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

[peter]

GUATE

We met well before Wildfact was created. Furthermore, you've been here from day one. I consider you a friend and that will never change, meaning I accept you're 'The One who greets with Fire'. Part of the deal. 

Also part of the deal is friends talk straight. What i was saying (referring to my previous post) is it's unfair, and pointless, if a senior member, and one with a reputation at that, targets a younger member for no reason. You, of all people, should know how it feels when someone targets you. I'm referring to the exchanges in the period 'WaveRiders' was here. He was the new kid on the block and delivered quality, but I didn't like the way he went for our mods and you in particular. I told him, but he ignored the advice and continued until a decision was made. You know I'll defend a friend, that is. You also know I dislike members using their experience and reputation to act in a similar way as Wave did. 

Apex, to be sure, didn't contact me to complain. I acted because I want those who post in this thread to cooperate. They were invited because they have what is needed: quality (not only referring to access to good information). You're one of them, but so, in my opinion, is Apex. Both of you have different qualities. Next time you see something you don't like, contact me. And when you start a discussion, focus on arguments only. I don't mind the occasional touch of logic, but stay away from what we see every bloody day all over the net (arrogance, insults and all the rest of it). And when you feel the fire burning, just count to ten. 

Back to the issue at hand. I'm, to be more precise, referring to the fifth proposal.   

About the correlation between 'heel width' and weight in wild Amur tigers 

You said there's a difference between a print left in, say, soft snow and an actual measurement of the paw 'in the flesh' in that a print is always larger than an actual measurement of the pad 'in the flesh'. Meaning a print isn't accurate and, for that reason, unreliable. 

You're, of course, right. In spite of that, the remark is irrelevant. 

Field biologists and rangers, as you know, not often have the opportunity to measure a wild tiger these days. When you study a rare species, one thing you want to avoid at all costs is risks. Every capture has risks. For this reason, biologists and rangers often have no option but to use indirect information to get to a guesstimate. Like a print. Although a print isn't accurate, it isn't about accuracy. It's about the correlation between the print and the size (weight) of the animal that left it.  

The question is if a print enables a ranger to get to the information he's after. If he's following a tiger that might have to be captured, his aim is to find out a bit more about the specifics (gender, age, size and condition).    

He knows there's a quite strong correlation between the width of the pad of the front paw ('heel width') and the weight of the tiger that left the print. The 'heel width' of adult females ranges between 8,5-10,0 cm, whereas healthy adult males range between 10,5-13,0 cm, at times a bit more. He also knows adult Amur tigresses range between 100-130 kg (up to 140) these days. Male Amur tigers (using confirmed weights only) range between 140-212 kg (140 for 'Tikhon', a very old male, and 212 for 'Luk', a young adult captured in the southern part of Primorye), but a large male in his prime might be considerably heavier (referring to recent information about the weight of wild male Amur tigers captured in northeastern China).  

An adult healthy Amur tigress leaving a print with a 'heel width' of 9,5-10,0 cm is large. Chances are a pad of that size corresponds with a tigress of 120-130 kg, possibly a bit more. A healthy adult male Amur tiger leaving a print with a heel width of 12,0 cm is larger than average. Note I added 'healthy' every time, because the information I have strongly suggests the correlation between heel width and weight is affected by age, health and conditions.  

One of the tables in the document published in 2005 (Table 7.3) has detailed information about the size of 13 wild adult male Amur tigers and 10 adult wild females. It's, again, not superfluous to underline tigers Table 7.3 has a few young adult males (3-4 years of age). The average heel width of 10 'adult' tigresses captured in the period 1992-2004 was 9,2 cm (range 8,5-10,0), whereas the average heel width of 12 males captured in the same period was 11,4 cm (range 10,5-12,8). All tigers and tigresses were captured in the Sichote-Alin Biosphere Reserve and its environs:

*This image is copyright of its original author

 
We know (referring to another table in the document published in 2005) tigresses averaged 117,9 kg, whereas males averaged 176,4 kg (389 pounds). Does this mean an adult wild Amur tigress with a heel width of 9,2 cm is 117,9 kg and an adult wild male Amur tiger with a heel width of 11,4 cm is 176,4 kg? In the Sichote-Alin Biosphere Reserve, at the level of averages, the answer (in that period of time) is affirmative. At the level of individuals, the answer is no. Like always, it depends. 

My proposal is to have a closer look at the correlation between 'heel width' and weight in average-sized wild males. Table 7.3 says males captured in the Sichote-Alin Biosphere Reserve and it's environs in the period 1992-2004 averaged 176,4 kg (range 125-200) and 11,4 cm in heel width (range 10,5-12,8). The heel width, to be complete, was measured 'in the flesh' (all males were captured, measured and weighed). 

I do not, as you seem to assume, doubt the accuracy of the information, but wonder if the table is representative. There are two reasons. The first is young adult males were included. The second is the table has no information about tigers in the Khabarovsky Krai and northeastern China. My 'hypothesis' for now is the inclusion of young adult males in particular had an effect on the averages (referring to heel width and weight). Is there a tool to get to a kind of assessment? A tool like, say, 'heel width'?   

The answer is affirmative. I found 3 tables that have the information needed and selected 6 wild males at least 5 years of age. The average heel width of these 6 was 11,56 cm (range 11,5-11,8). Anything known about the health of these males? 

The answer is four had health problems. Significant problems, I may add. 

The first male (168 kg and 12-13 years of age) had his front paw nearly torn off by a brown bear (...), whereas the second (a 10-year old male of 192 kg) was killed by another male. He had a pathology of the paw bone and was no match for the other tiger. The third male (185 kg, but with a relative low fat index) had been injured by a bullet. He was shot when he attacked a group of hunters. The fourth male (171 kg, but with a relative low fat index) was shot with a permit because he had attacked domestic animals. Male five (189 kg at 6,5-7,5 years of age) and male six (a young adult of 207 kg), healthwise, seemed to have a clean sheet. I, by the way, added the young adult ('Banzai'), because the information I found suggests he could have been a bit older than 4 when he was captured. 

In spite of the (significant) problems, these 6 males averaged 185,3 kg (range 168-207), whereas the males in the table published in 2005 averaged 176,4 kg. Not a big difference, but it is if the health problems of the 6 males I selected are considered. Meaning age, weightwise, seems to be as important as health, if not more so. Also meaning the inclusion of young adults (referring to Table 7.3) had an effect on the averages.      

Anyhow. The information available suggests heel width is a quite decent indicator of the weight of a wild tiger, especially if there's additional information. More often than not, it will enable experienced woodsmen and biologists to get to a decent guesstimate. 

About the size of tigers in the Anyuisky National Park 

To close the post, a bit more about the tigers living in the Anyuisky National Park. It's located in the Khabarovsky Krai. The organisation responsible for the reserve (and 7 others) operates a kind of online magazin, not very different from the site of the Amur Tiger Programme. I read all reports posted between 2015 and the end of 2022.  

What I read, suggests the conditions were very good in most years. As a result, tigers thrived. Employees not seldom expressed their amazement at the size of some of the males. One of them, nicknamed 'The Beast' for obvious reasons, was very tall and left a print with a heel width of 13,5 cm. An exceptional individual? No doubt, but he wasn't the only one of that size in that park. In a period of about 5 years, prints with a heel width of 14,0, 15,0 and, more than once, 16,0 cm (...) were seen repeatedly. Remember all measurements were taken by well-trained people, who've seen their fair share of wild Amur tigers.    

One of them is Aleksey Gotvansky. He started working in the Anyuisky National Park in May 2019. In that year, Gotvansky and Nadeshda Yavorskaya maintained cameratraps, executed hydro-biological research and explored little-known river valleys and dense forests. They walked many a mile. Gotvansky also patrolled roads used by 'tourists' with cameras. And rifles. Poaching is a problem everywhere in the Russian Far East. When poachers heard about the remarkable Anyuisky tigers, they decided to pay the national park a visit. Remnants of illegal camps and poached animals were found and quite a few cameras were stolen. Following and confronting poachers in a remote region is part of the job. 

Gotvansky, an environment specialist at the 'Federal State Budgetary Institution 'Amur Reserve', thought about 30 tigers lived in the Anyuisky National Park in the winter of 2020. The valley of the Pikhtsa river in particular was quite popular. It had 8 tigers. Some of the males he saw, to use his words, were 'gigantic'. Gotvansky installed 70 new cameras in the Anyuisky National Park.  

You said a large print left in the snow is a lot smaller in different conditions. True, but not all prints Gotvansky saw were left in snow or mud. In July 2020, when looking for an escaped horse in the forest (...), he found a print with a heel width of 16,0 cm. He said the print was left by a 'monster tiger'. A few weeks later, in another part of the Anyuisky National Park, he found a second print with a heel width of 16,0 cm (...). That print was left by another male. In the last week of July, that tiger killed a large wild boar. The fight, lasting for 20 minutes, attracted a lot of attention in the village. Gotvansky repeatedly found the remains of Himalayan black bears killed by tigers, but the horse that settled in the park was left in peace and recaptured 7 months later (...).   

The Anyuisky National Park, by the way, was visited by camera crews in 2015, 2017 and 2019. One of the crews was working for Hafner. His documentary about the Amur tiger was discussed in this thread some time ago. Did they see the 'monster tiger' with a heel width of 16,0 cm? I don't know, but Gotvansky saw him again in October 2020. 

One of the things Gotvansky noted time and again was old male tigers often migrated to other regions in times of need, leaving their realm to their young adult sons. Experienced tigers seldom, if ever, perish in times of need. Their children, however, did. Tigers up to 1-2 years of age are vulnarable when wild boars disappear. In Anyuisky, subadults (2-3 years of age), most probably for this reason, not seldom joined forces after they left their mother.

The African swine fever had a profound effect on the tigers in Anyuisky. Wild boars all but disappeared. The only ones not affected by the disease were solitary old males. Only few of them were targeted by tigers. There is a good reason, as Ussuri wild boars are the largest of all subspecies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAbveShfBUk

The 2020-2021 winter was a bad one. Three tigers were killed in road accidents (cars) and another was found dead close to the village of Arsenyevo. As a result of the lack of wild boars, tigers had to work a lot harder. Many left the National Park, whereas unknown males entered. One of them, seen near the Kiya river, was, yet again, a male of exceptional size. Not too far away, two, to use Gotvansky's words, "... gigantic ... " males lived near the Nilo-Channel and the Tormasu river. 

In July 2021, Gotvansky, after walking 95 km (...) in the Pikhtsa river valley, checked one of the cameras. It had a few pictures of an enormous male brown bear and a male tiger of similar size ('The Beast') embracing the same tree. Gotvansky said both animals approached a height of three meters (...). 

Have you ever seen an adult male Amur tiger standing on his hindlegs, Guate? An average-sized adult male reaches 7 feet (referring to the top of the skull), but I saw a few who well exceeded that mark. The former Zoological Museum of Amsterdam has an adult male brown bear from the Russian Far East. Standing on it's hindlegs, it was about 7,5 feet. I measured the bear myself. It was a very impressive animal. Remember not one of the Amur tigers I measured was exceptional. Same for the brown bear. I recently saw an adult male brown bear in a Dutch facility that would have exceeded that mark by a very decent margin.  

Gotvansky said both the bear and the tiger approached 3 meters while standing on their hindlegs. I don't know if he referred to the top of the skull (unlikely) or the height of the claw marks and I also don't know if he really measured the marks, but I do know he saw quite a few wild brown bears and Amur tigers in the period 2019-2023. If he says a bear or a tiger is 'very large' or 'gigantic', I take his word for it. The photograph, by the way, clearly shows the bear and the tiger were standing on their hind legs. I selected the (large) version first posted on the net in order to emphasize the size of both the tiger and the bear:

*This image is copyright of its original author

It's known large male Ussuri brown bears can reach 400 kg, at times some even well exceed that mark. I'm not saying 'The Beast', weightwise, compared, but it's clear he compared for length. My guess is he was heavier than 'Luk', the young adult male captured in a reserve in the southern part of Primorye a decade ago. One reason I got to that conclusion is I measured a few captive male Amur tigers. One of them was 'Arames', an 8-year old male. When I first saw him, he had just arrived. Like the other 6 Amur tigers, he, after an accident (one of them killed the trainer), had been neglected for a long period of time (about 7 weeks). I'm not saying I could count his ribs, but it was close. In spite of that, he was 185,5 kg. In normal conditions, he would have been quite a bit heavier. One of the two other males was weighed at Schiphol Airport a few years later. At 10-11 years of age, he was 211 kg. 

Tiger 'Arames', measured in a straight line, was 194 cm in head and body length. He was a bit longer than the two other males, but not as robust. One of the others, possibly as a result of the long period of neglect, suffered from an inflammation. During the photoshoot, he was very aggressive. So much so, that all present left the room in a hurry. Standing on his hind legs, his skull reached the top of the cage. I measured the cage later. The height was 7 feet and a few inches. The Amur tigers were of average size, perhaps a bit smaller. 

Most captive Amur tigers are a bit longer and taller than most other big cats, but not by much. The difference between captive Amur tigers and other big cats, however, is significant at the level of averages. The main reason is very large individuals are seen quite often. Furthermore, exceptional Amur tigers really are exceptional in most respects. In many years, the late Dr. P. van Bree saw one exceptional African lion. At 216,7 cm in head and body length (measured in a straight line) and 280 kg, he was quite something. Exceptional Amur tigers, on the other hand, are quite common. Some of them (referring to healthy animals only) really exceed 300 kg and 220 cm in head and body length. Mazak (1983) thought the famous Duisburg Zoo tiger was the largest in his day, but the table I posted a year ago shows he wasn't. The 4-year old male shot in the Köln Zoo in 2012 that featured in a paper that was discussed some years ago (this thread) was 240 cm in head and body length (...). The photographs of his skull (including a ruler in every case) suggest it could well exceed the largest skull Mazak measured. The young adult male, to be sure, wasn't obese, but healthy. Same for the other males that exceeded 280 kg (referring to the table with information about captive Amur tigers posted in this thread).  

You (referring to your previous post) said it's pointless to compare captive and wild Amur tigers, because wild Amur tigers, unlike their captive relatives, face difficult conditions, energy deficits, poachers and dangerous competitors. While I agree it's very likely there could be significant differences between captive and wild Amur tigers at the level of averages, I'm not that sure about exceptional individuals. There are too many reports about large males from reliable observers to be ignored. 

It could be the differences between wild and captive Amur tigers are more limited than we assume. Recent research suggests this could be the case in the skull department. Sizewise, in fact, there's little to choose between skulls of wild and captive Amur tigers. The main difference is in the shape of the skull. Wild male Amur tigers in particular, like Mazak said, often have a very well developed sagittal crest. In this respect, they differ from all other mainland subspecies. A result of eating frozen meat, the authors thought. They added the rostrum of wild male Amur tigers is significantly narrower than the rostrum of their captive relatives. But the skulls Mazak measured point in a very different direction and wild females, often lacking the well developed sagittal crest, also eat frozen meat.

Here's another photograph suggesting wild Amur tigers can reach a great height when standing on their hind legs: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

There's, of course, a difference between claw marks and the height a tiger can reach with his head, but there's some evidence an exceptional individual can reach a height of 8, perhaps even 9, feet when standing on his hind legs:

*This image is copyright of its original author

  
There's no doubt whatsoever that an exceptional male polar or brown bear can reach 9 feet when standing on his hind legs. This photograph was taken in 1984:

*This image is copyright of its original author

 
Returning to the tigers living in the Anyuisky National Park. In 2021, not a few tigresses lost their cubs. The reason was starvation. In spite of the lack of young tigers, the population in the national park remained stable.

One last remark about the correlation between heel width and (alleged) size in wild Amur tigers. Apart from the reports from the Anyuisky National Park, I found reports about large prints in other districts in the Khabarovsky Krai in the period 2015-2022. Time and again, they amazed those who measured them.   

To conclude

While the Gotvansky's and Yavorskaya's of this world patrol unexplored, hilly and densely forested districts in difficult conditions in one of the national parks recently established in the Russian Far East in order to protect a rare species, those who never saw a wild big cat on the other side of the globe discuss, and severely question, their (referring to Gotvansky and his collegues) ability to measure a print and estimate the size of the tigers they saw. In fact, those questioning the ability of well-trained rangers not seldom also question, if not disqualify, other members of the forum they joined.  

As co-owner of a forum about the natural world, I feel obliged to respond to those involved in severe preference (referring to those interested in bears) and those prepared to dismiss, and even ridicule, people interested in the same, rare, species at a forum. Because they, for instance, deal with information in a slightly different way. Do I want to invest my time in a response, knowing those involved in severe preference and arrogance will never give an inch no matter what? Do I think my efforts will have a result? Does a one-legged duck swim in circles? 

One more thing, Guate. I agree one has to be careful when information about the size and weight of wild animals is offered by someone considered to be 'in the know'. I also agree photographs can be, and often are, misleading. The best way to solve problems in that department is to use peer-reviewed documents and great books only. But this strategy has disadvantages in that it severely limits the scope. Furthermore, there's a difference between accurate information and reality. If anything, it increases the chance you'll be surprised one day (when tiger biologists started work in India, they entered the forest with 400-pound scales). 

As to misinformation. No matter how much you know and no matter your experience, chances are you'll be misled one day. Even the best education won't result in a clean sheet in that department. You know people, mistakes and deliberate misinformation are on good terms. You also know (referring to recent research) most people, for different reasons, lie every day.   

Mazak was misled and he wasn't the only one. All of them paid. The main reason they did is people in general often take pleasure in the downfall of others. Human nature. Life, however, isn't about competition, status and everything else highlighted every day in newspapers, glossies and talk shows. Life is about doing what you want to do, about focus and about developing the ability to deal with setbacks and problems. In order to get there, an open mind is important. In the end, it isn't about general information, but about something specific. Something you in particular understand. Books, no matter how interesting, are of little use in this respect. You are your book and it's your job to read it and add a few chapters that fit. In the end, life is about things that often have no shape, colour and definition. Your job is to find out what that means.  

I don't think it's superfluous to repeat the worst thing you can do when you face a problem is to close the door and buy an extra lock. Being defensive and adding a lot of extra rules in order to prevent more problems, without a shadow of doubt, will result in what you want to avoid at all costs: fear and a complete standstill. My guess is those who've been there would tell you to face every problem and to move on to the next one. As that is one of the few things you can be sure of. 

Is Apex, as you suggest, really unaware of science and the accepted methods to get to knowledge? Or does he prefer a different method to get to information? One that can result in, say, some kind of insight? Remember there is a difference between knowledge and insight. During my years at college, I saw people loaded with knowledge fail tests that required something else time and again. And the other way round. One of the most able men I met, bound to graduate with honours, decided to quit just before he was invited to defend his thesis. I still visit the supermarket where he has been working ever since. We talk about tigers and lions and drink coffee. I avoid moving to philosophy, because I would go down real fast. 

Talking about going down. My youngest brother never read a book. Well, maybe one or two. He preferred the ring and a decent knock-out. In spite of the lack of what many consider to be vital information, he knew more than I did after years at college and that conclusion is not a result of brothership. What I'm saying is everyone is different. Every individual selects, and follows, a road that fits. Your job is to follow yours and to stay away from judgements. 

If you see a member posting misinformation, you act. If you see a member involved in speculation, you (can) respond. It is, however, important to distinguish between misinformation and a post with an explorative character. You was misled by someone selling stories, locked the door and bought a new book with rules. Rules you apply without exception. A productive strategy?  
 
We both read many documents published in the period 1992-2023 and know all adult wild male Amur tigers captured in that period, depending on age, health and local conditions, ranged between 140-212 kg. But we also know most wild tigers will never be weighed. Same for their captive relatives. Finally, we know captive Amur tigers show a lot of individual variation. It's a fact large males occasionally exceed 300 kg. Is it possible an exceptional wild male, like a century ago, could get to that weight as well? Those who hunted them 100-150 years ago were sure they could, but most of their records were dismissed. For good reasons, but on has to remember there is a difference between using an accepted procedure (to get to information) and the means available. Back then, it often was all but impossible to move, let alone measure and weigh, an exceptional male tiger or lion shot in a remote district. One of the few exceptions, like Mazak said, was the tiger shot near the Sungari river in 1943. The photograph taken shows a very robust animal that was 11.6 in total length 'over curves'. According to Jankowski (referring to his book published many years after the event), the skin of that tiger was 375 cm. Is a wild male tiger of that size, as Jankowski said in his letter to Mazak, really able to approach, or even exceed, 300 kg? 

Historical (referring to wild male Amur tigers) and recent (referring to captive male Amur tigers) records suggest exceptional males were, and are, able to reach that weight. Could 'The Beast' have been one of them? And what about the males leaving a print with a heel width of 15,0-16,0 cm in Anyuisky? We don't know. The only thing we, to a degree, know (referring to the tables I recently posted) is captive male Amur tigers weighed in the last century averaged 490-500 pounds (n=61). Male Amur tigers in Chinese facilities today (referring to recent publications discussed in this thread), however, average about 460-470 pounds. Did they lose weight in the last century, or are the averages found a result of selection or smallish samples?  

The 'historical' average adult wild male Amur tiger seems to have ranged between 475-495 pounds, but the sample used to get to that conclusion was very small. One conclusion I got to when I went over all records I consider reliable is exceptional male tigers of large subspecies are 30-40% heavier than an average male, at times even a bit more. If wild male Amur tigers today, as Miquelle suggested a decade ago, really average 430 pounds, an exceptional male today should be able to reach 560-600 pounds. My guess, however, is exceptional individuals, like in India and Nepal, are able to reach 650-700 pounds in their prime. As you and Balam suggested, it depends on the conditions, but there's a bit more to it. The prey base in northeastern Asia never compared to what we see in northeastern India today. In spite of that, both 'historical' records and recent skull measurements strongly suggest wild tigers in that part of Asia compared to their relatives in southeastern Asia. If anything, Amur tigers seem to be a bit longer. Same for the skulls I measured.                                

You said it's very likely I was impressed by the big cats I measured. The answer is I was, but not for the reason you suggested. In spite of my tape, I always was amazed at what I sensed. I'm not only referring to the immense strength of an adult male lion or tiger, but to something difficult to describe. Every time I measured a male lion or tiger, it felt I entered a different dimension. One not defined by size. Most people have no clue as to what a big cat really is, but I did notice those unable to use their ears or eyes seemed different. Not seldom, they were elated when they touched them. The senses of the blind seem more developed than those who can see. They also seem to use the brain in a different way. What they sensed and felt, was something beyond words. 
 
Words, at least today, often seem to be used to disguise what people really feel. Those who know about communication agree it isn't about words, but something else. You can't pin it, but feel, or sense, it. Those who use and develop untouched senses, like trainers, rangers and artists, know. But they in particular don't have a say anywhere. Like big cats, they decided for elusiveness and adapted to the brave new world. One created by those who benefit from a society in which abilities, vital connections and true (authentic) knowledge have been replaced. By machines and, let's say, symbols. Symbols you can buy. If you join, of course. The conclusion of a man heavily involved in voodoo? Conspiracies? Far from it.         

I know a few things about senses, because I was born in the house of my father's parents. His mother was blind. I spent many days with her. Her world was different from those able to use their eyes. When she was young and able to see, she had many friends. After she lost her sight, they continued to visit her. I still remember their meetings, because they were very different from what I saw elsewhere. In those days, people often seemed to have more, let's say, natural abilities. I'm not referring to math, but to skills in the department of interaction and expression. Not a few of the ones visiting my grandmother were great singers and storytellers. In spite of the poverty and the terrible wars, their heart seemed more 'developed' than those who have a similar object today. Animals seemed a bit different as well. Back then, in and outside of the city, cats, dogs, birds, rats, mice, rabbits, pigs, donkeys, horses, cows and the occasional lion were considered as true friends by those who lived with them. When they offered an animal to a friend or neighbour, the discussion wasn't about money but about the personality of the animal in question. Today, most animals are pets. You can buy and get rid of an animal at any time, just like with toys. Again, animals responded. What we see today, is a reflection of what we think and feel. What is it, I wonder, we really created? Reply