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

[peter]

(12-12-2023, 01:56 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(12-06-2023, 08:31 PM)Apex Titan Wrote:

(12-01-2023, 12:18 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(11-30-2023, 06:56 PM)Apex Titan Wrote: For god's sake, no one is "deviating" from the topic or discussion. You just keep failing to understand what we're saying. Are you able to read between the lines?  Do you know what an 'analogy' or 'example' is?  Clearly you don't, otherwise you won't keep saying this nonsense. Where exactly in my post did I accuse YOU of dismissing the old data? Show me? Can you read and understand English properly?

I very clearly stated that I just want to "add to some of Peters comments" about 'peer-reviewed' documents! I never once mentioned or accused you of "dismissing old data, old reports, old books and those hunter stories", not once. So what the hell were you reading? Just like in the Amur tiger thread, you keep on twisting my words and making false accusations. It's very annoying!

Now please, read this carefully and try to understand:

The reason why Peter mentioned 'Tigers vs Bears' in his last post, was because he was giving an example on how STP biologists like Dale Miquelle (who you rate so highly) have made wrong assumptions in the past! Initially when he started out, Miquelle thought that Amur tigers don't 'regularly' hunt bears, he initially assumed the "risk of injury was too high". This was merely his assumption though. However, as he and Linda Kerley conducted further field research & studies over the years on the food habits and prey preferences of the Amur tiger, Miquelle and Kerley realized he was completely wrong. Their more recent studies showed that not only do tigers regularly hunt and eat bears, but that bears are a seasonally important prey item, especially in the summer and autumn months, when bears are not hibernating and are accessible for tigers to regularly hunt.

So what did further and more recent field research (after the Siberian Tiger Project ended) result in? The personal views, opinions and assumptions of biologists like Miquelle being wrong. So some biologists had to adjust their views. Get it?

Peter is basically saying that the same example / situation can apply to the data published by the Siberian Tiger Project on the average weight of modern Amur tigers. Why? because, for the millionth time now, STP biologists never captured, studied or weighed Amur tigers from the Khabarovsk region or northeast China! Yes, the Siberian Tiger Project presented very informative information and data, but whether you like it or not, the data was LIMITED and mostly outdated, many years have passed now since the project ended. 

Things have changed, the Amur tiger population has significantly (750 individuals) increased since then and more and more 'large' and 'huge' male tigers are being seen and traced in various regions by biologists. We're just keeping an open-mind and assuming the situation could be different now based on the information, pictures and videos we've seen of wild Amur tigers in recent years, especially from the Khabarovsk region and northeast China.

So once again, so you can understand properly, Peter was just giving an example of how STP biologists like Miquelle have falsely assumed other things about Amur tigers in the past and were later corrected by more recent field studies. Understand now? The problem is that you're simply incapable of reading between the lines or understanding analogies / examples properly. You think we're "deviating" from the topic when we're not. The 'Tiger predation on bear' topic was the perfect example to give because this is something that Dale Miquelle was (initially) clearly wrong about and later refuted on.

On a side note, just because Peter and I are interested in and post about tigers and bears, doesn't make us "fanatics". That's ridiculous! Inter-specific relations, especially between large predators is a fascinating and very interesting topic for many animal lovers and enthusiasts. There's a good reason why even John Goodrich published his recent article (Dance of Death) about 'tigers vs bears' because its a fascinating topic to many people. And by the way, Goodrich's article on tigers vs bears is one of the top 3 most viewed and popular blog posts on the panthera.org site. Why do you think that is?

Since I started posting about tigers and bears in this thread, the tiger extinction thread had more views than ever before. Why do you think that is? Why did my posts on tigers vs bears attract crowds and significantly more views on this thread than ever before? I'll tell you why, because in general, for the average animal enthusiast out there, inter-specific relations between large predators is far more interesting and exciting than topics about the weights, sizes and distributions of predators, which is boring for most people.

Even various biologists, even in recent years, have talked about tigers vs bears. Why? because its an interesting topic. I don't know why you're knocking me and Peter for being involved in and posting about this particular topic, its pathetic. If you're not interested in this topic, then fine, you do you. Everyone has their own personal interests and preferences. But don't knock other people for being interested in it or posting about it.

Also, the famous case of the Amur tiger killing the hunter Markov out of premeditated revenge is NOT a unique case. Vaillant, in his book, mentions several more confirmed cases of Amur tigers taking revenge on humans. Alexander Batalov also stated that tigers are clever with a capacity for premeditated revenge. Kesri Singh in his book also mentions an authentic case of a Bengal tiger killing a man out of revenge for interfering with its wild boar hunt. There was also a recent case of a Bengal tiger killing a poacher out of revenge for killing his partner (tigress). There are numerous cases and examples confirming the highly vengeful nature of tigers. So the tiger, by nature, is a very vindictive and vengeful predator capable of abstract thinking. This is a fact that's been observed and reported by various people & experts (biologists, forest rangers, naturalists, animal trainers, hunters etc).

We all agree that both quantitative information and qualitative information are equally reliable and factual. No one is disputing this.

And finally....no Guate, more like, what's the point of us (Peter and I) wasting time and spending effort explaining things to you, when you constantly fail to understand what we're saying, you keep twisting my words, make outright false accusations and are simply incapable of reading between the lines and understanding analogies and examples to make you understand our actual point of this discussion.

There is an important point here, just because something is more "popular" doesn't mean is more "important". So, if you think that "vrs" debates are more important and should be covered more than morphology and ecology, go ahead and continue with Peter doing what you are doing, but certainly will not participate on that, as my aproach is scientifical not sensacionalist. After all, the original idea of the forum was to provide and produce real scientific information, not became another Carnivora/AVA forum.

And of course you are deviating form the main point, nor you or Peter had showed ANY evidence about the main two points that I clearly mentioned, so this is going to be the game? Insulting me and the experts, and deviating from the main point? In that case, this debate is useless. And by the way, the "tiger vs bear" is not just an "example" as you say, as I am fully aware of your "fights" in other forums about this same silly topic, but it seems that this time, this part of the forum is dominated under "feelings" and no logic at all.

Again, I am not againts the idea that modern Amur tigers are bigger, I have showed information and evidence of this long before you started participating in this forum, what I am agains is to get conclutions based in ONE SINGLE HEEL PRINT and PICTURES WITH NO REFERENCE OF SIZE! That is simple what I said, but it seems that you are the one that do not understand English, or that do not understand simple grammar, or simple because you don't want to understand anything.

No, this is really intersting: "Since I started posting about tigers and bears in this thread, the tiger extinction thread had more views than ever before."
 
So, according to you, none of the posts of all the posters in this forum as as important as yours, correct? Well, in that case you can stay in the forum and continue doing what you do, attracting silly posters while the good ones are continue been banned. Perfect, be happy with you new playground, but remember that a vain man falls faster than a lame man.

And by the way, I have the book of Valliant and I am aware of the cases of tigers but those are, again, specific cases, there is no real information to say that tigers overall are "vengatives" at species level. Other people say the contrary about tigers behaviour and we also do not know if this behaviour is the same in the other great cats. We need qualitative information over good samples to get to this conclution, however I highly doubth that you can understand what this means.

So, this is the thing, I see that both of you are doing dirty posts trying to create havoc instead of focusing in what Peter proposed at the begining. So, if your next post is not focused in providing EVIDENCE of your claims, I will simple ignore it, plain and simple. After all, at the end of the day I have a REAL LIFE with real obligations and my time is to short to be expended in this stupid "games".

@peter, as you know, I was thinking in the idea of living the forum for lack of time, and this type of situations, plus the complains of several other posters, some of them even banned with no reason, posters that actually contributed with information and not only "vrs" issues (at least here) made me think that is time to stop this. So, depending of your next post, I will take a decision, because I can't waste more time with posters like ApexTitan, which are only trolls that just  because they can found "popular" data, they believe that they are important, just like Bold Champ, Asad, Warsaw and other disturbing people that I hade the bad look to know.

No Guate, you're the one who clearly can't understand English, and that's why you wrote: "especulate" in one of your posts, which is not even a word! The correct word is - "speculate". Once again, as always, you have failed to understand what I was saying and AGAIN TWISTED MY WORDS. 

When did I ever say or even imply that my posts are "more important" than all the other posters posts in this forum?? What the hell are you reading? You are clearly failing to understand simple English!  All I said was inter-specific relations between large wild predators is far more exciting and interesting than posts on the morphology and ecology of wild predators, which is, in fact, more BORING for the average wild animal enthusiast out there. 

And that's why my posts on tiger-bear relations resulted in the tiger extinction thread having more views than ever before. Why? because many people are intrigued and interested in this topic, that's all. I never once, I repeat....NOT ONCE stated or implied that topics like 'tiger vs bear' are "more important" than topics on the morphology and ecology of tigers. You are blatantly twisting my words! This is ridiculous. You have a very bad habit of doing this.

And you don't even know what "ecology" means. Inter-specific relations between Amur tigers and bears HAS got to do with tiger ecology. What is 'animal ecology'? Ecology is the study of organisms and how they live and interact in the environment they inhabit. In order for a biologist or ecologist to learn about tiger ecology, they have to also study the relationship between tigers and other animals (co-predators, competitors & prey animals) living in the same environment. And that's exactly why the Siberian Tiger Project biologists, as well as various other Russian biologists scientifically studied the relationship between Amur tigers and bears for many years. So you're wrong and clearly don't know the actual meaning of "ecology".

You also don't know what the word: "deviating" means, clearly. And you can't understand examples or read between the lines. And that's why this debate will go nowhere.

Do you really think making false accusations, outright lies and constantly twisting peoples words makes you win a debate? And you have absolutely NO right to say that we're "insulting" you. You got some nerve and audacity. You're the one who started all the animosity, ridiculing and insults in the Amur tiger thread and then in this thread, when I initially started this discussion in a civil manner and with respect. You're the one who lost his mind and got all triggered, and for what? Just because I have a different opinion about the weights of Amur tigers? Seriously?

Topics on tiger-bear relations & interactions IS SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION. If not, then why did the Siberian Tiger Project study the inter-specific relations between tigers and bears for a prolonged period of time? If it's not "scientific information" then what the hell is this? A scientific publication / study? Fictional book? Silly stories? ....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10afDwfy...mmvOz/view

If not "scientific info" then how come various biologists and scientific researchers have studied and published information about tiger-bear fights & interactions?  Are all these biologists and experts also "silly" people ?? Is Sergey Aramilev and the Amur Tiger Center also "silly" people for posting a recent video on tiger vs bear fights?

Yes, ITS NO SECRET that I've debated tigers vs bears in other forums, so? Peter has already mentioned this fact in several of his posts in the last 2 years. 

Why do you keep saying "one single heel print", when you've already been told, more than once, that Gotvansky has (also seen) found and measured tracks of several other very large male tigers in the Anyuisky National Park?

For the thousandth time now, "The Beast" was not the only giant tiger seen or traced in the Anyuisky National Park! There are also several other huge males living there.

Here's the report mentioning 3 enormous male tigers from the Anyuisky forest: (These are some of the huge tigers Peter was referring to in his post)

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://ria.ru/20210528/tigr-1734533409.html

https://transsibinfo.com/news/2021-05-28...he-1245913

So that's at least 4 giant male tigers that are from the Anyuisky National Park, and none of these gigantic tigers have been captured or weighed.

Here's more on the correlation between heel widths and the size of tigers by another seasoned and highly experienced biologist:

Scientific article by Alexander Batalov - "Secrets of the Amur tiger tracks."

"The larger the male becomes, the larger his heel. The largest male, with a heel size of 13 cm, recorded by us, lived until 2013 in the area named after Lazo, in the basins of Obor, Durmin and Kiya rivers, and on the right bank of the Khor River, in its middle part. Many foresters and hunters saw the size of his tracks and admired them."

http://programmes.putin.kremlin.ru/tiger/news/25452

The Khabarovsk region, like northeast China, clearly produces some massive male tigers, this is simply undeniable. And this is exactly mine and Peter's point all along!!  The weight data published by the STP biologists is limited and inconclusive for reasons I've repeatedly mentioned before.

The average weight of modern Amur tigers is NOT clear-cut, it's more complex than you think and is not conclusive. And you keep failing to understand such a simple clear fact.

Your opinion and argument is also based on SPECULATION, because you DON'T KNOW the average weight of Amur tigers from the Khabarovsk region or northeast China. Posting data and information about tigers from the Primorsky region is not refuting my arguments, period.

And lastly, our opinion and view is not just based on camera-trap pictures and a "single heel width", but based on several huge male tigers that have been seen, traced, and who's tracks have been measured by seasoned, experienced and highly trained biologists!

*This image is copyright of its original author

The largest width of a front "heel" was 12.8 cm, just about the same size as the one mentioned by you. Difference being this male was captured while I believe the male you mentioned was measured from a pug mark. A pugmark will exaggerate the size and thus this male mentioned in all actuality probably had a larger heel size.

Like Guate, you may have a point, but there's a difference between 'may have' and 'have'. I never read anything about the difference between the actual 'heel width' of a male measured by a biologist and the 'heel width' of the print left by that same tiger in, say, frozen snow.  

The information I have suggests every mm in width, depending on gender, health, age and conditions, compares to 5-10 pounds at the level of averages (referring to adult males). Wild males leaving a print with a 'heel width' of, say, 11,5 cm range between 160-207 kg, but in tigers affected by disease, injury and hunger it could be very different. My guess is Batalov, as experienced as they come, summed it up best: http://programmes.putin.kremlin.ru/tiger/news/25452.

Anyhow. The controversy between Guate and Apex, at least in my opinion, wasn't about tigers and bears, heel width, the size of today's wild Amur tigers and (the integrity of) tiger biologists involved in the STP. The way Guate went for Apex suggests it could have been personal. This was the reason the discussion never materialized. It also was the main reason I felt obliged to intervene. 

I am, if you don't mind, quite done with discussions about controversial topics in this thread. They take a lot of time and I never ever saw a reward. 

Maybe it's best to conclude well-trained and experienced men measured prints with a heel width ranging between 10,5-12,0 cm (up to 13,0 in 2013) in Bolshekthsirsky and 14,0-16,0 cm in the Anyuysky National Park. As there is, according to tiger biologits, a correlation beween 'heel width' and weight in wild Amur tigers, it's likely male tigers in the Anyuysky National Park could have been heavier than male tigers in Bolshekthsirsky in the period 2013-2022. But we're not sure because of a lack of good information.    

What we do know is tiger 'Odyr', with a 'heel width' of 11,0 cm, was involved in a fight with an adult male Ussuri brown bear (heel width of 18,0 cm) in November 2022. Furthermore, we know tiger 'Ochkarik', suspected of killing and eating the large male brown bear that had been following and robbing tigress 'Rachel' for a prolonged period of time in 2017, was estimated at 160-180 kg by Batalov. Another male Batalov knew well ('Obor') had a 'heel width' of 12,0 cm. Batalov thought he could have been about 200 kg. Using this information, it's quite safe to assume at least 4 male tigers in the Anyuysky National Park (referring to previous posts) exceeded that mark (200 kg). 

Russian biologists never saw a wild tiger exceeding 212 kg in the period 1992-2023, but Feng Limin, also as experienced as they come, said male tigers exceeding 250 kg have been weighed in northeastern China a few years ago. The young adult male that attacked a car in that region, at 225 kg (confirmed), wasn't small either. 

Although he opposes those who said there could be regional differences in size, Guate confirmed male tigers captured (and weighed) in the the southern part of Primorye in the last decade are heavier than those captured in the Sichote-Alin Biosphere Reserve in the period 1992-2004.    

As to the averages of males. Two decades ago, males of 3 years and older captured in the Sichote-Alin Biosphere Reserve and it's surroundings (referring to the table published in 2005) averaged 176,4 kg (389 pounds). Without the young adults, the average was 185 kg (referring to my post in this thread a few years ago). Miquelle thought it could have been 430 pounds and Guate, who keeps track of all records, said it was 420 pounds about a decade later. Today (referring to Guate's most recent table), the average could be closer to 440 pounds. The more recent the guesstimate, the more reliable the result. The main reason is the sample today is larger.

Opinions about the average weight of today's Indian and Amur tigers differ. According to Guate, males of both subspecies average about 440 pounds. If Sunderbans tigers would be left out of the equation, however, the average of Indian male tigers would be 460-470 pounds, meaby even a bit more in northern India and Nepal. Amur tigers, however, seem to be involved in a serious comeback. If the Russians and the Chinese keep it up (referring to the measures taken and the number of national parks and reserves), it could be a close call. 

The Indians, in spite of the significant human population and the limited amount of room, are doing a great job. If the advice of Ullas Karanth is executed (referring to a recent video), chances are the number of tigers in India will increase considerably in the next decades. It's not superfluous to underline the Indian subcontinent still has a number of suited subregions.

Most biologists (and posters) think there's a strong correlation between the average size of big cats and the number (and average size) of prey animals. They could have a point, but this view fails to explain the large average size of today's wild Amur tigers. With 'large', to be clear, I'm refering to 400 pounds or more at the level of averages. The Russian Far East doesn't have large prey animals. Ussuri wild boars, red deer and bears (in general), although not small by any means, do not quite compare to sambhar, nilgay, gaur and wild buffalo. Furthermore, prey animal densities are quite low, meaning tigers have to walk more than their relatives in Nepal or India. That's still apart from the harsh and long winters (increasing the risk of energy deficits) and the abilities of wild boars and bears in confrontations. 

In order to find an explanation, I decided for analogies. I'm, to be more precise, referring to the size of captive Indian and Amur tigers and skulls. There's, I think, no question captive Amur tigers top the table in the department of size. In the skull department, things are more complicated in that adults of both subspecies roughly compare. There are, however, quite outspoken differences in the shape of the skull. I'll report on the progress in that department at regular intervals, but it'll take time. 

This is a photograph of the skull of an adult male Amur tiger I recently found on the net:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Although not longer than the longest I measured, it seems to be more robust. Compared to most skulls of adult male lions, the facial part is a bit shorter. In most skulls of Amur tigers, the mandibula is not convex but straight or slighly concave. The sagittal crest starts directly behind the os frontalis and is straight. Compared to skulls of other tiger subspecies, the upper skull of Amur tigers is less vaulted and more stretched, especially in the anterior part. The sagittal crest doesn't have the 'depression' typical for skulls of other subspecies and it's usually well developed, even in skulls of captive male Amur tigers. The rostrum is wider, which seems to be a result of the large upper canines. Measured from the insertion in a straight line to the tip, they not seldom exceed 70 mm. 

Compared to skulls of other tiger subspecies, skulls of Sumatran and, in particular, Amur tigers seem most 'lionlike' in that they have a relatively stretched (and less vaulted) face. Skulls of Indian and, in particular, Javan tigers are quite different in this respect. The axis of vision in Amur tigers very often is straight, but there are differences between males and females. 

In general, one could say tiger skulls are more catlike than lion skulls, meaning they're more rounded. They enable tigers to exercise maximum pressure at the tips of the canines. Lion skulls enable the owner to withstand severe pressure of struggling prey animals. When measuring skulls, I often get the feeling tigers are 'biters', whereas lions are 'pullers'.   

At the level of species, lions are a bit heavier and have longer skulls than tigers. In natural history museums, it isn't easy to find skulls of male tigers exceeding 14 inches, whereas skulls of male lions often exceed that mark. 

In big cats in general, and lions and tigers in particular, captivity compares to a hammer in that it often flattens and widens skulls, especially in the facial part. In general, skulls of wild big cats are narrower, more elevated at the orbit and (a bit) heavier (more dense). The upper canines are longer and heavier as a general rule. Skulls of wild big cats seem somewhat longer, but the difference is limited. Reply