+- 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: I don't understand (/topic-i-don-t-understand)
I don't understand - faess - 05-30-2015
This forum seems moderated well enough to have a debate thread on interspecies fights, so why not make a strict forum on animal fights? Not only will it bring more traffic in the forum, but it will create more chances to learn specific studies and feats of animals that is not very discussed here. Isn't that what this board is all about?
RE: I don't understand - peter - 05-30-2015
No. Here's why.
The intention is to create a stage for those without a voice. We want to inform the public about the world and the plight of animals walking the edge. There are many and they are not heard. We want to concentrate on issues neglected, ignored or dismissed by biologists. Discussing the outcome of hypothetical encounters between animals who do not meet in natural conditions compares to starting a forum about the disadvantages of, say, guns and starting debates about the advantages in order to attract traffic. It can only result in a loss of focus, a loss of credibility and destruction.
Another reason is fights attract posters we don't want. If there's one thing we learned in the past, it's that those interested in debates about (hypothetical) fights often use debates to start a war themselves. In the majority of cases it will result in a bad climate, tension and overactive mods first and destruction later. Remember all of us (owners and mods) have plenty of experience in this department. The first thing we agreed on after the destruction of AVA was no more debates about fights.
The third reason is of a different nature. We want to create something different. One way to get there is to avoid competition. How assess competition? You visit other forums. We did. And what did we see? Most forums are loaded with (hypothetical) fights and one-sentence posts. What those participating really want, is to start a fire.
I agree well-informed and well-trained posters should be able to discuss (the possible outcome of) encounters between animals, but experience says it is close to impossible. Most of those interested in animals are interested in one animal in particular. In many cases, they feel strongly connected to their favorite. So much so, that a debate about encounters with other animals is close to impossible. Some use one-sentence posts loaded with ammunition for 8-inch guns, but I know well-trained professionals who, although they hide behind peer-reviewed documents and logic, have even larger shells. That's just the way it is.
One more remark to finish with. When we started, we had no clue as to what to expect. Tomorrow or the day after, the number of hits will exceed one million. This in 14 months only. It means we are doing something right and my guess is no fights, strict moderation and quality are the most important factors. If I was asked to choose one of the three, I'd say quality. If you visit our forum and read a few posts, no matter what thread, chances are you will feel commitment and real interest sooner or later. The invisible world of animals apparently is interesting for many. Maybe visitors also appreciate the absence of malice.
We have a few threads which have posts about (the outcome of) encounters between different species, but they inhabit the same region and really meet on a regular basis. There's nothing hypothetical about encounters between Amur tigers and Amur brown bears in wild Russia. If you want to talk about hypotheticals and fights between animals who do not meet in natural conditions, I would advice to visit other forums.
Regards on behalf of Sanjay, Apollo, Guate and Tigerluver,
Peter.
RE: I don't understand - brotherbear - 05-30-2015
Peter, this might be a tad off topic but, I have seen numerous documentaries concerning the 'lion vs hyena war' and the 'lion vs buffalo war' as well as these topics in a few books. But never 'tiger vs brown bear' in books nor documentatry. It's as though the world is unaware. Any thoughts?
RE: I don't understand - Pckts - 05-30-2015
(05-30-2015, 04:29 PM)'brotherbear' Wrote: Peter, this might be a tad off topic but, I have seen numerous documentaries concerning the 'lion vs hyena war' and the 'lion vs buffalo war' as well as these topics in a few books. But never 'tiger vs brown bear' in books nor documentatry. It's as though the world is unaware. Any thoughts?
If enough footage between Tiger vs Brown bears existed and they made a documentary you could bet that it would be discussed and shown here, but other than the minimal accounts that exist that are reliable there's just not enough footage.
They really can't even make a good Amur tiger doc, footage is to hard to come by, their habitat is to vast and tracking them is far to hard. I'm sure they could make a Sloth bear vs Tiger doc, if they wanted but even then, we have probably seen most of the encounters already.
RE: I don't understand - brotherbear - 05-31-2015
The problem is very likely money. It takes people being interested enough to finance a scientific study in the field. I would imagine that a tiger would be more than difficult to track. But what if a big male grizzly was darted and tagged with a tracking device? Then, expert trackers could trail behind the bear at a safe distance. Of course, we are talking about a black grizzly living within an Amur tiger's hunting range. With a bit of luck, they might discover when the bear scavenges a tiger kill or possibly where the bear displaces a tiger from a carcass. Evidence of any interaction might, with a lot of luck involved, be discovered. Such a study would be difficult, but not impossible.
I would not be surprised that some day we find that Russia has made such studies.
RE: I don't understand - GuateGojira - 05-31-2015
I think there is a little misconception here. The tracking via radiocollars is not about following an animal directly of "homing" the animal. The use of radiocollars is about triangulation and inference via quantitative data based in statistical evaluations, with the least direct contact with the animal itself. This is the best way to use the radiocollars, which is the least invasive method as you enter in contact with the animal only once and latter you leave it and you do the rest without touching the animal or interfering in its life. This is the method used by Tiger scientists at least, described in this form by Fiona Sunquist, Dr Ragu Chundawat and Dr Dale Miquelle. Imagine to follow every tiger, every day, in the big area of the Russian Far East, it is logistically impossible, unless you have about 4 people for each tiger, with they own car or helicopter, working the 24 hours, simply impossible.
In this case, tiger and bear interaction in Russia would be studied after the events, or maybe in a "very lucky" sight of the situation.
RE: I don't understand - brotherbear - 05-31-2015
I agree. Reading the signs after interactions or after a bear scavenges from a kill is not the same as filming a lion interacting with buffaloes and hyenas; but IMO would be better than nothing.
I am not talking about human interferance here, other than the initial collaring.
RE: I don't understand - GuateGojira - 05-31-2015
Don't worry Brotherbear, I understand you. But I was pointing out about how radiocollars are/or most be used. I am not aware about how they are used in other animals (and is irrelevant in this topic), but about tigers, that is the form.