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

[peter]

(10-03-2015, 01:53 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Guate says:  Peter was right, that bears in my comparison is too large but if I change it to a smaller and more realistic form, Warsaw will die of diarrhea! 
 
Personally, with the tiger being equally as large if not even bigger than the grizzly, imo this simply proves the big cat enthusiasts wrong in their old assumption that a bear has need of a substantial size advantage to defend himself against the big cat. Obviously, at size parity the bear can hold his own.  

AMUR TIGER SIZE

After the debate on methods was concluded recently, the question is how long Amur tigers (Panthera tigris altaica) really are. The method used to measure them is a new one and the results, I think, can't be compared to measurements taken 'between pegs'. It seems to be close, but not quite. Based on what I read and my experience with measuring, I would deduct 2-4 inches for now (about 3-4 for males). This means males would average not 294 cm. but about 284-287 cm. 'between pegs' in total length (and 185-190 cm. in head and body length). I didn't find any reason to adjust the weight Guate mentioned (about 190 kg. or 420 pounds). Could be a bit more, as Miquelle thought males average 430 pounds.   


AMUR BROWN BEAR SIZE

Goodrich said males average close to 270 kg. (596 pounds). The 10 males in Kucherenko's table avereraged 264 kg. (583 pounds). But the two adult males mentioned in a recent article were 180 and 235 kg. in autumn (when they, weightwise, would have been at their max). If we use all three averages (270, 264 and 207,5 kg.) and add the same 'weight' to them, we get to 247 kg. (545 pounds). But it isn't known if this is a year-round average. Based on what we have now, I think the year-round average for males could be a bit lower than that (closer to 500-520 pounds). 

As to length. Males average 196 cm. 'over contours' and 160-170 cm. when measured in a straight line. A straight line measurement in bears, however, doesn't quite compare to a measurement taken 'between pegs' in big cats in that the skull isn't raised. The animal also isn't stretched. If they would have been measured in the way a big cat is measured, males bears probably average about 170-175 cm. in head and body length, maybe a bit more.


CONCLUSIONS

For now, using a lot of imagination, I would get to 185-188 cm. in head and body length and 425 pounds for an average male Amur tiger and 173 cm. and 545 pounds for an average male Amur brown bear. The male bear is 12-15 cm. shorter in head and body length. Seen from his perspective, that would be about 8%. He is, however, 120 pounds heavier. Seen from the perspective of the tiger, this is 28,2%. The conclusion is male brown bears are much more robust than male Amur tigers. They also show more variation at the level of individuals and they are taller at the shoulder. I would get to advantage bears.   


ENCOUNTERS BETWEEN MALES

Tigers are more agile and faster than bears. They also have significantly larger (and stronger) upper canines. Pikunov, in an email, wrote there's little to choose between them in strength. Krechmar confirmed in that he said that not one of the two dominates the other in a fysical fight. Also remember that a tiger can pull out of a fight when it isn't going his way. A bear can't. Finally, remember male bears are subject to violent weight changes. If we add experience and inborn instinct in tigers, I would get to advantage tiger.

When on two legs, however, the bear has more balance. But the tiger is close in this department and he is taller. Tigers are pullers and holders, enabling them to use their advantage (teeth), but bears are pushers, strikers and crushers. As wrestlers, they are as good or better. If there's one animal able to get out of the hold of a tiger (in a fight between male tigers, they lock and hold on), it's a bear.

All in all, I would get to a close fight. Krechmar though a large male bear would get it his way more often than not when it is about food (Vaillant, based on interviews with locals, confirmed large bears are avoided), but in the other weight classes it's is close. Vaillant thought it could be advantage tigers (even delimbing their opponents), but my take is it's too close to call. Bears and tigers apparently agree, as there's very little info on serious fights. My guess is they meet and fight at times, but all-out's seem to be very rare. Too risky.


PEER-REVIEWED DOCUMENTS

How close are the ideas discussed above? Some months ago, two new studies were discussed in this thread. The conclusion is bears are an important food source for tigers, especially in summer. There's no question that bears, weightwise, contribute more to Amur tigers diets than was assumed. This means not all bears hunted were small. Judging from the percentages, they had to be larger than was assumed. 

But how about the risks? Biologists now think they could have been overestimated. At least, tigers seem to have a different opinion. Time for adjustments, biologists concluded. This means they think they could have been wrong. Important.


TO FINISH WITH 

I can hear you say that adult male bears would remain a big problem for any tiger no matter what. I agree, but it also is a fact male tigers take risks at a regular basis. They are pro's in this department. They have to if they want to prevent hunting rabbits all day long every day. Energy and costs.

And then there is hibernation and a significant loss of weight in bears. I really wonder if weight is as important as we think. The reason is tigers (not only males, but females and immatures as well) interested in bears hunt them in summer in particular. In summer, your average bear is heavier than in spring. It therefore isn't about weight and size, but availability. It's possible that the observation of Schleyer (specialists usually have about a hundred pounds advantage on the bears they hunt) will be confirmed at some stage, but the two recent studies clearly say tigers do not hunt small bears only. It's also clear that brown bears are included. The percentages mentioned by Seryodkin (brown bears constitute 1-1,5% of Amur tiger diet) could be inaccurate. If not, the conclusion is there are significant regional differences. This was confirmed in the last study discussed (the one I got from Ursus arctos middendorffi).     

Anyhow. Your guess is at good as mine. But I will return to tiger subspecies first. Reply