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

[peter]

GHENGIS

In my previous post, I addressed a post of a new member ridiculing your post on tigers and wild boars in the thread 'On the Edge of Extinction - Part A - The Tiger (Panthera tigris'). In that post, I said you can post about tigers and bears, provided it is new information. I also adviced you to check your sources before posting.

Based on what you posted after that post, the conclusion is you used the support you got to post outright misinformation (in the thread 'Tiger Predation') and something quite close to that in this thread (referring to your post on tigers and bears).

As a result, I'm forced to invest more time in things I want to avoid at all costs. I'm now done with cleaning the mess. Stay away from this thread for now (see the last paragraph). 

Below, I'll address some of the issues referred to above.

TIGER PREDATION THREAD

Yesterday, you posted a picture of a bear " ... killed and partly consumed by a tiger ..." in the Russian Far East in the thread 'Tiger Predation'. When I told you the bear had been killed by another bear, you demanded convincing evidence. 

A new member ignoring good advice and demanding undisputed evidence from one of the co-owners? Right. Here's the response. 

I demand you read forum rules before posting. I demand you check your sources before posting. This is not a game, but a public forum offering information about an unseen world rapidly disappearing right in front of our eyes. I don't want you to post anything that fits your opinion. I want you to post good (reliable) information. What we don't want is misinformation. It's a fact you used our forum to misinform the general public. Not happening.

THIS THREAD

In my response to your post on tigers and wild boars, I invited you to post info on tigers and bears, provided it was new information. It is about the last part of the sentence. To be more concrete: everything you offered, was posted some time ago. You said you knew about this thread. I assumed you read all pages. Apparently, you did not.

In contrast to your post in the thread 'Tiger Predation' (outright misinformation), your post on tigers and bears in the thread 'On the Edge of Extinction - Part A - The Tiger (Panthera tigris)'  will not be deleted. There are two reasons.

One is you announced it's largely based on an opinion. Two is the information you used to get to your conclusion isn't bad per se. In spite of all that, the post is below par. The reason is you (mis)used information to get to general statements about tigers and bears. This, as you announced, largely is a result of a firm opinion. Those operating in that department often try to find information underlining the conclusion they got to long before they started to read. In this way, a new reality is created. The problem is it isn't there. I'm not saying it compares to what is seen on the internet all too often, but it's close.

HOW MISUSE INFORMATION - LESSON 1

a - You like a particular species and consider it capable of overcoming large brown bears. 
a - You start reading and find something you like on tigers and bears. Serious literature and percentages, if possible.
b - You use the info to state that 'tigers' often best 'bears' in a fight.
c - You add a few decent oneliners you found in articles underlining the conclusions you got to in -b-.
d - You add a few pictures underlining the points you made in -b-.
e - You then enter the department of adult males and state the conclusions in -b- hold.
f -  You add a few spices (scans of popular books will do) in order to finish a delightful salad. 
g - You then offer it to someone you need to get on your side.
h - When he still has a few doubts, you add a lecture of a man who wrote a well-praised book he liked.  

THE FLIPSIDE OF PREFERENCE

Most posters interested in a specific animal are driven by preference. Nothing wrong with that, but you got to avoid the familiar pitfalls when you decide to go public. The thing to remember is that you do preference at home. Outside, you got to deal with reality. Reality and preference don't mix. When you opt for preference, stay at home. When you go public, you have to adjust many fixed ideas just about every day. When they look back on their life, most people considered 'in the know' by many say they 'know' next to nothing about the things they did. Ever wondered why that is?   

Big cats are professional hunters. They are specialists walking the edge just about every day. Specialisation comes at a price. Most cubs never reach adulthood. Adult wild big cats seldom die of old age. Death is always close. 

Bears, apart from polar bears, are omnivores. Those who do protein (fish) are much larger than those who don't. Brown bears, depending on the criterium used, reach adulthood between 6-10 years of age and keep growing most of their life. Wild big cats seldom reach 15 years, but bears can live more than twice as long.   

In the Russian Far East, tigers, Himalayan black bears and brown bears have co-existed for thousands of years. In spite of the knowledge collected by naturalists, hunters and biologists, we know next to nothing about the way they interact. What we do know, is that they're still there. This means there is a kind of balance.

Tigers are professional hunters. They kill other animals for a living. Bears, no matter what size, like protein too. This is why many bears (of all ages) visit tiger kills. Tigers will defend their kill. Based on what I read, I'd say that tigers and bears meet more often at kill sites than anywhere else. Not a good start. Fights at kill sites often are serious. About half of them have a tragic outcome. Tigers eat what they kill. It's not known why Amur tigers consider bears as a source of food, but my guess is it could have started at kill sites. Recent studies suggest that bears, especially in summer and autumn, are an important food source for tigers.

The Siberian Tiger Project was started in 1992. Biologists initially thought that tigers interested in bears would avoid adult bears, but recent studies suggest that adult bears are hunted as well. Biologists had to adjust their conclusion on tigers and bears, that is. What do they mean with 'adult bears'. Himalayan black bears? Brown bears? Adult females? Males? Which 'adult bears' are hunted? Healthy animals or those living on welfare? Which tigers are involved in bears? In what way are bears killed? There are many questions. As most of them can't be answered for lack of information, it isn't easy to get to conclusions. Quite a few biologists asked about tigers and bears say 'anything is possible'. Meaning they don't know.

There is some information on the outcome of hunts by specialists. Goodrich followed male tigers interested in bears. All bears hunted were killed with a bite to the skull, but their killers had a hundred pounds on them. According to Baikov, tigers are able to kill bears of almost up to their own size. Recent observations confirm that some male tigers attack adult female brown bears of near-similar size. Not every attack went smoothly. In two cases, there was a prolonged fight in which the tiger was wounded.

Anything known about disputes near kill-sites? Yes. Tigers win most fights (about 2:1), but details about gender, age and condition often are lacking. It's likely that adult bears were involved, because adult tigers have been killed. 

And what about large male bears following and robbing tigers? I recently posted info about a very large male bear following a tigress with cubs. Tigress 'Rachel' protested and survived, but other tigresses with cubs did not. Russian biologists say that at least 12 tigers have been killed. Based on what I have, they seem a bit too careful. Adult males clash at times (I know of 4 male tigers killed by male brown bears and 4 male bears killed by male tigers). Most victims were young adults (tigers) or emaciated Schatuns (bears). This is what one would expect. Healthy adult males seem to avoid serious problems. 

Returning to the title of this paragraph. I'll do it form the top down (referring to your post).

a - It was known that tigers win most fights, but details needed to get to conclusions are lacking. It could be that most bears killed were younger and smaller than their opponents. I don't think it's likely (adult tigers perished in these fights as well), but we have no other option but to be careful. 

b - In spite of the info you presented, it isn't possible to jump from percentages to predictions on the outcome of bouts between adult males. Before the STP started, Russian biologists gave it a try. They concluded that tigers dominate the divisions up to 200 kg., whereas bears dominate the heavyweight division. Adult male bears are more robust and have extra layers of muscle and fat in the regions that matter. If we add the weight advantage (about 160 pounds at the level of averages), I'd say they have a point.

c - Using -a- and -b-, one could conclude that tigers have an advantage in the similar-size division (weight) and be close. Based on the observation of Kretschmar that there isn't much to choose between an average adult male brown bear and an average adult male tiger, one could add that bears need about 160 pounds extra to get to equal terms (adult males), but that's an assumption only. Bears show more individual variation than tigers. Some male brown bears are well over 800 pounds. It's very likely that bears of that size dominate most disputes with most male tigers. 

d - The bear and the tiger in the museum. The photograph was first posted by Grahh (Shaggy God Forum). Sysoev had a say in it. He saw at least 4 fights between brown bears and tigers. One was a draw, one was won by a tiger and two were won by bears. Sysoev wrote a short story about a fight between male tiger and a male brown bear ('Amba'). Find it. What I'm saying is the picture is misleading.  

e - Vaillant wrote " ... An Amur tiger's sense of superiority and dominance over his realm is absolute: because of his position in the forest hierarchy, the only force a male will typically submit to is a stronger tiger or, occasionally, a large brown bear. Nothing else ranks in the taiga ... " (pp . 139-140). It is about 'occasionally, a large brown bear'.

TO CONCLUDE

As you know, I'm interested in tigers and bears. The only region where they co-exist is the Russian Far East. It's a very large, thickly forested, thinly populated and wild region where north and south meet. Fascinating place. In order to find out a bit more about the animals I'm interested in, I read what was available. I also joined a forum. All in all, it paid. The problem is animosity between posters guided by fixed ideas (fundamentalists). There's nothing wrong with preference, but you have to learn how to use it in a productive way. Unfortunately, most posters struggle in that department.

In the end, it is about an accurate picture of reality. In order to get there, posters need to stick to the facts. Hence the decision to focus on good information over here.

Posting on a forum isn't easy. My advice is to approach your hobby as a study. Read what is available, record what you find and keep a list of references. Try to stay away from preference and animosity and focus on good information. When posters or mods talk to you, take it serious.

When you join a community, stick to the rules of engagement. Respect other posters and try to solve problems yourself. Check the sources of the information you use. A forum never is a reliable source, but a good one offers those interested a lot of links to good information. The rest is up to you.

It's a fact you ignored a number of rules. The result was animosity and misinformation. We didn't start this forum to go to war, but to learn. I don't want to waste my time solving problems all the time.

Stay away from this thread for two weeks. Join another forum to learn. When you return, stick to facts and stay away from demands and things like that. Good luck. Reply