WildFact
Question for Peter - Printable Version

+- WildFact (https://wildfact.com/forum)
+-- Forum: General Section (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-general-section)
+--- Forum: Debate and Discussion about Wild Animals (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-debate-and-discussion-about-wild-animals)
+--- Thread: Question for Peter (/topic-question-for-peter)

Pages: 1 2 3 4


Question for Peter - faess - 01-20-2015

I know you posted an account  from one of Mazak's books, saying that a large Tiger killed a bear bigger than himself and ate it, but he wasn't the direct source. but in of the books from the main source (in this case, Jankowski) mentions the same account, EXCEPT for the fact that he never brings up the predation on the tiger's part. It just states that had eaten a bear. So where did this whole tiger killing bear come about? Jankowski's book never mentioned it, but Mazak's book did. Is 

 


RE: Question for Peter - peter - 01-22-2015

(01-20-2015, 12:54 AM)'faess' Wrote: I know you posted an account  from one of Mazak's books, saying that a large Tiger killed a bear bigger than himself and ate it, but he wasn't the direct source. but in of the books from the main source (in this case, Jankowski) mentions the same account, EXCEPT for the fact that he never brings up the predation on the tiger's part. It just states that had eaten a bear. So where did this whole tiger killing bear come about? Jankowski's book never mentioned it, but Mazak's book did. Is 
 

Hi Faess,

I heard rumours about Warsaw's counter to Mazak's information on the big tiger and the big brown bear. I tried to find it, but couldn't. What to say for the moment?

Mazak's information on the giant tiger and the big male brown bear he killed was based on a letter of one of the sons of the Jankowski who featured in the book 'The Tiger's Claw'. The letter was written in May 1970. Most quotes Mazak used were about the extraordinary size of the Sungari River tiger. From the details and the photograph, the tiger was an exceptional individual. 

A few pages after discussing the size of this tiger in his book, V. Mazak wrote Jankowski had added that they found the remains of a " ... very large male brown bear ... " the tiger had killed and eaten. Apart from saying they found his skull and a leg, there were no details. That's it.

You wrote one of the Jankowski's recently published a book about his experiences. Very interesting, I would say. For some reason, he wrote about the giant tiger, but not on the bear. Warsaw is an excellent tracker, but a wee bit preferenced at times. His preference, on the other hand, also serves as a great drive to find things.  

If Jankowski didn't write about the bear, the question is why he didn't. Below are a few speculative remarks.  

a - The incident happened in July 1943. Today is January 2015, a difference of 72 years. The first question is if the Jankowski who wrote the publication was the one who saw the tiger and the bear himself in 1943. If not, I won't bother to respond to Warsaw's implicit question.

b - If it was the Jankowski who actually saw the tiger and the remains of the brown bear, the question is why he waited so long to tell us about it. My guess is he probably is in his nineties by now (...). Maybe he just forgot a lot of details.

c - If he didn't, maybe it was no news for him that the tiger killed a brown bear. Remember the Jankowski's were very experienced and probably knew Amur tigers hunt bears. I know biologists stated tigers do not hunt male brown bears, but I also know that locals have a different opinion. Also remember the tiger was an exceptional animal. At 300 kg. or thereabout, he could have overwhelmed a bear of near-similar size. 

d - Also remember experienced Russian biologists (Sysoev, Sludskij, Arseniev, Krechmar and Pikunov) agreed there isn't much to choose between a male brown bear and a male Amur tiger in most cases (except for exceptional animals). Most give it to the male bear because he often is heavier, but that doesn't mean all fights will end in the bear's favour. It could go either way when both more or less compare.   

The trainers I interviewed underlined the opinion and experience of the biologists mentioned above in that most thought male brown bears tend to overplay there hand at times. They are powerful animals well capable of handling a male tiger, but that doesn't mean they get it their way in a fight. Tigers are faster, as strong and heavily armed. Teethwise, an average male brown bear engaging an average male Amur tiger faces an opponent of his own weight or better, meaning he should always be wary. Wild animals know this, but captive animals tend to explore their limits, at times at their peril.

Male brown bears are not as invincable as many seem to think. Mazak published three records of wild male brown bears killed by male tigers and I also know adult polar bears have been killed by tigers in circuses. These reports are not based on rumours. Also remember all fights between male brown bears and tigresses or immature male tigers (wild animals only) won by bears described or pieced together by biologists were prolonged and close. In all fights, the bears were described as 'large' or 'very large', whereas their opponents probably were half their weight. Things could work out differently when a mature male Amur tiger is involved. Adult male bears, on account of their weight and robustness, no doubt have a slight advantage, but the margins would be small. Too small to call, I think.      

If you want to know more, read post 242 in the tiger extinction thread again. It has everything Mazak published. I propose to post the link to Warsaw's post on the Jankowski publication first. When you post it, do it in the tiger extinction thread, because I won't miss it. Regards,

Peter. 


RE: Question for Peter - faess - 03-31-2015

So are there any legitimate Tiger predation on a male adult brown bear after all?


RE: Question for Peter - peter - 04-02-2015

(03-31-2015, 12:54 PM)'faess' Wrote: So are there any legitimate Tiger predation on a male adult brown bear after all?



 

In spite of the three accounts in V. Mazak's book and the one mentioned by Rakov, todays biologists agree there is no record of a male brown bear killed by a male Amur tiger. Based on what I read, I understand. Biologists need more than a brief general description in order to accept an incident as confirmed. A firsthand account would be perfect, but there's no peerr-reviewed document with reliable information of a male brown bear killed by a tiger. Not in the last decades anyway. As a scientist, I agree: the threshold wasn't met. As a poster, I disagree. The lack of incidents in the last decades, to be sure, underlines serious encounters between male Amur tigers and male Ussuri brown bears have to be regarded as something our of the ordinary.  

By the way. I edited my previous post, so read it again. There is more on male brown bears and male Amur tigers in the tiger extinction thread. In some time, I will post more.

In my previous post, I asked if you would be able to provide a link to the post of Warsaw on Jankowski's publication. The question is repeated here. See what you can do. Thanks in advance.


RE: Question for Peter - brotherbear - 04-02-2015

Peter says: ~~The trainers I interviewed underlined the opinion and experience of the biologists mentioned above in that most thought male brown bears tend to overplay there hand at times. They are powerful animals well capable of handling a male tiger, but that doesn't mean they get it their way in a fight. Tigers are faster, as strong and heavily armed. Teethwise, an average male brown bear engaging an average male Amur tiger faces an opponent of his own weight or better, meaning he should always be wary. Wild animals know this, but captive animals tend to explore their limits, at times at their peril.
 
I believe that if an Amur tiger ambushes a large mature male brown bear, he stands a decent chance of a successful kill, but certainly not a sure win. In a face-to-face confrontation. the grizzly stands the better chance, but here again, not a sure win. Both antagonists realize this and so such fights between large healthy mature males of these two species are probably extremely rare. I agree that the tiger has speed, agility, and deadlier weapons. Even Casey Anderson stated that the grizzly is not an accomplished killer. However, I disagree that the tiger is equally as strong. The pantherines had to sacrifice brute strength for speed and agility. I'm not saying that tigers are not strong. One can actually see the rippling muscles in their arms and shoulders. But, I believe that the short back and broader build of the bear gives him greater strength when the two are compared equal size in terms of length and height.  


RE: Question for Peter - Pckts - 04-02-2015

(04-02-2015, 02:39 AM)'brotherbear' Wrote: Peter says: ~~The trainers I interviewed underlined the opinion and experience of the biologists mentioned above in that most thought male brown bears tend to overplay there hand at times. They are powerful animals well capable of handling a male tiger, but that doesn't mean they get it their way in a fight. Tigers are faster, as strong and heavily armed. Teethwise, an average male brown bear engaging an average male Amur tiger faces an opponent of his own weight or better, meaning he should always be wary. Wild animals know this, but captive animals tend to explore their limits, at times at their peril.
 
I believe that if an Amur tiger ambushes a large mature male brown bear, he stands a decent chance of a successful kill, but certainly not a sure win. In a face-to-face confrontation. the grizzly stands the better chance, but here again, not a sure win. Both antagonists realize this and so such fights between large healthy mature males of these two species are probably extremely rare. I agree that the tiger has speed, agility, and deadlier weapons. Even Casey Anderson stated that the grizzly is not an accomplished killer. However, I disagree that the tiger is equally as strong. The pantherines had to sacrifice brute strength for speed and agility. I'm not saying that tigers are not strong. One can actually see the rippling muscles in their arms and shoulders. But, I believe that the short back and broader build of the bear gives him greater strength when the two are compared equal size in terms of length and height.  

 



Anatomical strength is not going to come down to "stocky or broad" its a leverage factor more than anything else.
Assuming both are the same weight, being stocky is not an advantage or disadvantage.
The strongest man in the world is 6'9'' but there are plenty examples of stocky men being strong and vice versa. So lets use your example of bears being stronger on their hind legs that means they give up strength else where if we are talking about weight parity. So lets assume that tigers have stronger forelimbs, aka Pushing for triceps and pulling for biceps, which makes sense since tigers need to control their prey. etc.
So if both animals are the same weight but different anatomically, it will come down to how weight is distributed and for what purpose. But at the same weight both will be able to handle each other in the strength department, it will come down to weapons and who gets the critical hold or makes the critical mistake. IMO


RE: Question for Peter - brotherbear - 04-02-2015

Pckts says: ~~Assuming both are the same weight.
Who mentioned same weight? I said size parity in terms of height and length. In fact, on average, the Amur tiger actually has a size advantage in terms of height and length, and yet the black grizzly is heavier on average by well over 100 pounds. This is because of his thicker broader build. Do you believe that Pernell Roberts was as strong as Dan blocker?


RE: Question for Peter - Pckts - 04-02-2015

I am talking about the same weight only,  if a tiger is 100lbs lighter its going to be not as strong most likely.
But if they are the same weight, tiger being longer and bear being "stockier" it will mean nothing when comparing strength. Like its already stated, if weight is equal, strength can go either way. A tiger doesn't gain its full weight until it reaches its full length, usually. That has to do with anatomical structure and weight distribution.

Compare Jon Jones 6'5'' to Daniel Cormier 5'9''(athletes)
Polar opposites in body type, both weigh in at 205lbs and neither overpowered the other. The same will work out with any animal, weight is the determining factor of strength, Stocky or broad has nothing to do with it. In fact, longer body or limbs can create leverage off of angles and strengthen their base or the opposite can work, being close to the ground can make them difficult to dominate and control.
Like I stated, the strongest man for (strong man) is 6'9'' which is any thing but "stocky".
I can state a million examples that can benefit your point or defeat it, but its useless. Strength comes from anatomical structure and weight aka weight distribution. If two animals are equal in weight but they are built differently it will depend on their physical needs and they way their weight is distributed. But if one animal is going to have a significant weight advantage, they are going to be the stronger animal most often.


RE: Question for Peter - brotherbear - 04-02-2015

In Siberia, which is the location of the tiger and the grizzly we are talking about, the average tiger is roughly two thirds the weight of the bear, even though he ( the tiger ) has the size advantage. This is because the grizzly is more robust. Some "experts" believe that these two predators are relatively equal in strength. I do not and will not agree with this. The tiger is a speacialized ambush predator. First and moremost he is designed for stealth. Then next on his list of essentials is speed and agility. These attributes combined with extremely powerful jaws, huge teeth, and sharp,  wickedly curved, retractable claws make the tiger a terrible antagonist. The grizzly is designed for brute strength and power. He spends his days digging in hard ground laced with rocks and roots, overturning huge rocks ( up to a full ton ) and tearing into stumps and bee trees. And I will stick to the fact that his short back and broad heavy-boned build gives him a considerable strength advantage.   


RE: Question for Peter - peter - 04-02-2015

PIKUNOV AND KRECHMAR

The remarks on strength are from authorities. Pikunov said both are equal in tooth and claw. He also said he thought the bear would wear the tiger down. Maybe he is right, but Krechmar said there's nothing to choose between both in a fysical fight. Bears just out of hibernation might be willing to take more risks, whereas a tiger can hunt again. That's, however, different from saying bears dominate tigers.  

Large bears would get it their way more often than not, but animals of, say, 700 pounds are quite rare. Tigers are not that heavy. The heaviest male Amur tiger actually weighed in the last three decades was 212 kg. (468 pounds), but Krechmar said he's sure there are large tigers in Russia. Also remember the 212 kg. male was a young adult and not the longest measured. Not in a long way, in fact. But if there are large tigers, why were they not captured? Well, one thing is Primorye is a vast place. Two is large tigers could be able to destroy foot snares. At least one did and the result was one researcher was attacked and hospitalized. 


THE LARGEST AMUR TIGERS AND USSURI BROWN BEARS

Tigers, like bears, often show a lot of individual variation. The only subspecies lacking in this respect is the Amur tiger. Males range between 170-212 kg. and they average about 190 kg. Is the lack of variation a result of a genetic problem or a result of the means used to trap tigers? My guess is the foot snare used could play a part in that it doesn't seem strong enough to hold a large tiger.

The heaviest accepted male Amur tiger was shot by Baikov close to the Korean border about a century ago. This tiger was 560 pounds. The photograph shows a long tiger, but I didn't see a massive animal. There are quite many records of Amur tigers well exceeding that weight, but all were dismissed by Slaught et al (2005) and they did so for good reasons. That, however, doesn't mean they were not there. I've seen large captive males and my guess is some wild tigers would come close.


AVERAGE MALES

Male Ussuri brown bears, according to Kucerenko, average 582 pounds, but three males recently captured (see the tiger extinction thread), all adults, ranged between 365-525 pounds (average 426).

The question is what average is true? As I don't know, I propose to take the average of both (10 x 582 and 3 x 426 divided by 13). That would come down to 546 if we use the actual number of males involved (10 and 3) and 504 if both averages have the same relative weight. If we can't decide, we use the average of 504 and 546. The result is 525 pounds for an average male. In autumn. If we add he loses 20-30% during hibernation, we get to 367-420 pounds in spring, say 395 pounds or thereabout. An average male, therefore, ranges between 395-525 pounds through the year. If we take the average to get to a year-round average, we get to 460 pounds. This, of course, is apart from individual variation and very large individuals.  

The average for male Amur tigers about a decade and a half ago (389 pounds), on the other hand, was affected by a number of adolescents and young adults. Others were obviously malnourished. Furthermore, one or two large males were able to escape the snare. If we add those weighed in the decade, the average rises to about 420 pounds. 

The difference now is about 40 pounds. Many would no doubt object, but it is a fact the lack of difference would explain the lack of interaction between adult males of both species. It's too close to call and my guess is wild bears and tigers also got to that conclusion. I of course know there are no average animals in real life, but my take is the differences are way more limited than many think.   


STRENGTH            

As strength is a concept difficult to assess, chances are rumours often enter descriptions. I've seen both in captivity. Adult males are strong. So strong, they feel like iron when you touch them. I did, when I moved and measured them. 

Tigers are athletes, but one often forgets you need a lot of power to wrestle an animal down and keep it there. The canines are used to finish the job, but it can only be done when the power to overcome resistance is there. This ability not only is a result of sheer strength. I also saw something close to aggression, but different. Something difficult to describe. I once saw a demonstration of a male Amur tiger who had been sedated and moved. Although unable to move, he wasn't really out. After I had measured him, he was wide awake. And angry. I will not forget what I heard and saw in the hours that followed. Many of the visitors were so scared, they left. I was the only one left in the audience. More than once, I thought he would destroy the cage. 

Brown bears ooze power. Males in particular were not made to join the Olympics, but to extort and destroy. The facility that had the Amur tiger mentioned above also had a large male brown bear. In spite of his size, he was very wary of the Amur tigers who had just arrived. On the day the Amurs were treated, the bear also was to be treated for a growth. They said they needed about 15 minutes to sedate him. When I entered the room to measure him, I was overrun by those leaving in a hurry. They said he wasn't cooperating. I heard a tornado in the room and saw him fighting the ropes. I decided it would be best to leave him to it. 

That bear was twice the size of the largest male Amur. I do not doubt he would have been victorious in a one-on-one battle on account of his great size, but I also do not doubt any of the males would have attacked him given half a chance. Amur tigers just don't like bears. And bears don't like tigers. Animosity. 


FIGHTS

Based on what I read and saw myself, I got to a number of ideas regarding an encounter between two males of similar size (tiger longer and bear 50-100 pounds heavier).

1 - Bears often are provoking big cats in captivity. Same in wild animals. My guess is the bear will open the negociations more often than not. Initiative bear.

2 - After the first exchanges, the bear will notice the tiger is about equal in strength, but faster. He will also notice he can't leave, whereas a tiger can. Now the initiative is with the tiger. He won't go for the throat, but the neck. In order to get there, speed is used. I've seen adult male tigers jump over an adult human without any effort. In this part of the encounter, it is about trying to get a good position (tiger) and a good defence (bear). Initiative tiger.  

3 - Once the fight is on, the bear needs to prevent the tiger from getting a hold, as this would result in chopped vertebrae. In order to achieve that goal, he needs to move well. A bear is able to do that, because he is more agile than many think. When the tiger is wasting his energy, chances are he will call it a day. A tiger can, but a bear can't. Still psychological advantage tiger.  

4 - In some cases, the fight goes all the way. Which animal would be prepared to take on a dangerous opponent? Tigers would. And brown bears. Although uncommon, deadly fights are not as rare as many think. Many Russian biologists reported on true incidents. When I saw the numbers, I realized it wasn't about isolated incidents. Between 1943-1996, I counted well over a 100, of which 60 went the distance (predatory attacks not included). The real number probably is much higher, as most fights are not witnessed. Based on what I read, I think there are about 1-10 serious fights each year. This means about 5 animals perish in deadly encounters every year. Serious fights, therefore, are uncommon, but not very rare.

5 - Biologists agree tigers do not hunt male brown bears. The main reason is there is no peer-reviewed document with an impeccable decription of both contenders. Those who reported on fights between tigers and bears often were unable to deliver details, let alone undeniable evidence of adult males involved in an all-out. But it is a fact they did find many dead tigers and bears.

Although I agree the evidence they found points towards youngsters, it is a fact there were dead adult tigers and I don't mean a few here and there. Most were strangled. As this takes both skill and strength, chances are adult bears were involved. Same for the dead bears. I do not doubt adults were involved, but I'm only sure about 2 adult male tigers and two adolescents or young adult males. I also found evidence for 3 adult male bears killed in fights. What I read wasn't clean evidence, but it was more than circumstantial evidence. Same for adult female bears and tigresses. There are at least 3 confirmed recent reports of female brown of 150-200 kg. killed by male tigers. My guess is there are much more victims. 

6 - What about those who perished in fights? In nearly all incidents, they were killed by animals who had an advantage. Of the 3 male brown bears, 2 were 'Schatuns' killed in winter by large male tigers. My guess is they were desperate and emaciated. The bear killed in July 1943 was killed by the largest male Amur tiger I know of. Same for the 2 immature or young adult male tiger in that their opponents were described as 'large' or 'very large'. I assume there's no need to discuss the adult females killed by adult males (both species)?   

7 - In the end, authorities should have the last word. In the sixties of the last century, there was a discussion on bears and tigers in Russia. The conclusion was brown bears won on points. The last part ('on points') suggests it is a close call. All agreed a real large male bear would go unchallenged. Of course he would, as size counts in a fight. But in bears, size is a relative concept. What would happen when a big male of 750 pounds in autums who lost a third of his weight during hibernation encountered a male tiger of exceptional size? Both well over 500 pounds in summer. It really happened in July 1943. Maybe the tiger had an advantage. Maybe the bear was old. 

One more remark on that incident. Mazak's info on the tiger was first dismissed, but now seems to have been accepted to an extent. The information on his size, I mean. But the info on the bear he killed wasn't. This most probably will take another three decades.

Another one to finish with. The Tatibe River bear killed in early May 1951 by a tigress. He or she was about 170 kg. in early May. A fat youngster, some thought. A female perhaps, others said. Or an immature male. But Mazak wrote it was an adult male. At 170 kg. or thereabout in May, the bear would have been 20-30% heavier in late autumn. Let's see. I get to 204-221 kg. It could have been a large youngster, a young male or an adult female. But we now know that 3 adult males weighed last autumn were 165, 180 and 235 kg. So it could have been a male as well. Why is it biologists often seem reluctant to publish details? 


RE: Question for Peter - brotherbear - 04-02-2015

A tiger is a very strong and powerful predator. I cannot deny this. A 500 pound Bengal tiger can leap high enough to attack a man riding on the back of an elephant. That's impressive! And yes, a big cat has to pull down and hold very large and powerful herbivores such as buffalo. To do this they have those deeply curved retractable claws and very muscular arms. I can believe that, pound for pound, the tiger is likely as strong as a grizzly; a grizzly at summer weight.
But when the tiger and the brown bear are near equal size in regards to height and length, I will be difficult to convince that their strength might be equal.
At weight parity, I believe that a healthy mature male tiger might defeat a healthy mature male grizzly ( summer weight ) roughly 60% of face-off confrontations. At size parity in regards to height and length, then the odds will favor the bear.
~~From a book by Yudakov and Nikolaev... "Once a very large male tiger ( pad width 13.5 cm ) - ( 5.31 inches ) killed a roe deer and carried it off in its jaws. This was the heaviest load among all of the instances we noted where a tiger carried a prey off the ground. Yet still troughs were left in the snow by the prey's dangling legs stretched along both sides of the tiger tracks. In all, he carried the carcass around 300 meters ( 984 feet ); stopping twice to rest, putting the deer down in the snow." Compare... The Grizzly Almanac by Robert H. Busch. Alberta bear biologist Gordon Stenhouse once watched a large grizzly running effortlessly down a steep mountain slope carrying a 300-pound sheep in its mouth. "The power of these animals is just awesome," he says ( quoted in Struzik, 1999 ). Note: Average weight of a roe deer is from 40 to 70 pounds. When a tiger enthusiast claims that a tiger is equally as strong as a grizzly, he is making an empty bias claim.  Warsaw....   BigBonns wrote:"The Bear McDougal at Brooks was known for once lifting a 700 pound fellow in his jaws and throwing him down as if a bunch of rags." "...As he does so, he lifts the near-700-pound [320-kg] bear clear of the ground and shakes him. The action is occurring in seconds, and I find it hard to believe my eyes. Both bears hit the ground in a tumbling roll. Number 88 has Inge by the neck as he finally regains his feet. He releases his hold and clamps on Inge's jowls, shaking his massive head. Inge rears back, fighting free at the expense of a ripped and bleeding lower jaw..."
http://shaggygod.proboard...ction=display&thread=538*Note: no tiger could lift a 700 pound animal clear off the ground in his jaws and shake him. Such a feat requires a combination of brute strength and leverage.
 


RE: Question for Peter - Pckts - 04-02-2015

(04-02-2015, 01:40 PM)'brotherbear' Wrote: A tiger is a very strong and powerful predator. I cannot deny this. A 500 pound Bengal tiger can leap high enough to attack a man riding on the back of an elephant. That's impressive! And yes, a big cat has to pull down and hold very large and powerful herbivores such as buffalo. To do this they have those deeply curved retractable claws and very muscular arms. I can believe that, pound for pound, the tiger is likely as strong as a grizzly; a grizzly at summer weight.
But when the tiger and the brown bear are near equal size in regards to height and length, I will be difficult to convince that their strength might be equal.
At weight parity, I believe that a healthy mature male tiger might defeat a healthy mature male grizzly ( summer weight ) roughly 60% of face-off confrontations. At size parity in regards to height and length, then the odds will favor the bear.
~~From a book by Yudakov and Nikolaev... "Once a very large male tiger ( pad width 13.5 cm ) - ( 5.31 inches ) killed a roe deer and carried it off in its jaws. This was the heaviest load among all of the instances we noted where a tiger carried a prey off the ground. Yet still troughs were left in the snow by the prey's dangling legs stretched along both sides of the tiger tracks. In all, he carried the carcass around 300 meters ( 984 feet ); stopping twice to rest, putting the deer down in the snow." Compare... The Grizzly Almanac by Robert H. Busch. Alberta bear biologist Gordon Stenhouse once watched a large grizzly running effortlessly down a steep mountain slope carrying a 300-pound sheep in its mouth. "The power of these animals is just awesome," he says ( quoted in Struzik, 1999 ). Note: Average weight of a roe deer is from 40 to 70 pounds. When a tiger enthusiast claims that a tiger is equally as strong as a grizzly, he is making an empty bias claim.  Warsaw....   BigBonns wrote:"The Bear McDougal at Brooks was known for once lifting a 700 pound fellow in his jaws and throwing him down as if a bunch of rags." "...As he does so, he lifts the near-700-pound [320-kg] bear clear of the ground and shakes him. The action is occurring in seconds, and I find it hard to believe my eyes. Both bears hit the ground in a tumbling roll. Number 88 has Inge by the neck as he finally regains his feet. He releases his hold and clamps on Inge's jowls, shaking his massive head. Inge rears back, fighting free at the expense of a ripped and bleeding lower jaw..."
http://shaggygod.proboard...ction=display&thread=538*Note: no tiger could lift a 700 pound animal clear off the ground in his jaws and shake him. Such a feat requires a combination of brute strength and leverage.
 

 



There is way more that goes into comparing animals than one single instance.
I can show you a grizzly unable to drag a moose female and I can show you a tiger dragging a bull gaur.
I can show you fight between a elk and bear where the bear is being shoved by the elk and pulled and a fight between a tiger and gaur where the tiger literally will not budge a inch or a bear tipping a trash bin or smashing a metal trash can, A tiger breaking water buffalo necks so violently that their horns are stuck in the earth.
But what does it matter?
These are just single instances that are one example, but circumstances are what dictates the example. Some tigers carry huge prey through the snow for 100's of meters or through the forest. This is noted time and time again, but its once again going to come down to weight.
A large tiger or bear is stronger than a lighter one. A bear weighing 750lbs should absolutely be stronger than a tiger weighing 480lbs and vice versa.

Edit: One last thing with your example:
How could he know what the bear weighed? Did he weigh it then watch this fight happen?
How much did the bear weigh that rag dolled the other bear?
Etc.

 


RE: Question for Peter - Roflcopters - 04-02-2015

Brotherbear, is there any source for that Mcdougal bear from Brooks? and is that Brooks fall from Katmai National Park? 


RE: Question for Peter - brotherbear - 04-03-2015

~~Pckts, I have watched two separate videos of grizzly bears killing caribou both in a similar situation. Both were small Yukon grizzlies, one a male the other a she-bear with cubs. In both fights, the bear worked himself between the deer's antlers ( something a tiger would never attempt ). If I am remembering right, the she-bear drowned the caribou and the male bear broke the caribou's neck. I have watched tigers feeding on gaur, but yet to see actual footage of the kill.We are not talking about dragging a carcass. But on that topic, grizzlies have been known to drag bison, moose, or huge steers, sometimes up mountain sides. How much weight has a tiger been seen *carrying in his jaws up off the ground? Have you watched a tiger play with a dumpster like it was a beach ball. Can you show me a tiger overturning a one-ton boulder? Grizzlies have been known to break into the side of log cabins and have been known to break into a garage door. They are known to destroy cars, while you are safe in a car from a tiger if your doors are locked.~~Words of Wisdom from Boxingman...  Bears use brute strength and stamina far more than big cats do ...When the bear search for food they use the shoulders,chest and legs to do the job and when he flips over huge stones or trees to get food the bear trains his muscles..The big cats do not work like the bear to get food...Bears do in fact train their body by using power movements all the time and their body structure is as said shorter and more compact which is always better than being long and lean as far as pure strength is concerned. Big cats are built for explosive speed combined with power but the bear is all about explosive power with lesser speed, so the bear has developed more brute strength and sacrificed explosive speed...

 

 


RE: Question for Peter - Pckts - 04-03-2015

(04-03-2015, 02:52 AM)'brotherbear' Wrote: ~~Pckts, I have watched two separate videos of grizzly bears killing caribou both in a similar situation. Both were small Yukon grizzlies, one a male the other a she-bear with cubs. In both fights, the bear worked himself between the deer's antlers ( something a tiger would never attempt ). If I am remembering right, the she-bear drowned the caribou and the male bear broke the caribou's neck. I have watched tigers feeding on gaur, but yet to see actual footage of the kill.We are not talking about dragging a carcass. But on that topic, grizzlies have been known to drag bison, moose, or huge steers, sometimes up mountain sides. How much weight has a tiger been seen *carrying in his jaws up off the ground? Have you watched a tiger play with a dumpster like it was a beach ball. Can you show me a tiger overturning a one-ton boulder? Grizzlies have been known to break into the side of log cabins and have been known to break into a garage door. They are known to destroy cars, while you are safe in a car from a tiger if your doors are locked.~~Words of Wisdom from Boxingman...  Bears use brute strength and stamina far more than big cats do ...When the bear search for food they use the shoulders,chest and legs to do the job and when he flips over huge stones or trees to get food the bear trains his muscles..The big cats do not work like the bear to get food...Bears do in fact train their body by using power movements all the time and their body structure is as said shorter and more compact which is always better than being long and lean as far as pure strength is concerned. Big cats are built for explosive speed combined with power but the bear is all about explosive power with lesser speed, so the bear has developed more brute strength and sacrificed explosive speed...

 

 

 

So you haven't seen the Raja video of him killing a Guar?
No offense but nothing you are saying has to do with strength. You are using examples of bears with out knowing any of their weights, weights of the objects they are moving etc. How am I going to see a Tiger push a dumpster?
It doesn't happen in the wild, they live in two different places where they will never run into these objects.
I have never seen a bear take down large prey with the ease of a tiger, I have seen a bear get in a long drawn out fight with a caribou and be pushed and pulled. I have seen a bear be pounded by domestic cattle and watch Raja kill 3 of them in seconds and they were larger than the cattle that attacked the bear, I have seen raja choke a much larger gaur that is larger than himself in 2 minutes with out being budged. These singular examples are pointless, they have no way of proving anything since the size of the bear or tiger or prey is unknown.
Tigers are notorious for dragging their kills for long periods of time. If you wan't me to find the many accounts of this, that is fine. They are not hard to find, but I know that you have already seen them.

A side note, once again we are talking about animals of the same size. Not 800+lb bears compared to 400+lb tigers.