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

[GuateGojira]

(09-26-2023, 08:05 PM)peter Wrote: ABOUT THE SIZE OF ADULT WILD AMURS TIGERS - I

1 - introduction

I've been following the proceedings in the thread 'Amur Tigers' for a while. This post is a response to the discussion about the size of wild Amur tigers in that thread. I'm referring to the discussion between 'Apex Titan', 'GuateGojira' and, right at the end of it, 'Balam'. I decided to move the 'discussion' to this thread, because this thread has more views. Meaning more members and readers will have the opportunity to follow the discussion. 

I wrote 'discussion', because the interaction between Apex and Guate isn't quite up to standard. Meaning one in particular compares the contributions of the other as those of a fanboy, if not a child that just learned to write. I didn't say he considers him a halfwit, but it's close at times. Also meaning one of the vital ingredients of a discussion, mutual respect, is lacking. Not what we want.  




Before we continue, a few words about the one targeted by Guate ('Apex Titan') wouldn't be entirely out of place. Apex, to keep it short, has enemies. Not a few of them consider him an ill-informed youngster involved in serious misinformation. That's still without his alleged 'preference' and his attitude. They don't understand why one of the co-owners of Wildfact decided to offer him the opportunity to post in one of the best-viewed threads.




There are two reasons Apex has enemies. The first is his posts contradict the views of posters interested in bears in particular. The second is his 'attitude'. Meaning he doesn't like beating round the bush and swimming in circles. Also meaning he's quite direct. Do his enemies have a point? 

Informationwise, they don't. The information Apex posts underlines the results of recent research conducted by very competent people working in the Russian Far East. They, regarding the way Himalayan black bears, Ussuri brown bears and Amur tigers interact, concluded male representatives of both bear subspecies only very seldom displace adult Amur tigresses. They never found evidence of a male Amur tiger displaced by a male brown bear. It no doubt happens (referring to an incident witnessed in 1978 that was discussed in a recent post in this thread), but incidents of this nature seem to be few and far between.    

Apex, on top of that, added a confrontation between a male Amur tiger and a male brown bear isn't as one-sided as many assume. Do field biologists agree? Yes. in a period of about 3 decades (1992-2023), they didn't find a male Amur tiger killed by an Ussuri male brown bear. In fact, they didn't find a single tiger killed by a bear (referring to both subspecies). And what about male bears killed by male tigers? 

In 2017, a very large male brown bear that had been following, and robbing, a tigress with cubs for prolonged period of time ('Chlamyda') suddenly disappeared from the radar. Two years after he disappeared, the man who knew him quite intimately, A. Batalov, concluded he was killed and eaten by male tiger 'Ochkarik'. Five years later, an experienced team found the remains of a male bear killed and partially eaten by male tiger 'Odyr'. I'm not saying those questioning both incidents do not have a case, but the information collected in the period 1992-2023 suggests Apex, who said things are not as one-sided as many assume, has a point.      

And what about male Amur tigers and Ussuri male brown bears? Do they agree? Everything we know, strongly suggests they try to avoid a serious encounter. For very good reasons: fighting a dangerous opponent, like Vaillant said, hurts. Furthermore, it's risky. 

And what about the alleged 'attitude' of Apex. When he joined Wildfact, we had a sitdown. Meaning he knew the invitation to post in the tiger extinction thread was a result of what I had seen in 'Carnivora', where he posted interesting information based on reliable sources. He also knew we don't like animosity one bit over here. Did he deliver in both departments? The answer is affirmative. Read the discussion with Guate in the Amur tiger thread for confirmation.      

As to the one who invited Apex to post in the tiger extinction thread. Not a few of those complaining about Apex seem to forget Wildfact wasn't created to select those that excel in the department of being nice. The forum, as announced at the top of the home page, is about those making their home in the natural world. We prefer information collected and discussed by field biologists in peer-reviewed documents, but information collected by those who really know a few things about wild big cats and those who, many moons ago, hunted them will also be discussed. Same for those who worked with them (referring to trainers). 

Meaning this forum really is about good information and not something else. In order to get there and enable all members to participate, rules of conduct were invented. Over here, they really count. If there's one thing our mods don't like, it's a lack of respect. I'm referring to respect for good information and respect for those prepared to enter a discussion. In order to prevent problems in that department, mods not only read words. They also have a nose for what's not said, but suggested. All this to support those prepared and willing to act in the spirit of the law, I mean rule, and to get to productive discussions.

And this was the last word about 'controversial' posters, discussions, insults and all the rest of it. Every member posting in the tiger extinction thread was invited by the one who started the thread. The reason they were invited is quality. Meaning they're able in the department of what we consider to be good information. Also meaning they, qualitywise, should be able to discuss information in a respectful way. Finally meaning it is about valid arguments in the end, not something else.        
  
2 - Before starting the discussing  

2a - The opinions of Apex, Guate and Balam 

Apex, to keep it short, thinks adult wild Amur tigers (referring to photographs and information about the 'heel width' of wild Amur tigers) might be a bit bigger than the table published in 2005 suggests. Guate, on the other hand, thinks the table is representative. Balam thinks size and prey density are intertwined, meaning she thinks tigers living in a region with long and harsh winters and few large prey animals are unlikely to reach the dimensions of their relatives living in the prey rich alluvial flood plains in southern Asia (and northeastern India in particular). 

As to total length and weight at the level of averages. Guate thinks Amur and Indian tigers roughly compare, whereas Balam suggests it's very likely Indian tigers, for the reasons stated above, are a bit bigger.        

2b - The difference between young and mature adults 

Before we start the discussion, it's imperative that all involved agree to distinguish between age groups from now on. The reason is there are significant differences between young and mature adults. Wild male Ussuri brown bears are considered adult when they reach 9 years of age. Even after they reach that age, they continue to develop. Wild male Amur tigers are considered adult when they reach 6 years of age. Like male brown bears, they continue to develop after reaching that age.   

If you want to know a bit more about the morphological differences between young and mature adults (referring to Amur tigers), the advice is to to go back a few pages. I posted quite extensively about a few recent articles I read. 

Captive Amur tigers, to keep it short, reach adult size at a younger age than their wild relatives. Not seldom, they're even a bit heavier than mature adults. During the transition to adulthood, however, they lose body mass. Fat is replaced by muscles and their skulls (referring to the skulls I measured) continue to develop as well. They 'restart' growth between 5 (females) and 6 (males) years of age. It's not known if they continue growing until their death, because the samples didn't have old tigers and tigresses. 

Although wild tigers seem to need more time to develop, recent information about the relation between age and size in wild tigers collected by biologists working the Russian Far East, Nepal and India more or less confirms the conclusions about the relation between age and size in captive Amur tigers. Information about the development of wild tigers strongly suggests males continue to grow (referring to total length and weight) when they reach adulthood. Same for adult females (referring to length in particular).    

Hunting records (referring to what used to be British India in particular) suggest most exceptional tigers shot a century ago were quite old. Experienced hunters, for this reason, mainly targeted old males.     

2c - The table published in 2005

As far as I know, there's only one table about the size of wild Amur tigers. It was published in a document released in 2005. The document is in Russian, but the table made it to most forums anyhow. The table was extensively discussed. Same for this forum (see the posts and tables about the size of wild Amur tigers in this thread). 

Apex has a few doubts about the table published in 2005. One reason is the tigers were captured in one reserve only. Another is young adult males were included. This still is without the remarks in 'The snare for tiger', 2012). This paper is important, because it, most probably, has information about some of the tigers in the table. Apex, referring to photographs and the 'heel width' of some males, thinks Khabarovsk tigers could be a bit larger than those that made it to the table.   

Guate said the table is reliable. He added photographs are unreliable. Same for information about the 'heel width' of wild tigers. The reason main reason wild Amur tigers are not as heavy many assumed is the conditions between 1960-2000 deteriorated. 

Guate and Balam refer to recent peer-reviewed publications. Meaning they consider the case closed. 

2d - Recent information  

The question is if Guate and Balam have a point. In order to get to a reliable answer, good information is needed. Guate thinks it's there, but others have a few doubts. While it's true quite a few wild Amur tigers have been captured, measured and weighed in (the eastern and southern districts of) Primorye, there's no information about the size of tigers in Khabarovsk and northeastern China. Feng Limin, in a recent video that was discussed at different forums, said tigers have been weighed in northeastern China. The young adult male captured after he attacked a car a few years ago was 225 kg. At least two other males, also weighed, reached or exceeded 250 kg. A century ago, hunters agreed tigers in Manchuria were larger than those in Korea and in what used to be the Sowjet-Union. If the information about the three males weighed in northeastern China is correct, it would mean northeastern China, like a century ago, still produces large tigers. But there's a difference between a video and a peer-reviewed document.  

Guate, of course, has very good reasons to be wary, but his opinion has to be weighed against the opinion of those who had the opportunity to see wild tigers in Primorye, Khabarovsk anbd northeastern China. Remember we're talking about opinions, because the data needed to get to a conclusion aren't there.        
  
It isn't superfluous to repeat reliable information about the length and weight of wild adult tigers today, both in India and in the Russian Far East, is limited. Meaning both Apex and Guate could have a point. We just don't know. 

So how get to a conclusion about the size of adult wild Amur tigers? 

2e - Proposals 

The first proposal, apart from the remarks about interacting and rules of conduct, is to forget about being right or wrong. It's not important and inproductive.  

The second proposal, for the moment, is to sideline, otherwise interesting, articles about the relation between the size of carnivores and prey density in general. What is needed to get to a conclusion is specific information about the size of adult wild Amur tigers (and not young adults). 

The third proposal is to discuss 'The snare for tiger' (2012). The reason is it has specific information about some of the tigers that made it to the table published in 2005. That and the effect the capture had on their health (referring to their teeth in particular). It also has a few, indirect but important, remarks about two Amur tigresses allegedly 'killed' by bears some years ago.   

The fourth proposal is to discuss the table published in 2005. The question is if it is really representative of all (adult) Amur tigers, including those in Khabarovsk and northeastern China.

The fifth proposal is to go over the arguments Guate used to dismiss information about the 'heel width' of wild Amur tigers.  

The sixth proposal is to reconsider information published in other papers, articles and books. I'm thinking of V. Mazak in particular, as he's one of the very few who measured a number of skulls of wild (and captive) Amur tigers (referring to 'Der Tiger' and 'Notes on Siberian long-haired tiger'. There's, however, more good information we can use. 

The seventh proposal is to consider reliable information about the size of captive (Amur and Indian) tigers. There is a relation between captive representatives and their wild relatives of a specific subspecies. Captive Sumtrans aren't twice, of half, the size of their wild relatives. 

The seventh proposal is to get to an overview (referring to skull size, actual standing height at the shoulder, total length, body dimensions and, to a degree, weight). 

I'll leave the first two proposals for what they are and wonder if one of those interested in the discussion is prepared to go over 'The snare for tiger' (third proposal) and the table published in 2005 (fourth proposal) one more time. If so, it would be much appreciated if the findings could be discussed in a post. 

My intention is to get to a table with information that was published in different articles and books in the recent past. Information about the skull size, actual standing height at the shoulder, total length, body dimensions and weight of captive (and wild) Indian and Amur tigers.

Hi peter, definitelly you share a couple of interesting ideas and also, there is more information in the way from your part and also from mine. But, I will like to touch a few points of your post that I think are important.

1 - I feel very weird that about 30% of your post is just about Apex, talking not only good about him but sound almoust like a "justification" for his attitude that is arrogant and unable to see his mistakes or to follow the scientific process to make an hypotesis based in facts, which is also, in your words, not what we want. We, as old posters, know about this type of people and we already know what we need to do with this type of posters. In this case, the information that he shares about "tiger vs bear" is good, I don't denied it and I even asked him information about this, so I believe that he is a good poster but need "education", direction and to learn how to post. Animosity is part of the game, and certainly will escalate until one of the posters decide that do not worth the effort to continue waisting time, which what I tried to do. But as he continue and continue and continue, with the same thing, that is why I decided to show him the errors in his hypotesis.

2 - Comparing captive with wild specimens is not a good way, remember that the development of the captive animals is manage by the humans, which in the good zoos is way better than that of the harsh wild evironments where the ill specimens will certainly die. Based in your own tables, and the specimens measured by Mazak, wild Amur tiger are too far to reach those body masses, I estimated that the heaviest wild Amur tigers wil reach about 270 kg, but masses of over 400 kg are certainly impossible in the forests. On body size, certainly the biggest specimens measured by Mazak and you are reached by the biggest Amur tigers, but if that is repeated now is the incognite. There is where we need evidence and measurements, and for the moment, only the Bengal tigers reach the huge sizes of they own past and the past of the Amur specimens. However, this means that there are no giant tigers in the forest? Of course not! And that is the point that Apex (and I hope you don't) forget or ignore. I am fully convinced that there are bigger specimens out there, thanks to the better conservation and the higher prey density in the area, and my hopes are placed in the Ussuri region and the north of China. I was provided with new information about new captured specimens that in fact surpass the figures of the Siberian Tiger Project and the modern average is probably over 200 kg in males (females are ignored by most of posters, terrible by the way as the tiger society is based in females and if the females are not healthy, well......). However, I still need more data to confirm and publish this data and this is what experience told me, that patience pays, and I will wait what is necesary until we can have confirmations from the real experts via emails to me or a published document. 

3 - About the Siberian Tiger Project specimens, it is very frustating that modern posters have NO IDEA about how, when and who stablished the famous Siberian Tiger Monograph, that was published in 2005 and only in Russian. By the way, the full document is LOST, yes, is fully lost because at least in my side and using other VPN's, the original website of the WCS Russia was deleted and I sadly only saved two chapters in this computer, the 6 and the 7. The good news is that these two documents are those about the size. And here comes why I say that modern people and internet trolls do not know a damn aboutt his documents, and is because they ONLY mention Slagth et al. but no one of them mention Kerley et al.! So, they have no idea that the measurements and weights are part of two different chapters and two different authors. Other thing, who spread the lie that the specimens captured by the Siberian Tigers were problematic, sick or in bad conditions? I have the full documents and in ANY PART mention this, but this is the mantra repeated by the fanatics that try to discredit the work of these scientist that for many years dedicated they entire life and work to leard, study and save the tigers in the Russian Far East. If everybody take to time to READ the paper, or at least to read the tables from Slaght et al. we can see that "problematic" animals were separated from the main sample, they are NOT included with the regular ones. Also, the documentof Kerley et al., which is the one with the body measurements, use only the normal and healty specimens. Now, while the females are all of them in good conditions, three males were not. Only three males from the sample were found in not so good conditions and this is clearly explained in my tables and they body mass were remouved from the sample since the beggining. Also, they body size is not afected as they are in the range of specimens that are normal, so they lenght/height/girth were not remouved as there is no reason for that. So, People should stop spreading lies about these two documents, the captured animals were healthy, that is all. As to the age, all the documents that we see now use sexually mature specimens as "adults", that is why the use animals of over 3 years old in the sample, however I took to the time to add the age in my tables, based of course in the documents of the STP and also the monograph, so we can directly see the age when they were captured, and those that I could not found, I just put them "over 3 years". Conclution is that all the information about the captured animals is available, not only in my tables, but also in the documents of Slaght and Kerley and also the original papers of the STP. Here there is no missinformation, conspiracy or anything crazy, is just about the missinterpretation and lies of some fanatics out there.

4 - About the document "The snare for tiger", we can check it but that is more related about the method of capture, not about the sizes and weights recorded. So, while is important to take in count about the animal management and the risk on the captures, it is not relevant for our conclution about size. I don't see any issues reported with the tigers capture in Thailand and they use the same method (as fer I remember).

So about your proposals:

   1st - It is important to stablish the rules, and one of them is that what we are going to discuss must be based in evidence, data and a real backup. If only pictures and paw prints are going to be presented, sorry but I am not interested. Besides, you say this: "his opinion has to be weighed against the opinion of those who had the opportunity to see wild tigers in Primorye, Khabarovsk anbd northeastern China. Remember we're talking about opinions, because the data needed to get to a conclusion aren't there." You are right, are only opinions, but you can tell if when you saw the tigers that you measured, if you don't believed that they were the biggest ever? Human emotions are also something important to weight in an "opinion". And if we return to the old cases like Kaziranga tigers and Crater lions, at the end the assumptions that were made were not entirely backuped by the available data.

   2nd - Let's refer to Dr Karanth. Also, Dr Miquelle metioned something about this in the paper that I publised. We can also study the cases of the variations in India and Sundarbans as a surrogate. You will see that prey density in tigers make a difference.

   3rd. - If you going to focus in that particular paper, I advice you to read also the other papers of the STP and get the full information. Nothing was hidden in those old reports, if not, how do I got the information of the health status of the three males that I remouved from the column of weights?

   4th. - The specimens captured by the STP are not only those from 2005, they captured more after that year. So, you should take also my table for reference and remember also the specimens that were captured by the Amur Tiger Programme, which obviously are not included in the monograph of 2005. About representativity, definitelly I don't see any difference with those of Khabarovsk, but those from the Ussuri region were already bigger than those from Sikhote Alin and I am confident that those from north of China are even bigger. However, we can't realy our conclutions only in pictures and I will continue insisting on this.

   5th. - You can't base an "argument" based in the single heel of a single male. Also, you need to take in count the information provided by experts, if you check Heptner & Sludskii (1992) they present a good table about heel size and estimated weight and I don't see them saying that a tiger with a big heel automatically weighed 250 kg. Heels are good to estimate the sex and relative size, but as I showed, there is a difference between the print of the heel and the actual measurement in the flesh.

   6th. - We already have saw the information of Mazak, skulls and body measurements, nothing new for the argument and only a backup to show that captive Amur tigers are huge, which we already know. But I will like to see a comparative table of the skulls measured by him, you, and the other published in several documents already presented in this same forum. Interesting as a feedback of the past.

   7th. - Captive vs wild is not good. Remember that we have Sumatran tigers of over 185 kg in captivity (apparently pure breed).

The tables of Slaght and Kerley are available everywhere, I can put it tham here again there is no problem. But if we are going to discuss them I will need to say that you will need the full paper, not only the tables. My own tables are also available and updated, so we can use them are surrogates for details (if anyone do not want to dig and rearch for the details by themselves).

The floor is open, who is going to dance first? Reply