchy enables it to interact with dominant members of the herd (humans, especially its rider; with dogs, this is sometimes seen as a parental relationship, since wolves operate in family pack units and dogs are widely considered to be infantilized wolves). Horses' social dominance heirarchy and pack/herd mentality allows it to respond to threats (charging, rearing up) as if it were challenging a competitor or protecting the herd, differently than it would respond alone in the wild (running away in terror). In short, horses feel protected.

They also become docile when subjected to domination, even mistreatment (sadly). That is why they tolerate being ridden, long term.

Now consider the bear: even in a scouting expedition (for which the bear is ideally suited), what incentive does the bear have to suffer the harsh conditions of war alongside its master? The bear does not need its master for protection such as from carnivores, which is the key social contract between men and horses; or rather (unlike the dog) it is not familiar enough with human technology to understand that being with its master will protect it from the ranged weapons of rival humans; in the absence of ranged weapons, a bear is capable of fighting and scouting on its own: the rider is merely dead weight.

The bear would respect its master but not be led around by him, certainly not into battle. Brown are one of the few species that don't immediately respect men as the apex predator and aren't dependent on them for protection from other predators; when the human thinks "we're in trouble", in the (apocryphal) words of Tonto from The Lone Ranger, "What do you mean 'we', human?"

One thing not addressed by previous answers, but worth considering, is that bears are very intelligent animals. In fact, both horses and bears are very intelligent (possibly as or moreso than dogs): This is what makes them easy to train. But it also begs the question: what incentive does the bear have?

A horse forms a very close bond with its rider, in part because it is a social animal and its social dominance heirarchy enables it to interact with dominant members of the herd (humans, especially its rider; with dogs, this is sometimes seen as a parental relationship, since wolves operate in family pack units and dogs are widely considered to be infantilized wolves). Horses' social dominance heirarchy and pack/herd mentality allows it to respond to threats (charging, rearing up) as if it were challenging a competitor or protecting the herd, differently than it would respond alone in the wild (running away in terror). In short, horses feel protected.

They also become docile when subjected to domination, even mistreatment (sadly). That is why they tolerate being ridden, long term.

Now consider the bear: even in a scouting expedition (for which the bear is ideally suited), what incentive does the bear have to suffer the harsh conditions of war alongside its master? The bear does not need its master for protection such as from carnivores, which is the key social contract between men and horses; or rather (unlike the dog) it is not familiar enough with human technology to understand that being with its master will protect it from the ranged weapons of rival humans; in the absence of ranged weapons, a bear is capable of fighting and scouting on its own: the rider is merely dead weight.

The bear would respect its master but not be led around by him, certainly not into battle. Brown are one of the few species that don't immediately respect men as the apex predator and aren't dependent on them for protection from other predators; when the human thinks "we're in trouble", in the (apocryphal) words of Tonto from The Lone Ranger, "What do you mean 'we', human?"

One thing not addressed by previous answers, but worth considering, is that bears are very intelligent animals. In fact, both horses and bears are very intelligent (possibly as or moreso than dogs): This is what makes them easy to train. But it also begs the question: what incentive does the bear have?

A horse forms a very close bond with its rider, in part because it is a social animal and its social dominance heirarchy enables it to interact with dominant members of the herd (humans, especially its rider; with dogs, this is sometimes seen as a parental relationship, since wolves operate in family pack units and dogs are widely considered to be infantilized wolves). Horses' social dominance heirarchy and pack/herd mentality allows it to respond to threats (charging, rearing up) as if it were challenging a competitor or protecting the herd, differently than it would respond alone in the wild (running away in terror). In short, horses feel protected.

They also become docile when subjected to domination, even mistreatment (sadly). That is why they tolerate being ridden, long term.

Now consider the bear: even in a scouting expedition (for which the bear is ideally suited), what incentive does the bear have to suffer the harsh conditions of war alongside its master? The bear does not need its master for protection such as from carnivores, which is the key social contract between men and horses; or rather (unlike the dog) it is not familiar enough with human technology to understand that being with its master will protect it from the ranged weapons of rival humans; in the absence of ranged weapons, a bear is capable of fighting and scouting on its own: the rider is merely dead weight.

The bear would respect its master but not be led around by him, certainly not into battle. Brown are one of the few species that don't immediately respect men as the apex predator and aren't dependent on them for protection from other predators; when the human thinks "we're in trouble", in the (apocryphal) words of Tonto from The Lone Ranger, "What do you mean 'we', human?"