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

[GuateGojira]

(10-10-2023, 08:00 AM)peter Wrote: 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

*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

*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

*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

*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.   

You mention that 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. I highly doubth this, but the reason is not the size, but the "heel". I have saw a constant confusion between "heel" and "paw". To bettern understan check this image:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Here we can see that is completelly different to measure the paw (which will be the full hand, in red) and to measure only the heel (in blue). If we check the table if Kerley et al. (2005) we can see that , here is the table for reference, again:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Here we can see that the paw of the large males can get up to 15.3 cm in length and 15.5 cm in wide, in that case the sizes that you mention of 14 - 15, or even 16 cm are probably paws, not heels. By the way, can you show that source of those measurements and who took them? If pictures are available that will be even better. By the way, even when all measurements were taken by well-trained people, who've seen their fair share of wild Amur tigers, that doesn't mean that errors can't be made, not only human ones, but also those caused by the soil (remember my previous post about that). I know that in the past paw prints did reached 16 cm (Heptner & Sludskii, 1992), but unless several measurements can be taken, with more or less regular soil status, variations can happen even between the same animal, if not check the "experts" from India that used paw prints for census that magically invented tigers of diffeent sizes based in prints that at the end never existed.

The history of Mr Aleksey Gotvansky is very good and impressive, but again, did he measured a heel or a paw? That is what I want to know and also see the publication were he specifically said that.

About your question: "Have you ever seen an adult male Amur tiger standing on his hindlegs, Guate?"


I had several oportunities to saw brown bears standing in they high legs, the biggest one was an old Kodiac male from Alaska in the Zoo La Aurora in Guatemala, in that time that zoo was more like a Menagerie than a modern zoo so the cages were very small and the animal had a very small space of a couple of meters and just walked around it all the day, very sad. Even then, I saw the animal standing several times and I can tell you that the male certainly was close to the 3 meters from the ground to the tip of its nose. When the Zoo changes and had now open evironments the poor old bear looked much more happy and even from the distance (now it was a big environment) it looked huge. About tigers, I only saw "Bengal" ones, but they are immense, specially a big white one from a circus that was as wide as a table and its tail was as wide as my arm! The tigers were certainly over 300 kg, and its length probably over 200 cm, certainly a giant. However, these are only my personal appreciations and with no measurements is imposible to know how big they were, if they are were only average specimens (except for the tiger, that one was very fat).

This worries me: "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."

Can you see why I am exceptic? You se that you don't know how he (Gotvansky) estimate the height, if it was to the top of the skull (which you and your personal appreciation says that is unlikelly, with no evidence of the contrary) or to the tip of the paws. Also, you are not sure if he actually measure it or is only an estimation. These are too many guesses with no point of reference. About his personal appreciation on big specimens, again, I use your personal experiences and my own too, and I can tell you that astonishment and admiration cause impressions that certainly affect personal judgements. In my comparative images you can see that an "average" specimens looks HUGE agains the human siluete, so how can we know if the "big" specimens that Mr Gotvansky saw are giants or just "average" specimens without a real measurement?

Pictures, again, are useless unless you have a point of reference, sorry, but I can't play by using guesses from different people. Animals looks amazing of course, but like I showed before, we don't know if they are giants, average or even small specimens without a point of comparison. I know that bears in the area do reach up to 363 kg and that estimations put them over 400 kg in some cases, but there is no evidence than that particular bear in the picture weighed that, remember that the longest male measured by the Siberian Tiger Project, that measured 224 cm in head-body, weighed only 240 kg. As I said before, I have several pictures of adult male Amur tigers with people at they sides and they look huge, but none of them weighed over 205 kg, so again, pictures are deceptive. Check a few:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

If you don't knew what I told you about these tigers and they weights, how much will you estimate for them?

You mention 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) that apprently was 240 cm in head and body length, I highly doubt that measurement. The same sources that you quote show it. The tigers measured by Mazák were huge, and the taller (but not longer) and massive male of Dr W. Gewalt was a real giant, but none of them had a head-body of 240 cm "between pegs". Maybe if the specimen was measured "along the curves" and pressing several times the tape I can buy it, but if not, that is certainly a gross exageration. Check the image of this tiger:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Now check the comparative image of the tigers that Mazák reported:

*This image is copyright of its original author

In my appreciation, the tigers from Mazák look bigger than the specimen of Köln Zoo.

I do believe that comparing wild tigers with captive tigers is not fair, but if you read again what I said, I was focused in the weight, not in body size. In body size wild tigers reached the same as the biggest captive tigers. The biggest tiger from Brander was of the same size than the biggest tiger of Mazák of Dr Gewalt, and the Amur tiger hunted by Jankovski also do the same. But in body masses, certainly no wild tiger since the last 12,000 years since present will weight the same than the giant tiger "Jaipur". That is that I believe that captive tigers will have the advantage agains the wild ones, except in the case of the Bengal tigers, when happen the contrary.

About this picture:

*This image is copyright of its original author

How you know that the tiger do not jump like this?

*This image is copyright of its original author

Other thing, how tall is the man in the picture? That is important.

About this picture:

*This image is copyright of its original author

That is certainly a big cat, just like this:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Again, captive well feed giants.

Finally, about this polar bear:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is a good example of what a personal impresion can cause. You say that this polar bear is "huge" but actually it is not, as the woman with it is Ursula Böttcher and she measured 5 ft 1 in (1.55 m) tall, so that afect the perspective of the size of the polar bear. Here is another picture:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Certainly and small but very brave woman!

Perspective, personal appreciation, amazement and emotion, all this affect how we see a picture. Reply