There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
(11-03-2015, 05:52 AM)brotherbear Wrote: My views and opinions on the topic of grizzly vs tiger are far less fanatical than in years gone by. We live, we learn, and we grow. Some call it flip-flopping; I call it advancing.
First of all, let's look at the players. The grizzly is not truly territorial. A mature male grizzly will claim a large expanse of land to roam as he forages for various food sources and for female bears. There can be numerous adult male bears sharing this same expanse of land. However, there will normally be that one dominant male who will violently defend his choice food supplies such as a lush berry patch or a rich fishing location. This king grizzly will always be a big, strong, battle-scared brute of a bear.
The tiger is a true territorial predator. He will lay claim to a huge expanse of land and defend his property by fighting off all other male tigers and by removing other predators of large prey. He doesn't appreciate competition. This king tiger will always be a large and powerful hunter and fighter.
So, what happens when the king grizzly roams into the king tiger's domain? This is my opinion; it is only an opinion: If the tiger manages to launch an unexpected ambush upon the grizzly, thus giving the big cat the intial advantage, the tiger has better than a 50% chance of defeating the grizzly. If the grizzly should manage to launch an unexpected ambush attack on the tiger, then the grizzly has better than a 50% chance of defeating the tiger. Should these two lords of the wild go at it in a face-to-face battle royal, then it is my opinion that the grizzly will defeat the tiger better than 50% of such confrontations.
But, as Peter has pointed out, and after giving the matter a great deal of thought, I must agree; if the tiger should come to realize that he is losing to the bear, with his superior agility, the tiger has a fair chance of escaping from the clutches of the grizzly and retreating. In the wild, there is no shame in a life-saving retreat. If the bear should find himself on the losing end of this fight, he has little chance of escaping from the tiger. Retreat for the bear would be difficult considering the big cat's deeply curved claws designed to hold onto powerful struggling herbivores.
Therefore, even when the grizzly is victorious in this fight, the tiger will perhaps more often as not escape with his life. But, when the tiger wins the fight, more often as not, the grizzly will be killed and eaten. I must also add that, the winner of this fight will seldom if ever walk away without some gruesome and perhaps life-threatening battle scars.
Interesting theory brotherbear but usually territorial behaviour is usually towards conspecifics versus other species, having said that fights do occur between tigers and bears throughout Asia and usually the tiger presses the attack when it has a size advantage of around 100 lbs or greater, sometimes less, usually tigers avoid large male brown bears as a quick kill in a surprise attack is more difficult, and the chance of winning a protracted struggle is small ..bears are immensely strong animals built for fighting more than the more agile, intelligent, better hunters ( Felids). A 250 kg plus bear will displace any tiger from its kill.
King tiger as you said will attempt to eliminate other predators but bears are mainly vegetarian and do not pose the same level of competition like leopards , dholes, and wolves.