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

[GuateGojira]

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

Nobody is questioning the work of people like Gotvansky and Yavorskaya, in fact that is what started all this. When a person with no evidence and full of prejudices says that the top experts biologist of a particular species used "inhumane bullshit methods" and offer no evidence about his claims, that should start a red alert, but for some reasons that was ignored by all here. The work of these people saved and continue saving the tigers in all the world, but one thing is the work to protect a tiger and other is base a claim in the personal appreciation of a person that never measured those animals, against those that actually did and published they results. I believe in what Valmik Thapar said about tigers, but about measurements I will ask to Sunquist or Karanth, not to him, you know what I mean.

I am not agree that sticking to the facts limit our scope, specially in modern days when there is a big theoretical framework already created. Am I deniyng that Amur tigers over 220 kg exist in modern days? Of course not and you can read, and copy-paste my MANY post where I specifically said that big tigers certainly exist, but we can't just use a single paw/heel print and a couple of picture to justify something. I certainly focus in the south of the Ussuri region and the north of China, where history said that the biggest Amur tigers existed and as I said before, I have new evidence (still not published) that shows that the figure of 212 kg is no longer the heaviest Amur tiger on record, which is great! By the way, I am not sure why the Biologist arrived to India and Nepal with scales of 500 lb, but something tells me that is more related with costs than other thing, but that is irrelevant in this conversation.

About your point of people that lie every day, that is why I am exceptical of emails or screenshoots with no reference. If a document is published will be more reliable than a single image with no reference. Your example of Mazák actually shows my point, he trust in some sources and failed, next time he was more cautions, the same with Pocock. 

I normally like to read your experiences and stories, but this time is to much rhetoric for a simple topic. Apex came shooting crap to the Siberian Tiger Project and its experts, so I acted, simple. Latter he presented an idea based in a single paw print and a few pictures as a "fact" and I showed him that he was talking only smoke with nothing concrete. There is nothing about been close to new information, if not, all my work and tables will not exist. I am the best example that been open to new information is the key to evolve, and that is why now many people in the web kwons that the Amur and Bengal tigers are equal in size, that Bengal are bigger in modern days, that Barbary lions were never the giants told by hunters, that the Ngandong tiger exist, etc. etc. etc. All that work happened because I was open to new ideas, but as followers of the science we allways need to have evidence to start correctly. That is my point all this time.

About captive Amur tigers and they body mass, I am not surprised. When I made the first table of captive Amur tigers in 2012 I noticed that the Amur tigers in captivity ofter weighed between 180 - 220 kg and I found only two tigers that surpassed the 300 kg. Of course your new work have a bigger sample but the results are about the same. This can be explained that most of these specimens follow strict diets and are not allowed to eat as much as they want. Is a possible explanation.

About the skulls of Bengal and Amur tigers, a new study where Dr Yamaguchi is involved actually explain why the skull of the Amur tiger is longer and more massive. Remember that I hypotesized that the large skulls were the result of tigers preying on wild boars and competition with bears? Well actually they went even deeper and conclude that the massiveness is related with the fact that they need to eat frozen meat and that is why they need a bigger masticatory aparatus, that also afect the entire area of the muzzle. However, on average the difference between them (Bengal and Amur) is very small and the biggest skulls are about the same size in both populations. I would like a comparsion between wild specimens only, but that will be difficult as Mazák never published the individual Indian skulls, although I believe that all came from wild animals. Amur tigers, on the other hand, he included captive specimens too and must of the new skulls reported are also from captivity. Plus, the sample size is very differente. Reply