Amur Tigers

[Apex Titan]

(09-19-2023, 05:49 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(09-13-2023, 05:16 PM)Apex Titan Wrote: The point is you, for no reason, got so triggered and started insulting me when I never insulted you. Attacks? You got no room to talk, you're the one who started the insults and attacks. So please, don't talk here. 

The reason I brought up the megalodon/orca/Livyatan topic, was just to expose your blatant double standards, which I clearly did.

Yes, your post had some information/evidence, but it was LIMITED INFORMATION/EVIDENCE. Stop talking like the info you posted was 100% conclusive and accurately determined the true average weight of modern Amur tigers, because it didn't, period. Once again, you haven't got a clue about the average weight of the Khabarovsk tigers, its as simple as that. You have ZERO info about this. Why? because modern biologists, particularly the ones you mainly refer to (STP biologists, Miquelle, Goodrich, Seryodkin, Kerley etc), never captured or weighed any tigers from the Khabarovsk region. In fact, even their weight samples from the Primorye tigers is limited and included some young males and unhealthy, emaciated specimens.

The size/weight of the Amur tiger is definitely a complex topic. Why? Again, we do not know the average weight of Amur tigers from the Khabarovsk region or northeast China. And in both these regions, there are really massive male tigers being traced and seen!!  How many times do I have to tell you this?  We'll get a much clearer picture and idea if biologists weigh large male Amur tigers from other regions and countries too.

How can you possibly say it's not a complex topic when the information/weight data is mainly based on Primorye tigers? The Chinese tiger biologist Feng Limin personally knows of a huge male tiger in northeast China that was recently captured and weighed 270 kg. He confirmed this on video, which I posted in the extinction thread. In another video, he also said that he personally came into contact with a wild male tiger weighing over 250 kg. I have no reason to doubt such a highly respected and experienced tiger biologist.

Try to understand this simple thing.... there are other regions where modern Amur tigers (apart from a few captured & weighed specimens) are not being captured and weighed. Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend this simple fact? Its ridiculous that your excluding other regions and only focusing on limited data from tigers in the Primorye region. So yes, some of your "conclusions" are also based on speculation.

And you once again misrepresented me and twisted my words. When did I ever say or imply that there's no correlation between prey density and size of tigers? Huh? when?  I very clearly said: "for some reason" the tigers from the Khabarovsk region seem to be larger than the tigers from Primorye. Meaning even I don't know why. Understand? But there are always exceptions to any rule. For example, Bergmann's rule applies to most large mammalian predators, but the Bengal tiger seems to be the exception to this rule.

I never once said or implied that prey density is not fundamental, however, there are always exceptions to the rule. It is a fact, despite there being a lower prey density, that huge tigers are being seen and traced in the Khabarovsk territory, which basically destroys your argument. According to your argument, tigers the size of "the beast" shouldn't even exist in the Khabarovsk region, because it has a low prey density, right?... not to mention the other very large males being seen and traced in the Anyuisky National Park and Durminskoye forest.

And its not just prey density that is fundamental..... genes/genetics are also.

The male tiger "the Beast" (also known as the "monster tiger") is as large as a large mature male brown bear, as proven by this clear camera trap photo here; Notice how the tiger, even though is standing further back from the tree, is still slightly taller than this bear. Both their skull, neck width and forequarters are very similar in size. The bear has a longer and shaggier fur coat which adds to the illusion of his overall thicker appearance:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

The specialist who studied and monitored both the tiger and big male brown bear is Alexey Gotvansky. Here's what he said about their size:

"This large bear has been living here for a long time. You won't confuse him with anyone because of his height and power. And the tiger, which has already become a celebrity, is the Beast," notes Gotvansky. - Comparing photographs, among other things, you can understand how close the bear is to the gigantic size of a tiger."

https://m.facebook.com/zapovednoepriamur...460398472/

Note that the biologist Gotvansky says: "how close the bear is to the gigantic size of a tiger", which clearly implies that he thinks the tiger is the slightly larger animal. And this is a large mature male Ussuri brown bear he's talking about here, which, remember, is one of the largest subspecies of brown bear on earth, similar in size and weight to the Alaskan and Kamchatka brown bears.

Here's another remark by Gotvansky on "the Beast" huge size:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://todaykhv.ru/news/society/23251/

This just proves how massive Amur tigers really are, and confirms the huge size of the tigers from the Khabarovsk region. This tiger "the beast" is a huge male, and biologists who work in the Anyuisky National Park are in complete awe of his sheer size! Hence the nickname: "The monster tiger". In fact, other Russian reports have dubbed this particular tiger as the "largest tiger in Russia". So its funny, despite the lower prey density, the largest tiger in Russia is said to be from the Khabarovsk region and not Primorye. Add to this fact, there are other very large male tigers reported in the Anyuisky National Park, so clearly, there are really huge male tigers in the Khabarovsk region. Have these giants been weighed? No. Do large, healthy mature males from other regions like Khabarovsk and northeast China need to be captured and weighed to get a clearer and more accurate estimate on the true average sizes/weights of modern Amur tigers? Hell yes.

You don't need a measurement or weighing scale to determine if an animal is large in size. Even a picture can very clearly tell everything. Its so obvious that the tiger "the beast" is an enormous male, who's the same size as a huge male brown bear.

Also, most of the young tigers in the Anyuisky National Park are direct descendants of "the Beast", so he has passed on his genes. This in turn should produce more large males.

Here's another comparison between a male tiger and male brown bear in the Khabarovsk territory (Durmin Game Reserve). Notice, if the tiger stood closer to the tree like the bear is, the tiger would be taller. Both animals, again, are approximately the same size:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

And this picture comparison you posted proved nothing, if anything, it helps my case. The tiger (above) from the Khabarovsk territory, clearly looks more massive than the tiger (below) from Primorye.

And who said this tiger is a "huge male" or "big male" ??  Looks like a normal healthy mature male tiger to me:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author


This tiger from Primorye looks smaller and less heavy:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author


Now look at this massive, very robust looking male tiger from the Khabarovsk region: (Note, this is not in winter with a heavy coat)

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

I know tree markings can be deceptive sometimes because male tigers will jump up higher and mark their scent, but NOT most of the time. Tigers will almost always mark trees standing on their hind-legs. I can post countless pictures/videos showing this.

Here you can see an adult male tiger marking a tree by standing on his hind legs. This tiger looks a bit larger than this adult male brown bear:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author


And why do you keep saying "exceptional size"??  When did I ever claim that the Khabarovsk tigers are of "exceptional" size? You love twisting my words! All I'm saying is that I think (IMO) that the tigers from the Khabarovsk region are larger than the tigers from Primorye. How large is anyone's guess. But I'm not suggesting "much larger"....just a bit larger.

Of course not exceptional size because I've also seen many pictures of huge male tigers from the Primorye region.

One single specimen of a Khabarovsk tigress proves or suggests absolutely nothing. Thats a pointless argument.

All in all, your weight data/info of the Primorye tigers is limited. The Siberian Tiger Project's weight samples are not completely conclusive, there are other factors to consider. They weighed tigers from only ONE region and during a certain period of time, many years ago now. For the thousandth time now, there are Amur tigers that exist in other regions and countries, so to get a more accurate estimate on the true average size/weight of modern Amur tigers, adult male tigers from various regions need to be weighed, period.

And by the way, the male tiger 'Luk' weighed in at 212 kg as a young adult, not a fully-grown mature male tiger. Its highly likely his weight was even greater as he matured. There's a clear difference between young adults and mature adult tigers. So even 'Luk's' true size and weight as a mature adult remains a mystery.

It is very interesting to see how personal you took this topic, I don't need to convince anyone here that you started the insults, because anyone here can read what you post. In fact, you even insulted the scientists of the Siberian Tiger Project, so it is not surprising that your credibility is nule based in the fact that you are not mature enought to accept what you have wrote.

You say that you "clearly expose" my double standard. I will ask, what double standard? I NEVER insulted the scientists that study the Megalodon, in fact, anyone here can go the the topics and see what I wrote, and I clearly wrote that I found that animal not interesting because the size is just a back and forth and that is never clear, in fact, the sizes has been changed from 10 to 30 meters and now is between 16-20 meters, but at the end are just calculations, nothing concrete and now there is going to be a new documents that will decrease the size, again. Other thing, the "fan base" of Megalodon is one of the most toxic one, and like you, they describe it like if it was an invencible animal, when in fact there is no such thing in the nature. But as I see, you just overreact like a diva that is not followed in his ideas.

I wathched you, and you made a good job showing information about tigers vrs bears, but it seems that you just hide a fanatism that clearly remind me the old days of the AVA forum where a lot of trolls where posting just garbage of "vrs" topics instead of focusing in the information. I also noted that you are very inmature, probably just a young adult based in your language. It is clear the frustration that you show in your posts trying to convince yourself that you are right, when actually, in the deep of your mind, you should know that you don't have any evidence to backup your claims. It is really dissapointing that a person that made a good job showing predations events of tigers and bears now is just showing a fanatic attitude agains any possiblility to see the truth.

This si something that is very silly: "How can you possibly say it's not a complex topic when the information/weight data is mainly based on Primorye tigers? The Chinese tiger biologist Feng Limin personally knows of a huge male tiger in northeast China that was recently captured and weighed 270 kg. He confirmed this on video, which I posted in the extinction thread. In another video, he also said that he personally came into contact with a wild male tiger weighing over 250 kg. I have no reason to doubt such a highly respected and experienced tiger biologist."

I saw the video, I saw the communication (a chat from an unknown person) and there is no information or record that Dr Feng Limin is actually capturing, measuring and weights tigers in the north of China. That is the problem, all that we have is just a video that is translated and we need to trust that translation and the communication is also not reliable as we don't know how made it. In fact, the only tiger that I managed to partially confirm (via a secondary source) is the male of 225 kg which included stomach content at the moment of the capture. But information of that male that aparently weighed 270 kg there is no information, no confirmation at all. I do believe that there are big tigers over there, probably in the north of China, but we need EVIDENCE, DATA and BACKUP for it. That is what you don't understand, and your immature mind still don't allow you to see this need of evidence. By the way, nobody doubht of Dr Linn because there is nothing to doubth, in the video (based in the translation) he just said that he saw a tiger of 270 kg, but do not say that he or his team actually drug a tiger, capture him, weighed and measured him, there is no information about the method of capture or anything like that. Remember, this is SCIENCE, not Religion, so we need to base our ideas in facts, not in faith.

You say that I excluded areas from the Amur tiger and that I based my thesis in "speculations", but it seems that you don't undertand the difference. When you make science you need to follow the sicentific method and the first thing that you do is to create an hypotesis, and the hypotesis is based in a theoretical framework based in facts, that is what I have done, based in all the reliable and available weights in scientific and hunthing litterature. The conclution is based in that, in the work of experts and people that actually traveled in the field. Interestingly the field reports of "The Amur Tiger Programme" and the "Center for the Study and Conservation of the Amur Tiger Population" quote an average weight of 160-180 kg fro males, which is less than the average that I calculated using all the males published by the Siberian Tiger Project. So, it is clear that modern scientists do quote the small figures figures for the average of the Amur tigers (even when they still claim that Amur tigers are the biggest subspecies). Now, what you are doing is creating your own hypotesis based in nothing more than photographs and claims based in paw marks, that is not a correct theoretical framework, and that is why I said that you are just especulating with no real base. I hope you can understand this at some point of your life.

This other claim is really dissapointhing: "And you once again misrepresented me and twisted my words. When did I ever say or imply that there's no correlation between prey density and size of tigers? Huh? when?  I very clearly said: "for some reason" the tigers from the Khabarovsk region seem to be larger than the tigers from Primorye. Meaning even I don't know why. Understand? But there are always exceptions to any rule. For example, Bergmann's rule applies to most large mammalian predators, but the Bengal tiger seems to be the exception to this rule."


Again, this shows only your ignorance about how tigers live and trive. You excuse is only the "exception to any rule", but that is pointless. The Bergmann rule is not a good example, as in fact, the study of prey density of Dr Karanth and others do explain why the tigers are bigger in India and why the Bergmann rule  do not apply, and the answer is the PREY BASE. As I said before (and I see that you don't even read it), we have many examples of why the size of the tigers is linked to the prey base and not only to climate. I can present you several examples about that, in mainland and also in the islands, but the problem here is that while I do have the information to prove what I am saying, you have nothing, only excuses with no real evidence. I already explaned to you the case of the Caspian tigers and you don't even paid attention. So, if you don't pay attention to the information presented by experts, you are not going to learn anything. If you want the information I can share you the documents, but first you need to learn humility to learn, if not, a ton of books is not going to teach you anything.

This is funny: "It is a fact, despite there being a lower prey density, that huge tigers are being seen and traced in the Khabarovsk territory, which basically destroys your argument. According to your argument, tigers the size of "the beast" shouldn't even exist in the Khabarovsk region, because it has a low prey density, right?... not to mention the other very large males being seen and traced in the Anyuisky National Park and Durminskoye forest."

"Destroy" my "argument"? I belive that we were learning, not "destroying" things. You see why I concluded that you are too immature to accept that you screwed up with your idea of pictures? The problem is that the only evidence of "huge" tigers in the area are just photos and only one trace that measured 13.5 cm in the soil! I not only explained but showed to you the images from scientific published documents that clearly shows that a print in any soil do not means that the real paw in the flesh is of the same size. Why you ignored that information? That is the question.

Now, this is interesting: "And its not just prey density that is fundamental..... genes/genetics are also."

Yes, genetic is important BUT, what is the evidence that genetic is influencing here? Do you have ANY evidence to support this claim? In fact, there is evidence to suggest that genetic may influcence some characteristics in the development of an animal, but is subordinated by the prey base and food intake. Genetic of Caspian tigers is indistinguishable from Amur tigers and even then they were no bigger than Indochina tigers, also Sundarbans tigers are just a little more separated from Mainland Indian tiger than the Caspian is from the Amur population, but even when the genetic is close they do not develop a size even near the one of tigers from Central India. So no, you can have a population of tigers with big genes, but if there is no food, you will have good genetic in skinny bodies, just like happened with the Amur tigers after 1950.

Now, about the picture of the bear and the tiger: "Note that the biologist Gotvansky says: "how close the bear is to the gigantic size of a tiger", which clearly implies that he thinks the tiger is the slightly larger animal. And this is a large mature male Ussuri brown bear he's talking about here, which, remember, is one of the largest subspecies of brown bear on earth, similar in size and weight to the Alaskan and Kamchatka brown bears."

I have this old comparative picture (2020) of an average sized Amur tiger and an average sized Amur brown bear:

*This image is copyright of its original author

As you can see, both are about the same size, the bear look shorter but is just an ilusion. Also, they have any evidence to say that the male in the picture is an exceptionally sized bear? Becasuse I read what you quote and do not even suggest that. In fact, unless you have a real comparision point to make claims, the tiger in the picture could be a male of 205 cm (really big by any standard and bigger than the one in my image) and the bear will be also big. In fact, the biggest bear captured and radiocollared by the Siberian Tiger Project was a huge male of 363 kg but that its bead-body was of "only" 206 cm in head-body.

By the way, did they at least measured the height of the claw marks of the tiger? If not, again, a picture with no point of reference is useless to make a claim, we need real measurements.

No, this shows how biased/blind you are: "And this picture comparison you posted proved nothing, if anything, it helps my case. The tiger (above) from the Khabarovsk territory, clearly looks more massive than the tiger (below) from Primorye. And who said this tiger is a "huge male" or "big male" ??  Looks like a normal healthy mature male tiger to me"

If you think that the Khabarovsk male look bigger than the Primorye male then you have serious problems or appreciation. Latter you say that it looks like a "normal" male, whell that shows two people can see the same thing and interpret two different things. Now, let me help you with your appreciation:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Do you see that these males from different areas look of the same size (with only random differences caused by they position of the body) if you put them togheter and if we scale them assuming a similar size? Sorry, but if even seeing this comparative image you still believe that images without scale are evidence, then you are lost cause.

Now this claim is really silly, again: "Now look at this massive, very robust looking male tiger from the Khabarovsk region: (Note, this is not in winter with a heavy coat)"

*This image is copyright of its original author

Not a heavy coat? Do you need eye-glasses?


About this pictrure of the tiger, the bear and the man. How tall is the man? Is 160 cm?, 170 cm?, 180 cm?, 190 cm? When you have the height of the man return here and make assumptions, but meanwhile we have no idea about how tall is the man. In fact, we can guess the height of the bear, as is in the same position of the man, but sadly we can't do the same with the tiger.

Man:    Bear:  -  Values in cm
160     202
170     215
180     228
190     240

This is what I got, but about the tiger, from nose to root of tail:

Man:    Tiger:  -  Values in cm
160     145
170     155
180     164
190     173

Definitelly this values are not correct for a tiger of that size, and this was even taking the values over all the contours, the problem is the angle of the tiger, he is in front and most of the body is damage by the perspective. So, is imposible to see the size of the tiger.

Now, how tall is a tiger, well check the height of an average size male:

*This image is copyright of its original author

As we can see, it is huge! This tiger of 190 cm in head-body (the size that I scaled it originally) is almoust 240 cm tall to the tip of the nose to the tip of the foot toe. And if the same animal is even more streched because is marking a tree, we have an overestimation of the true size of the specimen. Again, a picture can't show is the real size of an animal.

This is silly from your side: "One single specimen of a Khabarovsk tigress proves or suggests absolutely nothing. Thats a pointless argument."

I clearly said that is just an example, but you also base your argument in one single male with just a slightly bigger paw than the males measured by the Siberian Tiger Project. So, your argument is also pointless, but this time is even worst, because atleast I do have a real weight.

Finally this: "For the thousandth time now, there are Amur tigers that exist in other regions and countries, so to get a more accurate estimate on the true average size/weight of modern Amur tigers, adult male tigers from various regions need to be weighed, period."

Ohh, an immature statement (for the thousandth time.....?). Do you know that ALL the modern Amur tigers came from the same Russian territory, don't you? Do you knoe that the Kanrasovsk area was never famous for having a large tiger population? So, the frustration that you show in your post is funny and dissapointing, and now I doubth, sadly, about the veracity of the records and the information about tiger vs bear, after all, how reliable could be if the same person doubht and insulted the methods used by the scientists in the field?

I forgot this: "And by the way, the male tiger 'Luk' weighed in at 212 kg as a young adult, not a fully-grown mature male tiger. Its highly likely his weight was even greater as he matured. There's a clear difference between young adults and mature adult tigers. So even 'Luk's' true size and weight as a mature adult remains a mystery."

Yes, I know that it was a young adult, but check what the scientist said about the tigers in the Ussuriski region:

*This image is copyright of its original author

So, they still don't found a tiger of over 212 kg, period (like you say ). Now, remember that we have the new young male of 225 kg (stomach content included), that probably will weight more at this time, but sadly, again, there are no reports of its development. So, it is a mistery.

Honestly, and with no intention to offend you, talking to you is very time consuming an a waste of time. I already explained, several times, that a picture without context or a point of reference is not a good size estimator. That a foot print may diverge from the real paw in the flesh. So, after ALL the information that I shared and the corrections that I made, if you still don't accept the truth, you can continue with your life but please, stop insulting, minimizing and discarding the work of the Siberian Tiger Project and the Russian experts in the field, because independently of the time that was made, is still the best source for scientific information about the tigers in the Russian Far East.

What is my conclution, well is the SAME that I always said and that anyone can read in others of my posts: That the Amur and the Bengal tigers were/are/will be of the same body size. That the body mass of the Amur tiger has fluctuated very harsh during the past century, with average body masses (of males) of c.220 kg before 1950, to as low as c.170 kg between 1980-1990 and up to c.190 kg at the end of 2012. That now that new tiger populations exist, is possible that new figures could be highed, with over 200 kg in average for the males in the Ussuriski reserve and probably even higher in the north of China with at least a young male of 225 kg reported and two males of possible 250 and 270 kg that we still need to confirm. Amur tigers were heavier but they probably will return soon to its past body mass, which based in my investigation probably reached over 270 kg in the old huting records (the male of 250 kg evicerated is the candidate). But now, until real evidence is presented and until new figures are published we CAN'T relay in photographs and visual estimations with no point or references and even the "official" websites quote that the average weight of the males is between 160-180 kg (smaller than the 190 kg that I still propuse based in the figures of tigers captured by scientists in the field between 1992 - 2012).

There are enought pictures of giant Amur tigers hunted in the past presented here to doubt that there were huge Amur tigers in the past, but we need evidence to make a claim. If not, we will end like you, just dreaming with unicorns.

Greetings.

I know Peter wants to continue this discussion in the extinction thread, but I have to call you out for all the bold-faced LIES and nonsense you're saying about me.

I am absolutely MIND-BLOWN that you have the nerve and audacity to actually say that I started the insults! ARE YOU SERIOUS??? How can you seriously say that? EVERYONE can clearly see who started the insults. I never insulted you once....not once! You're the one who started calling me a "fanboy" and "childish" and "fanatic" out of nowhere. You also called one of my statements "idiotic", when I replied to your post in a friendly and civil manner. You are blatantly lying.

Why don't you contact every single mod on this forum and ask them who started the insults, who took this discussion personal, and who's the only one saying insults??  Yeah? Go ask them and we'll see who's the liar. In fact, why don't you read Peter's post in the extinction thread and see who he thinks started the insults and ridiculing. Even a half blind person can clearly see it was you. 

We could have discussed or debated this in a nice civil manner, but no, you just had to show your blatant arrogance, throw insults and make those condescending remarks.

You're the one who got badly triggered over nothing. And when the hell did I insult the scientists from the Siberian Tiger Project?? Again, another blatant false accusation based on TWISTING MY WORDS, lying and deliberately misrepresenting me. Once again, all I said is that their capturing methods were harmful and inhumane because some tigers got INJURED from the foot snares. You might not care if animals get hurt while capturing, but I do!  However, I clearly told you that I respect the STP biologists because they published good information and insights about the ecology of wild Amur tigers. I admitted even I learn't from them. So what the hell are you on about?  You're such a liar.

Your responses are filled with lies, deceit, character assassination attempts and false accusations. In spite of this, you actually have the audacity to say I'm the "immature" one who took this "personal". What a ridiculous statement. Everyone can clearly see who took this discussion personal. You got some damn nerve.

You got all triggered and pissed off just because I have a different opinion on the true average weights of wild Amur tigers. 

Yes, I very clearly exposed your double standards. And yes, you did indirectly insult the marine scientists who said megalodon is the greatest apex predator of all time. How? You clearly accused the marine scientists and biologists of "exaggerating" the megalodon to be some type of "invincible movie monster", remember? Whenever any article, information or statement from a marine scientist/paleontologist etc, talking about how formidable and dominant the megalodon was, all you do is try down grade the megalodon with nothing but pure guesswork, biased opinions and basically accuse marine experts of exaggerating the predator. And why?...

because you have a very clear preference and strong bias towards cetaceans, especially orcas and the Livyatan melvillei. You're clearly not fond of sharks at all, so when most, if not all of the worlds top renowned marine predator experts, scientists, researchers, biologists, paleontologists etc, all widely acknowledge the megalodon to be the greatest and most formidable predator in the history of this planet, then it must be all 'nonsense', right? because it's a shark and not a whale, yes?

I can guarantee you that if the worlds top marine predator experts and scientists said all this about the Livyatan whale, you would happily accept and believe their words. And you know it. But they don't and never will. The megalodon is given this title and status for a very good reason, period. There's NO "exaggeration" going on. You're the one being blatantly arrogant and toxic by ignorantly disputing the statements and research of renowned marine predator experts and researchers and indirectly accusing them of being some "megalodon fanboys" or something, ridiculous.

However, whenever scientists/experts say anything that suits your agenda and opinions, then they must be 100% right, because they're the qualified experts, aren't they? So according to actual qualified and highly respected marine scientists and researchers, the megalodon was the greatest apex predator of all time and nothing posed a threat to it, but according to Guate, a completely unqualified forum poster who has a strong preference and bias towards cetaceans (orcas & whales), the marine scientists are basically talking "nonsense" and "exaggerating" the megalodon to be some "invincible" monster or something, right?

And the megalodon "fanboys" are just a bunch of toxic people because they listen to and accept the words of actual qualified, world renowned marine predator experts and researchers who basically know nothing?

I can't even be bothered to respond to all the rest of what you said, its a waste of my time. You're just repeating yourself. But that's great anyway, because you once again showed that you have absolutely NO CLUE, ZERO EVIDENCE OR DATA about the average sizes and weights of the tigers from the Khabarovsk region and northeast China. You did a marvelous job demonstrating that once again.

All your arguments, speculations and mere opinions mean nothing because you have zero evidence to back up your claims. Did I ever once say or imply that its a "fact" that Khabarovsk tigers are larger than Primorye tigers? NO, and I repeat....not once!  You just love twisting my words and misrepresenting me. I made it very clear that it's only my assumption, nothing more. 

For the last time now, I don't care what you say about prey density, population size etc, the reality and FACT is that very large male tigers are seen and traced in other regions/countries like Khabarovsk Krai and northeast China. And none of these huge males (apart from two) have been captured or weighed. And the FACT also is that the weight data/samples from the Siberian Tiger Project is LIMITED and clearly inconclusive for reasons I mentioned before.

And when a highly trained, experienced and seasoned biologist who actually studies tigers and bears in the Anyuisky National Park says the tiger "the Beast" is a giant or incredibly huge tiger, I think I'll take his word for it instead of a completely unqualified, armchair "expert" who in reality is just a forum poster with very limited and inconclusive info and data.

And by the way, you said Amur tigers look bigger than they really are with winter coats, thats why I posted this picture (below). Is this a tiger with a winter coat? NO. Anyone can clearly see that this is a large, massively built tiger with huge forequarters, skull and neck:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This huge tiger lives in a region (Khabarovsk) with a lower prey density and population of tigers than Primorye. Has he been weighed? Nope. Is it possible that he weighs well over 200 kg? Yes.

And thats exactly my point, but you keep failing to understand. Amur tigers from various areas, regions and countries must be weighed to determine the true average weight. Thats common sense! Reply