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.
I'm not too surprised at the comments following my post concerning comparing the strength of a tiger with that of a grizzly at equal size. You take take a healthy mature male of each of these two species at equal bipedal height ( a fair contest ) as can be seen on post #225 at: On The Edge of Extinction - A - Tigers ( pictured - taxidermy ), I would say that the bear has a considerable strength advantage. I have never denied the advantages of the tiger: He is a faster runner and quicker in a fight. He has a considerable advantage in agility and leaping ability. With bigger full-carnivore teeth and a stronger bite force, the tiger has a deadlier bite. Both the claws of the tiger and the grizzly can do devastating damage to flesh, but the tiger has a distinct advantage in that he can grip his prey or adversary much better than a grizzly.
If the tiger were equally as strong as the grizzly, as some suggest, then the grizzly should be on top of the tiger's prey choices, rather than last. The tiger should be routinely hunting mature male grizzlies, as such a bear could feed a tiger for a week. The remaks I'm reading are like those of politicians dancing around an unpopular topic.