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

[GuateGojira]

(11-19-2023, 10:36 AM)peter Wrote: ABOUT THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN OUR MEMBERS GUATE AND APEX

1 - Introduction

A few weeks ago, a discussion between our members 'GuateGorija' and 'Apex Titan' started in the thread 'Amur Tigers'. After it turned heated, I proposed to continue in this thread. The reason is this thread has more views, enabling those interested to take notice of the proceedings. Another reason is the character of this thread is more suited for discussions. The main aim of the threads about tiger subspecies is to collect good info. 

Both Apex and Guate decided to ignore the proposal. The result was the Amur tiger thread was polluted. A few days ago I again proposed to continue the discussion in this thread. I hope the proposal will be accepted this time. 

2 - Wildfact 

Before turning to the discussion, it doesn't seem superfluous to underline Wildfact is a forum about those making their home in the natural world. We don't mind the occasional discussion, but our aim is to collect good information. In order to get there and to prevent problems, rules and mods were added. A brilliant new formula? Not really. It's an old recipe that was tested and tried. Well over 73 million views in a decade say our members and readers appreciate the way the forum is run.       

3 - About the discussion 

I followed the proceedings. What did I see? Although it may seem different, it isn't about the issues discussed. In between and behind the sentences, I sensed something of a very different nature. Meaning egos took over. When they do, the result will be problems.   

4 - About success, pride and prejudice 

I could start this paragraph with a nice overview of the merits of Guate and Apex, but I could also say both are very interested in wild tigers and invested a lot of time to develop in the department of knowledge. This is especially true for Guate, who's been here from the start. Apex started with a ban, but made a nice comeback and, as a result, was invited to post in the tiger exctinction thread about interactions between Amur tigers, Himalayan black and Ussuri brown bears. Guate's posts and tables often draw a crowd, but Apex isn't lacking in that department. Informationwise, both deliver. 

Success often results in confidence. Overconfidence, however, can result in problems. More often than, it will have an effect on the way those affected interact. Did it affect Guate and Apex? To a degree, albeit it for different reasons. Guate is a confident poster with a reputation, whereas Apex learned to defend his posts and his position the hard way. Meaning their exchange resulted in what some would have perceived as a rumble in the jungle. When that happens, the most likely outcome is a lot of noise, plenty of bruises and, worst of all, broken pride. 

What I'm saying is, Guate, it isn't about philosophy, but about action and reaction. When you decide for a frontal attack, your opponent isn't going to take it lying down. Not when he's made of the same wood. I know you're going to deny you delivered the first punch, but that's what happened and I wasn't the only one who noticed.  

5 - About the effects of strong opinions 

When you join a public forum to interact, knowledge and drive will be appreciated. The passion needed to get there, however, also can result in strong convictions. When they enter a discussion, anything is possible. In this particular case, I thought I saw sloppy reading and quick responses. The result was the discussion derailed. Example.  

In my last post in the this thread, the heel width of some wild male Amur tigers in the Anyuisky National Park was discussed. The tiger known as 'The Beast' had a heel width of 13,5 cm and approached 3 meters in height standing on their his legs. I've no idea about the weight of the tiger, but it must have been an exceptional individual. Gotvansky added he saw prints with a heel width well exceeding 13,5 cm, meaning the tigers leaving these prints were even larger than 'The Beast'. I would like to know a bit more about them, but don't have the opportunity to talk to Gotvansky. As I'm in no postion to doubt the observation of a well-trained and experienced man, I've no option but to assume the esults of his measurements were accurate. Different from saying I'm sure. 

Same for the information about the young adult male Amur tiger of the Köln Zoo discussed in 'Two fatal tiger attacks in zoos' (Tantius et al., 2016). Those present at the autopsy of the tiger were professionals, meaning it's likely they followed the protocol when the tiger was measured. In Germany (referring to a conversation with Dr. D. Mörike, the former conservator of the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart), the protocol is to measure the length of a big cat in a straight line ('between pegs'). But " ... likely ... " is different from being sure.  

And that's about all there is to say about the Köln Zoo tiger and the one who measured the prints of wild Amur tigers of the Anyuisky National Park. Meaning you obviously missed what seemed to be obvious: a bit of doubt. The result was a superflous post.  

Apart from sloppy reading, there's assumptions, exceptions and double standards. Example. 

Your posts, to keep it short, say you accept information collected by tiger biologists and reject information that wasn't. This, implicitly, means you doubt the intentions and ability of just about every hunter before tiger biologists made their appearance. With 'just about', I mean you're prepared to accept some records. With 'some', I'm referring to those hunting tigers in what used to be British India in particular. And not Russia. Except for Baikov. That is to say, his 560-pound male shot near the Korean border in 1911. Most records of other tigers he shot, however, were rejected by those who had a closer look at historical records. The reason is the information didn't meet the threshold. The threshold defined by today's biologists. But thresholds apparently vary in size. Let's take the tiger with a head and body length of 7.5 recently discussed. You seem to accept the record, but what about other records of large tigers measured in that way? There are many.     

Anyhow. The decision to sideline information collected by hunters a century ago is debatable, if not questionable. In the seventies of the previous century, biologists entered the forest with scales that had a limited capacity. A result of circumstances or a result of doubts about reports from hunters about large tigers a century ago? I don't know, but I do know some biologists still have serious doubts about tigers exceeding 500 pounds, let alone 600. The doubt experessed by Kitchener and Yamaguchi ignited a discussion about the amount of food a wild tiger is able to consume. Today, the amount biologists agreed on is deducted when a wild tiger is captured. This means tiger biologists, apparently, assume any wild tiger they capture is loaded. Debatable, to put it mildly. And what about tigers unable to hunt because of an injury? They get 60 pounds extra?   

The new culture biologists embraced is solidified in 'peer-reviewed' documents (articles reviewed by those with a similar set of assumptions as the authors). Information weighed in this way is accepted by all. Information that wasn't, isn't. Over time, processing information in this way will result in a reliable framework. The problem is there are thresholds and they seem to favour some observations over others. They can result in premature conclusions. Example.   

When the Siberian Tiger Project started, it didn't take biologists long to conclude Amur tigers do not hunt bears. Too dangerous, they said. A decade later, however, they had to conclude tigers hunt bears more often than they assumed. Most bears hunted, on top of that, were larger than biologists assumed. Views were adjusted. They then said bears are mainly hunted by experienced old male tigers. Wrong again, they had to conclude some years further on. Tigresses also hunt bears. Same for young adults and immature tigers. When contacted by a poster a decade ago, Kerley said just about anything is possible when a tiger and a bear meet. Recent information, however, strongly suggest no tigers have been killed by bears in the period 1992-2023. There's, on the other hand, plenty of reliable information about bears killed by tigers. A few years ago, biologists concluded tigers hunt Himalayan black bears. Except for large males approaching or even exceeding 400 pounds. Not true, Kolchin said. Large males are also hunted. And brown bears? There are reliable reports about brown bears hunted by tigresses, but most brown bears seem to be hunted by experienced males. They, occasionally, hunt females up to about their own size, but adult male brown bears are avoided, biologists thought. I wrote 'thought', and not 'think', because they could have changed their mind after two incidents between male tigers and male brown bears made a few headlines. Meaning assumptions had an effect. 

Another example. In a recent document about tiger skulls, it was concluded the exceptional sagittal crest of adult wild male Amur tigers is a result of eating frozen meat in the cold season. But skulls of captive adult male Amur tigers also often have a crest of remarkable size. And why is it adult wild Amur tigresses also eating frozen meat in the long Russian winter lack the exceptional crest seen in male skulls?  

As to Apex. After reading peer-reviewed documents in which interactions between tigers and bears were discussed (referring to the period in which most biologists assumed tigers avoided bears), Apex decided for a different approach. Following his nose, he found reports of Ussuri brown bears killed by Amur tigers in Russian newspapers, magazins and (old) books. He also found a few interviews in which a well-known Russian biologist (A. Batalov) talked about a large male brown bear that followed an adult tigress with cubs for a prolonged period of time. The bear suddenly vanished. A few years later, Batalov said he was sure the big male was killed by tiger 'Ochkarik', the father of the cubs. Apex also found interviews with Russian tiger biologists saying male Amur tigers prevail in most interactions with even large bears. As their opinion isn't based on peer-reviewed documents, one has to assume it's based on observations of those they consider as reliable (hunters, rangers and peers). Peer-reviewed documents are extended and reliable, but that doesn't mean they cover all of it. Furthermore, not every biologist is active in the document department.      
 
What I'm also saying is the quest of Apex produced something of interest. And you agreed. 

The same nose telling Apex there could be more to tigers and bears than many assumed, told him information about the size of today's wild Amur tigers could be incomplete. He referred to (indirect information about the size of) tigers in northeastern China and the northern districts of the Khabarovsky Krai in particular. The information from northeastern China (referring to the video in which Limin featured), to a degree (as still unconfirmed), suggests he could have a point, but there's no information about tigers in the Khabarovski Krai at all. Nothing except the photograph of the tiger known as 'The Beast' and his neighbour (a large old male brown bear) hugging the same tree. While it's, as you said, true the suggestion of Apex isn't supported by reliable information, it's also true tigers in that part of the Russian Far East have never been captured. 

This time, you went for Apex. The question is why. A result of what you perceived as an indirect 'attack' on today's biologists, or a result of something else? I remember a few posts about a man (with a degree) who had visited the Russian Far East. He said he saw a large tiger. You initially bought his story, but later contacted a researcher who told you the tiger was a male of average size. You didn't forget and decided to be more wary in the future. Years later, it resulted in a series of posts that quickly turned nasty when Apex started about the size of wild Amur tigers. He paid. Same for the one who, as you said, 'defended' him. Yes Guate, I did. And you now know why. One has to be careful with reports about large tigers, but that doesn't mean they're to be dismissed out of hand. You just never know in wild big cats.             
   
6 - About peer-reviewed documents and alternative methods to get to good information

Over the years, many books in which wild Amur tigers feature have been published. Some were written by explorers and naturalists, others by hunters and, later, biologists. Apart from Mazak ('Der Tiger', 1983), you can find an overview in 'Mammals of the Sowjet-Union' (Band III, Raubtiere, Heptner and Sludskij, German translation, 1980). Reading them enabled me to learn a few things about the ecology of Amur tigers.    

In 1992, the Siberian Tiger Project (STP) started. It resulted in a barrage of information. The great advantage of peer-reviewed documents is they're based on studies conducted over extended periods of time, enabling biologists to get to an extended framework of knowledge. Decisions based on this knowledge resulted in new reserves and national parks patrolled by well-trained rangers. The measures taken enabled ecossystems to recover to a degree. They also enabled wild animals, including apex predators, to survive in a human-dominated landscape. Today, there are about 650 wild Amur tigers in the Russian Far East and about 50 in northeastern China. Quite an achievement, considering the population bottleneck in the thirties of the previous century.   

In many respects, peer-reviewed documents really are a great leap forward. Reading them compares to watching a series of great documentaries that took many years to complete. They take you into a largely unknown world and tell you which habitats tigers prefer, how much room they need, which animals they hunt, at what age they breed, at what age young tigers disperse and which dangers they face before they reach adulthood. In the last decade in particular, articles about the way Amur tigers, Himalayan black bears and Ussuri brown bears interact have been published. That's still apart from countless interesting articles in which conflicts between tigers and humans and causes of mortality are described. Diseases and parasites have been identified. The Siberian Tiger Project was, and still is, a very productive project. One of the best of it's kind as far as I can see. Same, although not (yet) to the same degree, for the (Russian) Amur Tiger programme.

As to the size of wild Amur tigers today. In the period 1992-2004, male tigers of 3 years and older captured in the Sichote-Alin Biosphere Reserve and its surroundings averaged 176,4 kg and 294 cm in total length measured 'over curves', whereas females averaged 117,9 kg and 275 cm in total length. I do not doubt the averages, but it is a fact most tigers have been captured in the Primorsky Krai, and in one district (a reserve) in particular. Apart from that, the table published in 2005 had a few young adult males. Important? I think so. The reason is there are significant differences between young adult and mature male tigers at the level of averages (referring to skull size, length and weight).     

Peer-reviewed documents are as reliable as it gets. If conclusions are based on information collected in one specific region or district in one period of time, however, one has to be careful. The Russian Far East is a very large place and it's quite likely there are significant differences between subregions (referring to landscape, elevation, forest cover, human density, conditions, climate and prey animals) and even districts. It's also likely these will have an effect on the way tigers develop. 

For (indirect) confirmation, we could move to India. In what used to be British India, local conditions seemed to have a pronounced effect on the average size of tigers. We know, because quite many hunters wrote books about their experiences. These books strongly suggest tigers shot just south of the Himalayas were larger than those shot in the Deccan and southeastern India. They also suggested hunting had an effect on the average size of tigers. I can hear you say there's a difference between experienced tiger hunters back then and today's poachers, but is there? Poachers are in it for the money and a large wild Amur tiger is a great trophy. Aramilev thinks 15-20 wild Amur tigers are poached every year, but a recent interview with someone qualified to get to an opinion suggests he could underestimate the number of tigers killed by poachers. 

What I'm saying is there are different ways that lead to Rome. There are peer-reviewed documents, documentaries, newspaper articles, interviews and, last but not least, books published (well) before the STP started. I'm not saying they, informationwise, compare, but then, in the end, they, in a way, do. The only thing missing is the Udeges. They've been there for a long period of time and no doubt know a lot more than we do.               
 
7 - To conclude

An issue can be discussed in two ways. The first, and most preferred, way is to present a view with flair and defend it at all costs. This method compares to a bout in the ring. You and your opponent get gloves and a furious crowd. Your opponent says there could be large tigers in remote regions in the Russian Far East (straight to the nose) and provides circumstantial evidence (left hook). You (liver) say most stories are a result of hearsay (end of round one). In round two, your opponent (body shot) goes straight for your weak spot (peer-reviewed documents), adds insult by quoting from 'The snare for tiger' (left hook) and finishes (stomach) with tigers leaving immense prints in a region never even visited by tiger biologists (below the belt). In round three, you question his mental ability (also below the belt), forcing the referee to intervene. He said you, and not someone else, decided for this method, and deducts a point for breaking a rule. He is then floored by a blow below the belt. Same for a ring-assistent, two members of the jury and the chairman of the International Boxing Federation. As a result of the animosity, the fight is cancelled. The question that started the bout, I mean discussion, wasn't answered. And all involved come up empty.

The second method, loathed by just about everyone these days, is to start a real discussion. No gloves. This method offers all involved the opportunity to discuss and weigh arguments considered as interesting. In the end, it will produce a decision based on sound reasoning. This method also offers all involved the opportunity to disagree in a respectful way. On top of that, this method offers those interested the opportunity to continue in the near future.           

You opted for the first method, which resulted in animosity and a damaged nose. That's still apart from the one moderating the thread. He wants you to know it took him a lot of time to get to a conclusion. Time he wanted to invest in answering a question that started the discussion.  

The decision I got to is you overreacted. The result was a problem. How solve? By accepting a mistake was made and by acting accordingly. It wouldn't result in a loss of face, but quite the opposite. The reason is people see problems all the time every day everywhere. They know how difficult it is to admit the ego is a tough opponent at the best of times. Someone prepared to face the consequences and solve the problem is noticed without a shadow of doubt. People like those able to overcome their own shadow. As it takes two to tango, it would be appreciated if Apex could contribute in this department as well.      

8 - Edits

This post, as you might have noticed, was edited more than once. It no doubt resulted in confusion. My apologies. Although it may seem different, it took me quite a bit of time to read all posts. Same for getting to a conclusion. I wrote the post in one go and accepted it would take some time to get it right. I'm done now, meaning this was the last edit.        

9 - The aim of this thread

In spite of the intention to turn the tide, we're still losing natural forests and countless species at an alarming rate. Every year, the conclusion is similar to the conclusion of the previous year. The future looks gloomy. Is there something we can do? I think so. This forum is an attempt to get members of the general public interested in the natural world. Judging from the number of views, it's appreciated. My proposal is to continue in this way.        

Always remember this thread is about wild tigers, not us. In order to attract attention, we have to create something of interest. Not easy, but we don't need to perform miracles to get there. The reason is the natural world is quite something to behold. All we got to do is to show it. 

This thread is based on good information. Information that will keep readers interested. They might make a difference in the end. In order to achieve our goal, members need to cooperate. You're a good poster, Guate. But so is Apex. How about a bit of cooperation? 

Long post, now a proper answer.

1 - The reason of the discussion:
It could be obvious to anyone reading the posts between Apex and I, to see the original reasons of the discussion, however it seems that is not obvious for you (for some reason). The discussion was NOT about old records, the discussion was NOT about reliability of the people/experts, the discussion was NOT about personal experiences or reputation, NO. The reason of the discussion was simple: 

1 - He insulted the Siberian Tiger Project, in order to misprize the size/weight figures that they recorded during they study time. 
2 - He started and idea with no fundament, that tigers in Khabarovsk were giants but he never provided ANY real evidence.

These were the reasons fo the discussion, so now I don't understand WHY you are mentioning things that are not even relevant to the discussion, specially because we NEVER discussed them in the debate.

He twisted the debate about the methods of capture and the ethic of captures, which was NOT the point. So I allready answered clearly about this issue. Now you mention the realiability of the old hunting records and I even see an "indirect" acusation of bias against Russian records in favor of Indian/Brithis records, which is simple nonesense. I will answer that in this same post, but my point is the inability of both of you to stick to the real issue. Now, let me expand this issue.

About the Siberian Tiger Project, he focused in the capture method like if that influenced in the figures. Sorry, but independently of the capture method, the tigers were not going to weight more or less, they weight what they weight, simple. So, the results of some captures are not relevant here. Of course, we can debate about the ethic of the captures, but that is NOT the point here. Apex do not care about the tigers, he cares about the WEIGTHS, he want to diminish the results like something old, obsolete, when actually is fundamental to understan that Amur tigers never had a "fix average" (if something like that did exist....), but they fluctuated during the last two centuries. Check how old records showed Amur tigers of the same size as Bengal tigers, but after 1970, the average drop to about 160 kg in males! Latter since 1992 and up to 2012 the average was about 190 kg and that is the figure that we know. Only one weight has been published in 2023 and was a male of about 207 kg, and now I have figures of over 230 kg for modern males and over 140 kg for modern females. And this is something that I have been preached since many years, that modern Amur tigers are probably heavier in these years as the weight has been increasing in a normal patern, and this is something that you or any poster can't deny, that I basicaly prophesied that this increase would happen, but I do it with EVIDENCE, based in a theoretical framework based in experts and they results. And this take us to the second point, the evidence.

When the claim of the tiger known as "The Beast" was made by Apex, he did not presente ANYTHING except for a picture of him and a bear. And about the paw/heel wide, he did not presented the evidence. And the same goes to you Peter, you say that Gotvansky says that he saw (measured?) giant heels of over 13.5 cm, so my ONLY question is: WHY both of you do not present the images, links, pictures, screenshoots, emails or whatever you have to show this? Whe you only mention something but do not show anything, we can't just believe it for faith. In fact, Apex at least did showed one link about the heel size, but I needed to investigate more in order to make sure if the figure was a paw or a heel, which is fundamental. So, that is my complain too, why you don't show the images or documents to backup the claim. Check that in any of my posts I demanded a peer review document, no, I only asked at least an image saying that Gotvansky specifically said/measured/recorded that. I always put images of books, documents, emails or anything at my hand to backup a claim, why Apex and you don't do that?

Latter, I showed that heel wide is more or less reliable to estimate a weight, but even then is not enough as there is correlation but the significance is still very low, practically is still like trowing a coin (thanks to the data of the Siberian Tiger Project, what a coincidence!). Also, I showed a part of a document (which you even showed the picture of the book in your post) where they explained how they use the paw prints and is to guess the sex of the animal and a partial idea of its size, but never to estimate a steady weights. However, all that paragraph was ignored for some reason.

At the end, I acted because I can't just let the people to diminish the work of experts that had made more for tiger conservation than many other "naturallists" in the field. No one can deny that the work of the Siberian Tiger Project is the base for tiger conservation in the Russian Far East, and that the new Amur Tiger Project owes a lot from them, including the capture method that is still used by the Russian scientists. As a professional too, it is disturbing seen people insulting the work of professionals only because they don't fit they claims. And about the evidence, if someone is going to make a claim, better show something, and pictures and personal appreciations are NOT hard evidence, and I will love the see the sample of paw/heel prints used to claim that there are several giant tigers in the Khabarovsk region. 

These are still the two points of the discussion, why they are constantly ignored for secondary things? That is another question that I demant to be answered.

And by the way, about the Köln Zoo tiger, I still found hard to believe that a male tiger of 3-4 years old had a head-body length in straight line bigger than the biggest tiger recorded by Mazák (220 cm), bigger than any wild tiger ever measured (227 cm) and as big as the giant Ngandong tiger (230-240 cm).  Please check the image of this tiger again:

*This image is copyright of its original author

I see this tiger and certainly do not look as big. May you please ask if the figure was actually 204 cm and not 240 cm? A length of slightly over 200 cm looks more reliable for an animal of the size of the tiger in the picture.

2 - Old records, is this for real???
This really disturbed me, and you know that when something disturbed my is not a good thing. Can you show me in what part of all the posts that I made in the debate with Apex I did mentioned, diminished or discarted the hunting records? In what part did I even mentioned them in a negative form? That is why I ask, WHY you mention this point in the debate?

Hunting records is something that I always used, but like Mazák and Pocock, I used only those measured between pegs or at least those that we are sure that were measured "in the flesh" and not from skins. Check this old image from 2022:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Can you see how many old hunting records were used? Hunting records are the only ones that we have for some subspecies! So, where do you got that I am against the huntig records?

Second thing, why you "suggest" that there is a bias against Russian records and in favor of Indian/Brithis ones? You know very well why the giant figures of the Russian tigers are now discarted by serious scientists and biologists, even Mazák said that we need to take them like a grain of salt! So, in case you forgot it, let me explain again the reason why the old records were clasified:

The 6th chapter of the Siberian Tiger Project monograph called "Who's king of the beasts? Historical and contemporary data on the body weight of wild and captive Amur tigers in comparison with other subspecies" from the sceintists Slaght, J. C.; Miquelle, D. G.; Nikolaev, I. G.; Goodrich, J. M.; Smirnov, E. N.; Traylor-Holzer, K.; Christie, S.; Arjanova, T.; Smith, J. L. D.; Karanth, K. U.

In this chapter the scientists tried to check the real body mass of the Amur tigers, both historic and modern, and compare them with the figures of other tiger subspecies. They checked the weights of the Russian litterature and classified the weights based in four levels:

1) высоконадежные = Highly reliable - in the text there is a detailed description of the measurements of weight and other indicators, and the author was present taking the measurements.

2) средненадежные = Medium reliable - data of two types: explanations in the text indicate that the author was present but only weighing was carried out, or the source is secondary, but there is evidence that the animal was actually weighed (for example, other body measurements).

3) менее надежные = Less reliable - data are also of two types: if there is a message that the animal were weighed, but the source is secondary and there is little evidence to support the weighing, or the source is primary, but the reliability of the data is in doubt.

(4) ненадежные = Unreliable - data meet one of the following conditions: there is evidence that the weight was assessed approximately (and not by direct weighing); weight taken from a secondary source of questionable reliability; presumably, the condition of the animal when weighed it was extremely poor; and if there is an obvious error in the data.

The result was this:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Many of the old records were not reliable because they were only mentioned in news papers and second/third hand sources. This includes the figure of 384 kg often quoted even by The Amur Tiger Programme, which is disapointing.

However, some of the figures were discarded as "not reliable" because they were "evicerated" or because the carcasses were frozen. So I am also not entirely agree with some results and as any can see in my tables, I did included some of those specimens as "reliable" as they were actually measured and weighed, so if they were "evicerated" they still can represent an animal "empty belly" and although it can create a lower average figure, is still usefull. Here is my table of the old hunting records:

*This image is copyright of its original author

I am tracking a new "old figure" of 225 kg that includes a picture of the male specimen, and I still have doubts about the male of 270 kg mentioned by Mazák, this last one is important because none of the figures investigated by Slaght et al. (2005) showed this specimen and I also found specimens in litterature that can be clasiffied as "средненадежные" that shows that the team of Dr Slaght do not found ALL the hunting records. However, I am also hesitating to use it as we know that Mazák included captive specimen, so I don't know if that male of 270 kg was a wild or a captive one. Even then, the final result of my table shows that the historic Amur tigers (both males and females) were bigger than the historic Bengal tigers, although the sample is far more smaller and we need to remember that many of the Bengal specimens were probably young aduls of less than 3 years old but because there were already as long/tall as full grow adults, they were probably included in the samples by the hunters and clasiffied as "adults". 

Also Peter, you mentioned the new Bengal tiger record of 227 cm in head-body "between pegs" like evidence that I am willing to accept Indian records but to reject Russian records, so I need to ask, show me a male Amur tiger tiger in hunting records that measured over 210 cm in head-body "in the flesh"? Appart from the male tiger reported by Jankownski, all the other males were of less than 210 cm, this last one measured by Zoologist Bromlei. So, the few, very few, body meausurements of old Amur tigers suggest that they are of the same size of the Bengal tigers, and this new giant from India is accepted because it met the requirements to be a record clasified as высоконадежные, although sadly there is no weight recorded.

So, there is no bias, there is no favoritism, there is no double standard. I used all the figures available and clasified them using the methodology of Slaght et al. (2005), which at this moment is the only one that tried to make an honest clasification of the reliable and not-reliable figures. This is better than what Dr Yamaguchi do, which is to discard all the hunting records per se, or like it says in the book of 2010 "Tigers of the World", "relatively well-documented hunting records" which still try to cast doubth about the figures, even when many of them are as reliable as the modern records (i.e. Brander, Hewett and the Maharaha of Cooch Behar).

In conclution, do not make assumptions about what "I think", read my post and see my work, then you will see what I believe and how I work.


3 - Modern records:
There are a few other weights in modern litterature and websites at this moment, the most famous ones are the male of 270 kg that was, apparently, weighed by Dr Limin Feng, the other one a subadult of less than 3 years old that weighed 225 kg and two others over 220 kg that I am not going to discluse because I don't want. Some people may think that until now the Amur tigers are weighed more, but that is not correct. Since 2010 I was mentioning that Amur tigers were increasing in size, this table that I made shows the speciments captured by the Amur Tiger Project at 2012:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Since then, we can see that the male tigers in these areas were bigger than those from the Sikhote-Alin and the average weight is of 203 kg for males and 125 kg for females. I have no doubth that current Amur tigers probaly weight more, specially with the new figures, but as none of them are published we need to be carefull. I got an average of close to 200 kg in males and about 125 kg in females, when I include the new 4 males and other females that I am aware, and using specimens from 1992 to 2023, with the heaviest been the male of 270 kg. Now, I sill don't include them as I need to corroborate them, to avoid what happened with the two males that suppoustly weighed 220 and 250 kg, when actually they weighed 200 and 185 kg respectively. I am cautions because the reputation came together with the accuracy. What would happen if I include these 4 males in my tables and at the end it results not been correct???

Now, one thing is to especulate that the tigers in one area are bigger than in other one using evidence of possible real weights, and other is to especulate using only one single paw/heel print and pictures. Sorry, but I don't care how many times you will defen Apex, but a single picture with no comparison point is not going to be evidence of anything. Also personal opinions are not reliable, as even if an "expert" says that a particular tigers is a "giant", his opinion will be valid if he actually compare it with all the other tigers in the region, or tigers from other countries.

I side point: About Kitchener and Yamaguchi (2010), about the stomach content. It is correct that they claims are cause of debate, but we need to be honest in that this "debate" is not among experts, but among fans, specially the hard-core-lion fans that still swarm in drains like Carnivora forum or Wild Animal elite or pigsties like that. And I am fully agree that the conclutions, mainly from Yamaguchi, are incorrect as there is NO reliable record of a tiger or lion eating up to 43 kg (maximum are 35 and 33 kg respectively), as they suggest for the Sauraha male. In fact, they show that they knowledge on the Chitwan tigers is very few, because as we know the figure of 261 kg is not a weight but a calculation, the real weight is of 272 kg+, and even if they adjust the exagerated amount of 43 kg from that figure, the result will be 229 kg, bigger than the rubish 218 kg that they estimated. However, modern records do not adjust stomach content, all the modern lion records are not adjuted, none of them. And the modern tigers captured are no longer baited, but darted in the road or captured with snares, so the Rusian and Thailand tigers, they are normally "empty" when captured.


4 - Why the other animals?
This is also another point, the fanatism that is very marked in the answers of Apex and even yours. Sorry, by I need to say it, but you are very involved in this issue of "Tiger vs Bear" and in fact half of your post you touch this point. The same with Apex and his fanatism with the Megalodon. Why you people deviate from the main topic and start touching this irrelevant points?

I already expresed my opinion about Megalodon and its constants change of size, no disrespect to the Megalodon investigators, but the size of that animal always change depending of the methods and formulas. Now to increase is to 20 meters, next year maybe they will decrease it. So, I take those results with healthy excepticism as we need to remember that those sizes are estimations, mostly based in the great white shark, which is from another group of sharks and much derived but is normally used as surrogate as the better modern analog. Now, you can see in the posts of Apex the hate that he has agains the cetaceans, a group of animals that had done nothing against him and he even blame me of having a bias for them, when actually I never participated in a direct debate about Meg-vs-Livyatan, I just made some opinions about why the Livyatan is still not know by some people, but that was all. Attitudes like those from Apex remind me the old days of AVA and the commetaries fo the lion fans agains the tigers and how much they hated them. Is really disturbing.

And now this thing of the bears. It is even relevant to the discussion? Obviously not, but as this is the only thing that Apex has done correctly, you needed to put it in the table. My answer to that is simple, leave him with that, as is the only thing that he actually presented evidence, but appart from that, I will not give a cent about his opinions, period.


5 - Conclution
Well, as you can see Peter, I tried to focus in the points of the debate, a few personal remarks here and there, but most of my post is about the TWO points of the original discussion. If this thing is going to continue I sugguest to focus in the discussion, not other things (megalodons and bears included) and try to search more information. However, I showed all the information at this point, so Apex and you should now show information too, first of all I will like to see all the sources showing the claims of the big paw/heel prints, the sample of those prints, how many times they took it, where they record it, in few words, evidence please. If no evidence is presented and only words from X people are typed, I don't see any future for this debate.

From my part, I will focus in confirm the weights of the modern Amur tigers from north China which are far more important that chasing paws and suffering from a Cinderella issue. Reply