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

[peter]

(07-31-2015, 12:54 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: @peter
I'm having a discussion with Warsaw and he is saying the translation of this text
http://coollib.net/b/261421/readWarsaw states:
"Jankowski only wrote that the tiger had eaten the bear . It's weird to me that the original text of Jankowski book does not mention a single word about any signs of struggle between the bear and the tiger .
BTW From the same book:Tiger,deer,ginseng" by V.J .Jankovski"

and you said
"This one was similar in length (11.6 'over curves'), but bigger all the way. W.J. Jankowski, who was there when the tiger was shot, wrote it was the largest Amur tiger he and his brothers had even seen. And they had seen more than anyone. In his letter to V. Mazak (May 8, 1970), he wrote the giant tiger was at least 300 kg. A few days before he was shot (in July 1943), the tiger had killed a large male brown bear of which only the head and one leg remained. The bear undoubtedly contributed to the great weight. I've posted the photograph more than once, but I can't get enough of it. It really is a glimpse into the past and one of a kind:"

So I was just curious if the text states that it was a Male bear or not?
Thanks Peter
 

1 -  A SCAN OF THE PAGE IN V. MAZAK'S BOOK

V. Mazak´s book ´Der Tiger´ was first published in German. There are three editions. The page below is from the third edition of his book (1983). In order to prevent confusion, I decided to post the relevant page without comment. The page is in German, so you have to use the translator. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

2 - TRANSLATION

After reading the comments below, I decided to translate the (last) part in red for those unable to use the translator in a correct way. Here's the translation:
  
" ... In order to be as complete as possible, I perhaps have to say that Jankowski (in his letter of May 8, 1970) added that the tiger, a few days before he was shot, had killed and eaten a very large male brown bear of which only a leg and the head, found by Jankowski, remained ... ". 

That's it.

It is about 'killed'. It is clear that Mazak quoted from Jankowski's letter of May 8, 1970. 


3 - W.J. JANKOWSKI

W.J. Jankowski was born in the forest and raised by a man who was an experienced hunter himself; his father G. Jankowski prominently featured in 'The Tiger's Claw'. W.J. Jankowski and his brothers were born hunters and knew how to read tracks and find the animals they were after. If W.J. Jankowski wrote the tiger had killed a very large male brown bear, he had very good reasons to conclude the bear had been killed by the tiger and not, for instance, by another male brown bear. Tigers and bears kill in a different way.    

Also take notice of the fact that Jankowski provided the additional information on the bear himself. Mazak didn't ask for it, because he couldn't have known about the incident. 


4 - ABOUT AMUR TIGERS, AMUR BEARS, RESEARCH AND FACTS

I know those interested in bears and Amur tigers will have more than a few doubts about Jankowski's information. One reason is an average adult male Amur brown bear is heavier than an average adult male Amur tiger. Another reason is biologists didn't find adult male brown bears killed by Amur tigers between 1992 and today. They confirmed Amur tigers prey on bears, but agreed only specialists (older males) do so consistently. Even they don't hunt large bears, they say. Specialists hunt immatures and, every now and then, adult females. Females who put up a good defence and wounded their opponents in 20-minute fights. 

These are facts, established between 1992-2015. But it also is a fact that reliable observations on male Amur bears and male Amur tigers collected before 1992 by experienced biologists and hunters were dismissed. One reason is they didn't publish documents and books. If they, like Bromlej, did, the information was wanting in some respects.      

In the last two years, a number of facts on tigers and bears collected between 1992-2015 were (partly) revised. The reason is two documents that were discussed in this thread. Experienced biologists found that quite many Amur tigers, females and immatures like two-year old tiger 'Boris' (who has a collar and killed a three-year old bear) included, hunt bears. They also concluded that in some parts of the Russian Far East, especially in summer, bears are an important source of food, not to say they nearly top the list. 

It is possible that Amur tigers prefer hunting cubs and immatures, but a bit of research would quickly reveal that it would be impossible to get to the percentages found in this way. The reason is bears, foodwise, contribute more than the number of kills suggest. This can only mean that Amur tigers kill quite large bears. This conclusion contradicts the statements on tigers and bears published a few years ago.  

It is more than likely that a beginner, bearwise, would start at the bottom, but experienced tigers probably hunt quite large bears every now and then. As large as possible, as this would help in the energybalance department. Important, especially in Russia. Ask the wolves. Research says Amur tigers do very well in this department, whereas wolves do not.


5 - AMUR BEARS AND AMUR TIGERS - ENCOUNTERS, FACTS AND RUMOURS

When you hunt a dangerous animal, things can go wrong. An experienced tiger probably would abandon a fight not going his way. He can hunt again. A bear, however, can't. Not saying that adult male brown bears would be a regular item on the list of daily groceries, but it is more than likely that an experienced male tiger will give it a try when the opportunity presents itself. It is known that experienced tigers in particular will go for large animals. It is also known that male tigers in particular sometimes end up in fights with dangerous animals. Sometimes isn't often, but it happens. More often than one would expect. So often, in fact, that those who really knew about tigers, like very experienced Forest Officers, wrote about this particular habit.

There are many rumours about the alleged size of male brown bears. Kucherenko wrote that ten adult males averaged a little over 264 kg. and there are many records of heavier animals, both in Russia and in northeastern China. But three adult males recently weighed in autumn, when brown bears reach their maximum weight, were not, or only marginally, heavier than an average adult male Amur tiger. And what about hibernation, when a bear loses up to 30% of his weight? What will happen in a year with crop failure, when desperate bears, unable to hibernate, hunt even other bears for food? In one region, about 70% of the population was exterminated in one year only. And what about the information of people who really know about tigers and bears in Russia? People interviewed by Vaillant? They said tigers will make way for a large bear, but male tigers will confront a male bear of similar size who exceeded his limit. The reason? A question of 'principle' (not explained). Some bears were destroyed. Limb by limb, Vaillant wrote. Rumours, some wrote. But Vaillant is not an amateur (he wrote many books and his research is impeccable) and at least one experienced biologist I contacted thought the book was both accurate and interesting. 

All of this could be true to an extent, biologists will say. But a prime male brown bear in good shape will wear a tiger down. Wear a tiger down? Rumour has it that Russian biologists, some decades ago, concluded male brown bears would 'win on points'. But their conclusion wasn't published and the result was discussions continued. As for 'wearing a tiger down'. There's no question that some male bears would be out of the equasion on account of their great size, but I think it's unlikely that an animal known for prolonged fights with animals way heavier than male bears, like wild buffalo's, gaurs, rhino's and elephants, would be 'worn down' by a heavier and less agile animal like a bear. An animal at times described as 'a clumsy giant' by Russian biologists and naturalists (Krechmar one of these). 

Let's move to captive animals to find out a bit more. The trainers I talked to agreed male brown bears like brawls, but they are also known to overplay their hand at times. When you overplay your hand in a fight with a tiger, one would think the most likely result would be a dead bear. This conclusion was not denied by the trainers I interviewed (many are reluctant to talk about fights with a fatal outcome for reasons all too well known). Is there more? Yes. Some years ago, I saw a very large male brown bear in a rescue centre somewhere in Europe. He was so powerful that he, during treatment (when supposedly sedated), destroyed everything that held him on the table when I entered the room to measure him. I was nearly flattened by those running for their lives when I entered the room. This mighty animal was so stressed by the Amurs who had recently arrived, that he had to be moved to another place.

Tigers no doubt quickly tire as a result of the way they fight, but they apparently are able to continue fighting for many hours. There's no question that tigers perish in prolonged fights with dangerous animals, but I also don't doubt they win more often than not. There's plenty of proof in books of those who, a century ago, saw what we did not. I know old books often are dismissed by biologists (and posters), but that doesn't mean that the incidents described in these books didn't happen. 


6 - ON OLD BOOKS, MODERN DOCUMENTS AND DISMISSALS

It seems to be modern to dismiss anything you didn't see yourself. I think it's quite something to dismiss those who, a long time ago, witnessed things we did not. Forest Officers were well-trained and had a lot of experience. Some tiger hunters compared. They too often had high standards and accomplished things we can hardly imagine, like living and working in dense forests on your own for nine months of the year without losing your mind. Year after year. This in a period that there were much more tigers than today and forests were so vast that you could walk for weeks without seeing anyone. Some Forest Officers and hunters wrote books. Compared to modern books and documents, they, to put it mildly, do not lack. In fact, I often prefer them for the simple reason they have more information.

It seems quite many regard the information in these old books are unreliable. My conclusion is they are anything but that. Many are loaded with firsthand observations. Quite many of these were not confirmed by others, but that doesn't mean they are unreliable. As to 'observations' and 'facts' presented in modern books and documents. Many 'facts' in modern books on animals, those of biologists included, fall into the category 'copy and paste'. They are anything but accurate and reliable. Compared to books written by those with firsthand experience, one could conclude that one accurate observation beats a fallacy corroborated by many with an excellent background but little experience, flawless English and correct methods or not. Individual observations are different from general rules. Forest Officers and hunters knew and said so, but modern biologists seem reluctant to admit observations can be misleading. Linda Kerley and her collegues (in 'Food Habits of Amur Tigers') admitted things could be a bit different than they initially assumed. A courageous conclusion.

Remember these remarks were not written by someone not interested in modern documents. I am. I think many are very informing and interesting. I also think biologist involved in big cat research and conservation do a great job in all respects. I just don't like dismissals. I also don't like unfounded opinions about then and now. The world we know today is a result of the efforts of those who lived before us and there's no doubt they did an excellent job. If they had failed, a tiger would have been an unclear picture in a book. There's no doubt that many cared about the natural world and acted accordingly. There would have been plenty of Walter Palmer's in those days as well (maybe even more so), but they, in most cases, would have been apprehended and endited by the proper authorities. And not by social media. 

I'm not saying it was better in those days, for it definitely wasn't. There's no joy in World Wars, genocide, abuse of power, segregation, poverty, starvation, disease, slow boats to India and dying of a toochache before you reach 50. Same for killing your fellow man because of distortions regarding race, religion and thought. Today, at least over here, life no doubt is better than before, but I very much doubt if today's moral standards, at the level of individuals, beat those used (half) a century ago. We all give it our best, then and now.                             


7 - CONCLUSION

To return to tigers and bears in Russia. It's not likely that a prime male bear will be hunted, but others, in some parts of the year at least, seem to be in reach of even an average-sized male tiger. Does that mean that some male brown bears are hunted? Nobody knows, but it is clear that the difference in size is limited. A fight would be risky for both, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Solitary male wild boars, able to reach 180 kg. and well over in Russia, are courageous and dangerous animals by any account. In spite of that, they are hunted every now and then.              

Primorye is a very large place and the number of people tracking and monitoring tigers (and bears) is limited. Collars could provide more information, but only few tigers have one. My guess is we just don't know that much about tigers and bears and this is what  biologists say when you ask them. Have another look at the mails they sent to those with questions. It will take a long time to get to sound conclusions. Until that day arrives, tigers and bears will feature in forums like this one. Reply