ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

[peter]

'AMUR TIGER IS LOOKING FOR A BLACK BEAR WHILE A LARGE MALE BROWN BEAR FOLLOWS THIS TRACKS' 

In this short (2:03) video (credits Sergej Kolchin), you can see a male Amur tiger trying to find a hibernating Himalayan black bear in the 2019-2020 winter. Himalayan black bears often select hollows in large trees to hibernate. Amur tigers know and, for this reason, often check large trees in winter. According to the liner notes, the male tiger in the video found, and killed, a young Himalayan black bear hibernating in this tree about a year ago. The tiger obviously remembered the tree where he found the young black bear.

The male Ussuri brown bear was following the tiger. It's likely he knew (male) Amur tigers often try to find hibernating Himalayan black bears in winter. Following a male tiger might produce a dead Himalayan black bear or, more likely (recent research strongly suggests male Ussuri brown bears only very seldom displace male Amur tigers from their kills), the remains left by the tiger. Expressed in time (referring to the liner notes), the distance between the male tiger and the male brown bear following him was about a day.    

The brown bear, by the way, wasn't hibernating, because the crop harvest had been poor in 2019. As a result of a lack of fat, the Ussuri male brown bear was forced to continue to search for food in winter. Meaning he was a 'Schatun'. Not every 'Schatun' is a desperate animal trying to find food at all costs, but chances are every desperate brown bear in winter is a 'Schatun'.    

At the end of the video (01:29-2:01), which was uploaded by 'BiL' a few hours ago, you can see both animals (the male tiger and the male brown bear) side by side. They seem to compare in head and body length, but the male brown bear is a bit taller, more robust and, therefore, significantly heavier:   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2HxgT3vFCA

For those interested: the one who uploaded the video ('BiL'), posted a lot of interesting videos about (interactions between wild) Amur tigers, Himalayan black bears and Ussuri brown bears. Reply

[peter]

'BROWN BEAR INJURED BY TIGRESS'S CLAW WHILE TAKING AWAY HER PREY'

A - About an encounter between an Amur tigress and a brown bear family somewhere in the Khabarovsky Krai 

Some time ago, on another site, there was a brief discussion about an encounter between a brown bear family (an adult female and 3 cubs) and a young Amur tigress. Because of a lack of reliable information, I didn't follow the proceedings. 

A few days ago, I saw a short video uploaded by 'BiL'. After reading the liner notes, I concluded the video most probably showed the main characters of the story I referred to above. This means there really was an encounter between a brown bear family and a tigress somewhere in the Khabarovskiy Krai in the summer of 2024. 

The encounter wasn't captured on camera, but Alexey Gotvansky, the same Gotvansky I referred to in a few older posts (this thread), got wind of it, or heard about it. He decided to place a camera near what could have been the start of the encounter: a young elk allegedly killed by a young tigress. The result was a number of shortish videos. The video discussed in this post seems to be a compilation of different videos. 

B - The video

The short (0:59) video consists of three parts. The first, and longest part, was filmed on June 10, 2024. It shows a female brown bear and her three quite grown cubs. My guess is they were in their second (or third) year. The four brown bears approach what seems to be a cache at 04:49 pm and leave at 04:57 pm. It isn't clear why they leave after 8 minutes only, but judging from the way they behave, they might have been startled by another animal. They seem anxious and leave in a hurry.

A day later, on June 11 2024, the same family was captured by the same camera near the same cache at 09:13 am. This part mainly shows the female brown bear. Or, to be more precise, her nose. It shows a partially healed quite deep hole and a scratch running from the hole to the upper part of her mouth. 

The third and last part of the video was filmed on June 16. It shows a youngish Amur tigress at 05:45 pm. The tigress, quite tall, long and lithe, doesn't seem to fit the surroundings. The reason is the colour of her coat. Her orange is very bright and disagrees with the colours near the cache. One wonders how an animal with such colours is able to approach, let alone kill, other animals in a spring forest loaded with quite dull greenish and brownish colours. The tigress too seems to be quite wary. After sniffing the air for information, she approaches the pitiful remains of what, according to Alexey Gotvansky, was a young elk she killed about a week ago. She lifts the skin and a few bones and leaves.         

C - Liner notes 

Credits: Zapovednoye Priamurye (Reserved Amur Region)/Alexey Gotvansky.    

" ... The body of a young elk was found near the highway. However, there was no killer, only a family of bears who dragged the deer 20 meters away and fed on it. Alexey Gotvansky suggests that there was a skirmish between the animals, as evidenced by the tigress's prey, taken by the bears, and a fresh wound on the bear's muzzle. Based on the tracks, it was possible to establish that that it was either a young male or a female tiger. Later, when the tiger was caught on camera, these guesses were confirmed: it was a young female.

After some time, probably smelling fresh meat, the clubfoot came and interrupted the tiger's meal. Judging by the footage from the camera, a fight even broke out between the animals. One of the mother bears recorded on the video has a fresh deep mark from a claw on her nose. The tiger probably tried to defend it's prey, however, the forces were unequal ... " - notes Gotvansky. 

The liner notes speak for themselves. 

There's one sentence that is a bit confusing. I'm referring to the sentence that starts with 'One of the mother bears' (in the second part of the quote). It suggests the cache was visited by two (different) bear families. The second part of the video, however, shows the same bear family as in the first part. Meaning there was one bear family only. I assume that part of the sentence was the result of a mistake. It could be 'BiL' was trying to say 'One of the bears' or 'The mother bear recorded on the video'. Most unfortunately, he seemed to have combined both sentences. The result is a bit of (unintended) confusion. All clear?    

D - Interpretation of the video  

In early June 2024, a local or an employee of the Zapovednoye Priamursky found the body of a young elk near a highway. Maybe Gotvansky found the body himself. Anyhow. When he found the body, or, more likely, the cache, he decided to install a camera. In the period between June 10 and June 16, both the brown bear family and the young tigress were captured on film. A combination of the footage was used to produce the video that was uploaded by 'BiL'.

When he inspected the cache, Gotvansky saw prints of the members of the bear family and what could have been a young male tiger or a tigress. The video confirmed it was a (young) tigress. The question was what had happened. Combining his experience, knowledge and the information at hand, Gotvansky concluded the young elk had been killed by the tigress. Although it can't be completely excluded the bear family witnessed the kill, it's much more likely their great nose informed them about an incident involving a tiger and an elk not too far away. Meaning diner was being served. 

Rumour has it bears are quite, ehhh, food-orientated. Meaning a (tiger) kill will attract any bear within nose distance. That, of course, doesn't mean a bear will try to displace an adult tiger on his or her kill. Recent research, in fact, strongly suggests even large bears only seldom displace tigresses. It is, on the other hand, also well known most fights between bears and tigers in the Russian Far East happened near kill sites. I'm referring to tiger kills. Yet another example of two conclusions opposing each other. How solve? My proposal is to assume bears of all ages and sizes, research or no research, are prepared to approach a tiger kill no matter what. Read Tkatchenko's study to find out a bit more. 

Tigers are elusive animals. They don't like to be seen and distinsguish between individuals and a crowd. A bear family is a crowd. Meaning chances are a tiger will leave when faced with multiple scavengers. The young tigress, judging from the scratch on the nose of the female brown bear, didn't take it lying down, but there most probably never was a lengthy dispute. The hole (one, not two) on her muzzle strongly suggests the female brown bear was slapped, but that was about it. Judging from what I saw in encounters between captive predators of different species, the nose very often is a favorite target in a 'slap-out'. A big cat only very seldom uses his teeth in a first encounter. My guess is it wasn't very different in the discussion between the young tigress and the female brown bear. The tigress showed her displeasure and left. But, judging from the last part fo the video, not quite.    

That, however, doesn't mean the scratch was just a scratch. Large predators do not seem to feel pain in a fight, but they do appreciate the ability of their opponent to cause damage. Not on the day of the encounter, but later. In this sense, even a 'slap-out' has meaning. And that is the meaning of a brief discussion most of the time. In captive predators. But my guess is it isn't very different in their wild relatives. If anything, they're more careful. The reason is they can't afford a serious injury. A serious fight very often is the result of a serious problem. And a serious problem usually has a history. Meaning it started well before the encounter.  

A wild tiger will engage a scavenger interested in his kill, but not at all costs. A tiger only is prepared to go all the way when a pattern develops that threatens it's livelyhood. Patterns of this type are seen in different regions. In order to get rid of the pack following them all the time, male pumas in some regions kill twice on a hunt: one animal for the wolves and one animal for himself. Hyenas have displaced lions in some regions. The wars between them at times resulted in the collapse of a pride. Leopards lose kills to lions, tigers and wild dogs. There are cases of Amur tigresses with cubs that have been followed and 'extorded' by large male brown bears, meaning they were more or less forced to kill twice for the same reason male pumas felt forced to kill twice. 

A tiger is different from other big cats in that it doesn't face a pack of scavengers. Tigers, and Amur tigers in particular, are sometimes followed and robbed by large bears. I'm not only referring to tigresses with cubs, but also to young adult males and old tigers. There's not a lot known about males followed and robbed by large bears, but I don't doubt it happens. Members of animal forums, when discussing these scenarios, often select large males of both species, but chances are these 'satellite bears' target vulnarable animals walking the edge. Some male tigers no doubt are seriously injured or killed if they confront a large male brown bear. Kostoglod said vulnarable male tigers killed by satellite bears didn't get the opportunity to develop into cattlelifters or man-eaters. He has a point, but my guess is incidents of this nature are few. Too few to have an impact on the behaviour of male tigers facing hardship. 

Same for serious encounters between healthy males of both species. Makes sense, because a tiger in particular needs to be fit enough to hunt. And yet. There's reliable information about male tigers deliberately confronting male brown bears of similar size. In his great book 'The Tiger', Vaillant said fights of this nature could be about principle. It doesn't fit the pattern described above (referring to other big cat species facing packs of scavengers) and then it does in that the tiger also faces competition. Not from packs, but from large bears. The competition, I think, ultimately is about food and livelyhood. Existence. If a tiger accepts some of his kills will be appropiated by a large bear, chances are a pattern will develop over time. A pattern that can have serious consequences. If a male tiger wants to prevent them, discussions with those interested in his kills can't be avoided. 

Is the situation different for tigresses? Not really. They too face competition from bears and they too have to learn to deal with bears. In this respect, it's do or die. The difference between tigers and other big cats is tigers are solitary animals. They either develop or perish. In a way, one could say all adult tigers, males and females, are survivors. True apex predators. Members of animal forums often focus on size. Only few are interested in the mental development of large predators and the difference in this respect between different species. Not seldom, the results are misinterpretations and incorrect conclusions. Behaviour, however, not only is an expression of character (personality). It also depends on the conditions. 

Returning to the video.     

Am I close regarding my remark about the real meaning of a 'scratch only'? Watch the video closely and do it again. Pay attention to the behaviour of the bears. There are many small signs expressing their mood. Are you able to distinguish between anxiety, anger, confidence and fear? Pay attention to the second part of the video, when you see a close-up of the female brown bear. It seems to be about her nose, but is it? What do you see and feel? The bears are wary when they approach the cache. They don't seem to feel any different when they leave. The tigress is wary as well, but she's also angry. It's experiences of this nature that affect the attitude of young adult Amur tigers. 

You can also see, and feel, it in captive animals. Tigers, and Amur tigers in particular, don't like brown bears and brown bears know. This conclusion isn't a result of an opinion, but a result of a lot of observations and quite a few interviews with keepers and trainers. I don't doubt there are many exceptions to this rule, but based on what I saw, heard and read, I'd say there's no love lost between these two and it starts at an early age. There there are many examples of young Amur tigers defending their kill against bears. The young male tiger known as 'Putin's tiger' isn't the only example.   

Was Gotvansky, regarding his conclusion, close? Based on the video and the additional information in the liner notes, my guess is he was. I've read a lot of reports he wrote after he returned from trips that often lasted for days. In my opinion, he's an able and very reliable observer loaded with experience and knowledge.       

E - Link to the video

Here's the link to the video. If you're interested, watch it more than once on different days. Make notes and when you're finished try to find people who invested time in animals, their emotions and their behaviour. You can also find books written by those who know a few things about the behaviour of (captive and wild) animals. One of them is 'Weisse Löwen müssen sterben - Spielregeln der Macht im Tierreich' (Dröscher, VB, Rasch und Röhring Verlag, Hamburg, 1989), but there are many others. Dröscher, by the way, studied zoology and psychology.        

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgnP5-JlnuA Reply

[Apex Titan]

(01-13-2025, 05:06 AM)peter Wrote: 'BROWN BEAR INJURED BY TIGRESS'S CLAW WHILE TAKING AWAY HER PREY'

A - About an encounter between an Amur tigress and a brown bear family somewhere in the Khabarovsky Krai 

Some time ago, on another site, there was a brief discussion about an encounter between a brown bear family (an adult female and 3 cubs) and a young Amur tigress. Because of a lack of reliable information, I didn't follow the proceedings. 

A few days ago, I saw a short video uploaded by 'BiL'. After reading the liner notes, I concluded the video most probably showed the main characters of the story I referred to above. This means there really was an encounter between a brown bear family and a tigress somewhere in the Khabarovskiy Krai in the summer of 2024. 

The encounter wasn't captured on camera, but Alexey Gotvansky, the same Gotvansky I referred to in a few older posts (this thread), got wind of it, or heard about it. He decided to place a camera near what could have been the start of the encounter: a young elk allegedly killed by a young tigress. The result was a number of shortish videos. The video discussed in this post seems to be a compilation of different videos. 

B - The video

The short (0:59) video consists of three parts. The first, and longest part, was filmed on June 10, 2024. It shows a female brown bear and her three quite grown cubs. My guess is they were in their second (or third) year. The four brown bears approach what seems to be a cache at 04:49 pm and leave at 04:57 pm. It isn't clear why they leave after 8 minutes only, but judging from the way they behave, they might have been startled by another animal. They seem anxious and leave in a hurry.

A day later, on June 11 2024, the same family was captured by the same camera near the same cache at 09:13 am. This part mainly shows the female brown bear. Or, to be more precise, her nose. It shows a partially healed quite deep hole and a scratch running from the hole to the upper part of her mouth. 

The third and last part of the video was filmed on June 16. It shows a youngish Amur tigress at 05:45 pm. The tigress, quite tall, long and lithe, doesn't seem to fit the surroundings. The reason is the colour of her coat. Her orange is very bright and disagrees with the colours near the cache. One wonders how an animal with such colours is able to approach, let alone kill, other animals in a spring forest loaded with quite dull greenish and brownish colours. The tigress too seems to be quite wary. After sniffing the air for information, she approaches the pitiful remains of what, according to Alexey Gotvansky, was a young elk she killed about a week ago. She lifts the skin and a few bones and leaves.         

C - Liner notes 

Credits: Zapovednoye Priamurye (Reserved Amur Region)/Alexey Gotvansky.    

" ... The body of a young elk was found near the highway. However, there was no killer, only a family of bears who dragged the deer 20 meters away and fed on it. Alexey Gotvansky suggests that there was a skirmish between the animals, as evidenced by the tigress's prey, taken by the bears, and a fresh wound on the bear's muzzle. Based on the tracks, it was possible to establish that that it was either a young male or a female tiger. Later, when the tiger was caught on camera, these guesses were confirmed: it was a young female.

After some time, probably smelling fresh meat, the clubfoot came and interrupted the tiger's meal. Judging by the footage from the camera, a fight even broke out between the animals. One of the mother bears recorded on the video has a fresh deep mark from a claw on her nose. The tiger probably tried to defend it's prey, however, the forces were unequal ... " - notes Gotvansky. 

The liner notes speak for themselves. 

There's one sentence that is a bit confusing. I'm referring to the sentence that starts with 'One of the mother bears' (in the second part of the quote). It suggests the cache was visited by two (different) bear families. The second part of the video, however, shows the same bear family as in the first part. Meaning there was one bear family only. I assume that part of the sentence was the result of a mistake. It could be 'BiL' was trying to say 'One of the bears' or 'The mother bear recorded on the video'. Most unfortunately, he seemed to have combined both sentences. The result is a bit of (unintended) confusion. All clear?    

D - Interpretation of the video  

In early June 2024, a local or an employee of the Zapovednoye Priamursky found the body of a young elk near a highway. Maybe Gotvansky found the body himself. Anyhow. When he found the body, or, more likely, the cache, he decided to install a camera. In the period between June 10 and June 16, both the brown bear family and the young tigress were captured on film. A combination of the footage was used to produce the video that was uploaded by 'BiL'.

When he inspected the cache, Gotvansky saw prints of the members of the bear family and what could have been a young male tiger or a tigress. The video confirmed it was a (young) tigress. The question was what had happened. Combining his experience, knowledge and the information at hand, Gotvansky concluded the young elk had been killed by the tigress. Although it can't be completely excluded the bear family witnessed the kill, it's much more likely their great nose informed them about an incident involving a tiger and an elk not too far away. Meaning diner was being served. 

Rumour has it bears are quite, ehhh, food-orientated. Meaning a (tiger) kill will attract any bear within nose distance. That, of course, doesn't mean a bear will try to displace an adult tiger on his or her kill. Recent research, in fact, strongly suggests even large bears only seldom displace tigresses. It is, on the other hand, also well known most fights between bears and tigers in the Russian Far East happened near kill sites. I'm referring to tiger kills. Yet another example of two conclusions opposing each other. How solve? My proposal is to assume bears of all ages and sizes, research or no research, are prepared to approach a tiger kill no matter what. Read Tkatchenko's study to find out a bit more. 

Tigers are elusive animals. They don't like to be seen and distinsguish between individuals and a crowd. A bear family is a crowd. Meaning chances are a tiger will leave when faced with multiple scavengers. The young tigress, judging from the scratch on the nose of the female brown bear, didn't take it lying down, but there most probably never was a lengthy dispute. The hole (one, not two) on her muzzle strongly suggests the female brown bear was slapped, but that was about it. Judging from what I saw in encounters between captive predators of different species, the nose very often is a favorite target in a 'slap-out'. A big cat only very seldom uses his teeth in a first encounter. My guess is it wasn't very different in the discussion between the young tigress and the female brown bear. The tigress showed her displeasure and left. But, judging from the last part fo the video, not quite.    

That, however, doesn't mean the scratch was just a scratch. Large predators do not seem to feel pain in a fight, but they do appreciate the ability of their opponent to cause damage. Not on the day of the encounter, but later. In this sense, even a 'slap-out' has meaning. And that is the meaning of a brief discussion most of the time. In captive predators. But my guess is it isn't very different in their wild relatives. If anything, they're more careful. The reason is they can't afford a serious injury. A serious fight very often is the result of a serious problem. And a serious problem usually has a history. Meaning it started well before the encounter.  

A wild tiger will engage a scavenger interested in his kill, but not at all costs. A tiger only is prepared to go all the way when a pattern develops that threatens it's livelyhood. Patterns of this type are seen in different regions. In order to get rid of the pack following them all the time, male pumas in some regions kill twice on a hunt: one animal for the wolves and one animal for himself. Hyenas have displaced lions in some regions. The wars between them at times resulted in the collapse of a pride. Leopards lose kills to lions, tigers and wild dogs. There are cases of Amur tigresses with cubs that have been followed and 'extorded' by large male brown bears, meaning they were more or less forced to kill twice for the same reason male pumas felt forced to kill twice. 

A tiger is different from other big cats in that it doesn't face a pack of scavengers. Tigers, and Amur tigers in particular, are sometimes followed and robbed by large bears. I'm not only referring to tigresses with cubs, but also to young adult males and old tigers. There's not a lot known about males followed and robbed by large bears, but I don't doubt it happens. Members of animal forums, when discussing these scenarios, often select large males of both species, but chances are these 'satellite bears' target vulnarable animals walking the edge. Some male tigers no doubt are seriously injured or killed if they confront a large male brown bear. Kostoglod said vulnarable male tigers killed by satellite bears didn't get the opportunity to develop into cattlelifters or man-eaters. He has a point, but my guess is incidents of this nature are few. Too few to have an impact on the behaviour of male tigers facing hardship. 

Same for serious encounters between healthy males of both species. Makes sense, because a tiger in particular needs to be fit enough to hunt. And yet. There's reliable information about male tigers deliberately confronting male brown bears of similar size. In his great book 'The Tiger', Vaillant said fights of this nature could be about principle. It doesn't fit the pattern described above (referring to other big cat species facing packs of scavengers) and then it does in that the tiger also faces competition. Not from packs, but from large bears. The competition, I think, ultimately is about food and livelyhood. Existence. If a tiger accepts some of his kills will be appropiated by a large bear, chances are a pattern will develop over time. A pattern that can have serious consequences. If a male tiger wants to prevent them, discussions with those interested in his kills can't be avoided. 

Is the situation different for tigresses? Not really. They too face competition from bears and they too have to learn to deal with bears. In this respect, it's do or die. The difference between tigers and other big cats is tigers are solitary animals. They either develop or perish. In a way, one could say all adult tigers, males and females, are survivors. True apex predators. Members of animal forums often focus on size. Only few are interested in the mental development of large predators and the difference in this respect between different species. Not seldom, the results are misinterpretations and incorrect conclusions. Behaviour, however, not only is an expression of character (personality). It also depends on the conditions. 

Returning to the video.     

Am I close regarding my remark about the real meaning of a 'scratch only'? Watch the video closely and do it again. Pay attention to the behaviour of the bears. There are many small signs expressing their mood. Are you able to distinguish between anxiety, anger, confidence and fear? Pay attention to the second part of the video, when you see a close-up of the female brown bear. It seems to be about her nose, but is it? What do you see and feel? The bears are wary when they approach the cache. They don't seem to feel any different when they leave. The tigress is wary as well, but she's also angry. It's experiences of this nature that affect the attitude of young adult Amur tigers. 

You can also see, and feel, it in captive animals. Tigers, and Amur tigers in particular, don't like brown bears and brown bears know. This conclusion isn't a result of an opinion, but a result of a lot of observations and quite a few interviews with keepers and trainers. I don't doubt there are many exceptions to this rule, but based on what I saw, heard and read, I'd say there's no love lost between these two and it starts at an early age. There there are many examples of young Amur tigers defending their kill against bears. The young male tiger known as 'Putin's tiger' isn't the only example.   

Was Gotvansky, regarding his conclusion, close? Based on the video and the additional information in the liner notes, my guess is he was. I've read a lot of reports he wrote after he returned from trips that often lasted for days. In my opinion, he's an able and very reliable observer loaded with experience and knowledge.       

E - Link to the video

Here's the link to the video. If you're interested, watch it more than once on different days. Make notes and when you're finished try to find people who invested time in animals, their emotions and their behaviour. You can also find books written by those who know a few things about the behaviour of (captive and wild) animals. One of them is 'Weisse Löwen müssen sterben - Spielregeln der Macht im Tierreich' (Dröscher, VB, Rasch und Röhring Verlag, Hamburg, 1989), but there are many others. Dröscher, by the way, studied zoology and psychology.        

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgnP5-JlnuA

I think this case is once again a good example of the difference in weaponry between tigers and brown bears.

This was a fight between a young tigress and an adult female brown bear, and yet the young tigress was able to inflict such damage to the brown bear's face, while not getting injured in the fight. It was most likely a short tussle, however, as in most cases, its the tiger who inflicts the damage, not vice versa. This is very telling.

If the young tigress did just slap the brown bear's face, as you assume, then it shows the damage a young tigress can do to an adult brown bear with a single swipe to the face. And highlights the deadly and superior weaponry of the tiger.

I've read numerous accounts of both short and prolonged fights between tigers and bears, in which the bears were either killed, or severely mauled and injured, while the tigers were totally unharmed. In one case, a large male sloth bear was mauled and injured so badly in a fight by a tiger, that the villagers shot the bear to put it out of its misery. The bear was just gonna die a slow and very painful death. Was the tiger injured after the fight? No, he was totally fine.

Odyr had a long, serious fight against a larger adult male brown bear, and yet, only received minor damage to one of his front paws, and was fine afterwards. Whereas the big male bear was killed and eaten. The male tiger Dima killed a large brown bear sow of similar size in a prolonged, intense fight, and yet was not injured after the battle. Another male tiger in August 2001, killed a large female brown bear (150 - 200 kg) in a prolonged serious fight, and only received a minor wound. Corbett reported a fight between a really huge (biggest Himalayan bear he had ever seen) male Himalayan black bear (most likely well over 200 kg) and a male tiger, in which the huge bear was severely mauled, it was scalped right to the bone and its nose torn in half. And despite the exceptional size of the bear, the tiger wasn't injured at all from the fight.

These are just few of many other cases I've read. As Vaillant notes in his book, a bear's claws are designed for digging and traction, they're blunt and not specialized killing weapons. A tiger's claws are much more lethal and solely designed for fighting, mauling and killing, and are needle sharp, which can quickly and efficiently disembowel and tear an animal apart. This is why tigers are able to single-handedly attack and maul even adult elephants and rhinos to death.

Although bears are predatory animals to a certain extent, they lack the deadly weaponry of a pure specialized predator like big cats. And of course, there's absolutely no comparison in canine size, as even tigresses and young tigers have canines that dwarf the canine size of even the largest brown bears. Bears also have blunter canines than big cats, whereas the tiger also has the largest canines of all the worlds extant terrestrial predators.

All in all, big cats possess much more lethal and effective weaponry for fighting and killing than bears do. And this has been demonstrated many times in fights between tigers and bears of various subspecies, and also explains why there's not a single documented case in history, of a bear ever killing a similar sized big cat, especially a tiger in a fight. In all cases, the tiger always killed and ate the bears. Reply

[peter]

CONFLICTS BETWEEN TIGER AND MAN IN NORTHEAST ASIA - 1 - PRESENT SITUATION

a - Introduction

In 1992, the Siberian Tiger Project (STP) was launched. It was a joint effort of Russian and American biologists to remove the veil covering the famous, but largely unknown, Siberian tiger. The first aim of the project was to study this elusive big cat and inform the general public about the results. The second, and most important, aim was to save it from extinction. In order to get there, reliable information was needed. 

Back then, in the nineties of the previous century, the number of tigers living in that part of the Russian Federation was limited. Nearly all tigers lived in the Maritime Province, Primorye. Over the years, many reports were published. In order to create more room for the tiger, new national parks and reserves were created. After some years, China was involved in the project. It's not clear if they breed in North Korea, but there's overwhelming evidence tigers now visit the most northern districts of this country. 

Anti-poaching teams were created. Tigers were counted. Articles about tigers appeared in local newspapers. Some years later, articles about the Siberian tiger, now known as the Amur tiger, were published in well-known newspapers and magazins all over the world. Children in the Russian Far East were educated. A Tiger Day was created. Documentaries appeared. A few at first, but more followed in the first decades of this century. At the Tiger Meetings, countries that still had tigers pledged to double the number of tigers. In order to reach that goal, political support was needed. The main supporter of the effort to save the Amur tiger from extinction was, and still is, President Putin of the Russian Federation. The Russians started their own project ('The Amur Tiger Programme') in 2008.     

As a result of the effort to save the tiger, the population started to increase. There's not much information about the situation in Sumatra and southeast Asia, but in India the population nearly doubled between 2010-2024. In Bhutan and Nepal, the population also increased in that period. Same for China. The Russian Federation, however, topped the list. In 2022, biologists estimated there were at least 750 tigers in the Russian Far East. This, mind you, is without North Korea and China. Today, there could be close to a thousand tigers in these countries.    

b - The results of more tigers 

Tigers are territorial, meaning they have a home range they only seldom leave. An adult male needs about 30-40 large (100 kg or more) prey animals a year. In most of southern and southeastern Asia, tigers live in, or close to, protected reserves. Most of these reserves (referring to India and Nepal in particular) are well-stocked, meaning an adult male tiger needs 40-80 square km to survive. If the population increases, youngsters in these reserves often have no other option but to move to the fringes. More often than not, these reseerves are surrounded by villages. Not a few villagers graze their animals in the reserve. They also use the reserve to collect firewoord. The result is confrontations with big cats. In Nepal and India, dozens of villagers are killed every year.  

The Russian Far East is very different from India and Nepal. Although the number of reserves and national parks is smaller, they're usually larger. Furthermore, in most cases, they're not surrounded by villages, but forest. If we add the human population in the Russian Far East is small, and, if anything, decreasing, chances are there should be enough room for both in the forest. In 'normal' conditions, this assumption is confirmed in that the number of conflicts is very limited. But life always is a bit different from assumptions and statistics. In 'normal' conditions, tigers are able to find enough food in the forest. The forests in the Russian Far East, preyanimalwise, are not as rich as those in southern Asia, but tigers adapted in that their territories are larger. Energy deficits, for that reason, are uncommon. But it's a close call at the best of times. In the Russian Far East, as a result of the conditions (also referring to the long and harsh winters), most hunters have a solitary lifestyle. 

But what if the conditions change? Not for a season, but for a more extended period of time? And what if the conditions change permanently because of a number of fateful decisions? 

A forest is a very complex and vulnarable system. Compared to a plain or a savannah, it's poor even at the best of times. This is the reason even pristine forests are relatively empty. I'm not saying large animals are few and far between, but it's close. Densities are low and competition between predators in particular is intense. The forest in the Russian Far East is a bit different, because it's situated on a crossroads. In that region, the arctic, the tropics and the sea meet. This is the reason weather changes  not seldom are abrupt and quite violent. Winters are long and harsh as a rule, but climate change is everywhere and it's, no matter what politicians say, very real. That's still apart from crop failures (not uncommon), diseases that decimate numerous species (not uncommon), roads (common), logging (common), hunting (common), poaching (common) and less budget for anti-poaching teams and research (not uncommon). If we add wars (common), a sudden increase of the number of large apex predators as a result of a (political) decision, chances are problems will erupt sooner or later. 

It starts, I think, with the forest. A true forest is an uninterrupted collection of trees. Trees are living organisms, meaning they respond to the conditions. Only mature (adult) trees will produce crops. If they're revoved, it will affect the production of crops. Less forest products means animals depending on them have no option but to find greener pastures. Meaning those hunting them need more time and energy to find them. Meaning adult large predators need larger territories. A century ago, mass migration of tigers were not uncommon. If tigers are unable to migrate or adapt in another way, the most likely result will be an energy deficit. Starvation. This in a region well known for deficits because of the long and harsh winters, meaning it might tip the balance. Just enough to create starvation and desperation. Alternatives are few. One option is to follow migrating herds of prey animals. Still happens today (referring to recent reports of Alexej Gotvansky from the reserves and national parks in the Chabarowsky Krai). Tigers can also decided to enter villages in order to hunt domestic animals. When a large predator able to kill a human enters a village to hunt dogs, cows or horses, chances are humans will be targeted sooner or later as well. This is how man-eaters are made. Jim Corbett maintained man-eaters do not educate their cubs in this department, but there's enough evidence to conclude this is not always the case.                                  

I'm not suggesting the balance in the Russian Far East is rapidly collapsing, but it's clear the increasing number of tigers, as a result of opening up the forest, logging, crop failures, poaching and desperation (hunger), has resulted in problems in a number of districts. More often than not, dogs are targeted. It's, however, also clear some individuals lost their fear of humans. In the last decade, the number of attacks on humans has increased. People have been deliberately hunted and eaten. The result is fear and a loss of support for those trying to protect the tiger.     

c - Video

In the last years, I saw a number of videos about the problems discussed in this post. The video in this post ('Amur tigers terrorize villages in the Far East. Who's to blame?'), although quite long (35:55), is interesting. It was oploaded about a year ago by 'Spectrum' (translated from Russian): 
    
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ4r_no8_y8&t=16s

In the next posts, more videos will be uploaded. If interested, my advice is to make a few notes. Don't wait too long, because most videos I saw were removed within a year. 

d - Future posts

The aim of this series is to discuss the relationship between tigers and humans in the Russian Far East, Manchuria and Korea in the last century. In order to get there, I'll post a number of articles and pages of books written by those who hunted in North Kortea, Manchuria and the Russian Far East. Reply