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

[peter]

brotherbear\ dateline='\'1416553125' Wrote: Peter, you are right, that was a long post, and I'm happy that is was. Very informative and mind-changing. I am seeing clearly now that, without so much hostility in the past on sites like AVA and similar, myself and others might have learned a great deal a lot sooner. I read every word of your post, gladly.
A fight between a brown bear and a tiger of near-equal size it appears, can easily go either way. This is a lot different than the lion and the spotted hyena "war" where the hyena needs numbers against even one lion.
We must keep in mind that each animal is an individual. One bear might discover tiger tracks and run from them while another bear would follow them. I find it interesting that, for the most part there is understandable mutual avoidance, there is also known animosity between brown bears and tigers. No clear-cut picture.
My old friend, a one-time AVA poster ( charger1 ) put it best, I believe: "tiger vs brown bear is like the unstopable force meeting the immovable object; anything can happen."
Guate, I'm not really good with charts normally, but I believe I can read this one. The same tiger PT99 that killed two adult bears also killed four adult wild boar, two boars and two sows. Incredible. Thank you both for this mind-changing information.

*I had to go to "science made easy" to check Christina's weight - less than 300 pounds. So, going against my former beliefs, at weight parity, it appears that the odds are in favor of the tiger. 
 

TIGERS AND BEARS IN RUSSIA TODAY - VIII

Thanks for the encouragement, Brotherbear. You're not that bad yourself in that you seem to have a genuine interest in information. This is what we need to get to a good debate. A debate isn't about winning or losing, but about information and dialogue is a condition to get there.

As for the chances in a fight. Sludskij, a great Russian biologist, once made a kind of chance chart which was based on everything he knew. It was Grahh again, I think, who first published the chart. From memory:

Favorite in the 050-100 kg. category - tiger
Favorite in the 100-150 kg. category - about 50-50
Favorite in the 150-200 kg. category - tiger
Favorite in the 200-300 kg. category - bear

I don't think the chart was ever published, but most biologists knew about it and agreed. My guess is the chart relates to the chances of male tigers and male bears in four different categories (and not females), but I'm not sure.

A short explanation regarding the last two categories. In the 150-200 kg. category, tigers are favorites because they have more experience with hunting and killing. Most male bears in this category are immature animals with little or no experience in these departments. In the heavyweight category of 200 kg. and over (440 pounds and over), bears are favorites. There are three reasons:

1 - Most male bears in this category are adult animals with some experience. 

2 - Male bears operating in this category have larger muscles, especially in the area targeted by tigers (the neck). At near-similar length, brown bears are much more robust. This is an advantage in a fight in that they should be able to take more damage from an animal with larger and stronger canines. I wouldn't know if it would result in more strength, though. Pikunov and some others thought it would be quite close. My guess is bears are unmatched in pushing, striking, embracing and balance (referring to the spine, the constructron of the pelvis and the position of the hind legs), whereas tigers would be close or ever a bit better in pulling and holding (paws). Tigers usually also are a bit longer, meaning they are able to work their way down. This, I think, could be a slight advantage. 

3 - Full-grown male Ussuri bears, at 580-595 pounds (average), are quite a bit heavier than full-grown male Amur tigers (420-430 pounds), meaning they are able to roll out of the grip of a tiger. Not the other way round, I think.

Tigers, as true hunters, can't afford the get much over, say, 225 kg. (494 pounds), because they would pay by losing speed, agility and endurance. Brown bears, on the other hand, need weight in order to be able to compete with other males. A large size will result in more access to females. Furthermore, male brown bears are not hunters, but omnivores earning a bit extra by displacing big cats whenever possible. A large size helps when you are a pro in displacement and it also helps in confrontations. The flipside is a male brown bear needs more time to get to his potential. A male is able to reproduce at 4-5 years of age, but he is usually considered fully adult at 8-12 and continues to put on weight after that age. The skull continues to grow (especially in zygomatic width) until 20 years or slightly over.  

Russian biologists concluded male Ussuri bears would win 'on points' in this category. I agree in general terms, but every individual is different. Furthermore, we have to remember brown bears show a lot of seasonal variation in weight. A prime male Ussuri brown bear of 650 pounds might lose as much as 150-200 pounds during hibernation. I don't think he would be bothered by tigers in summer, autumn or winter, but it could be a different story in early spring.

Just suppose a prime male Amur tiger of 440 pounds has had a nice winter with plenty of porc. Suppose he doesn't like a particular male bear because he has been displaced by him more than once. Also suppose the male tiger has a good memory and a nasty character. Let's say he's as vindictive as they come. Finally suppose it is that bear who is on his way to rob that particular tiger in early spring, when the tiger is over 450 pounds and very close to the bear in weight. Mutual avoidance? I don't think so.

Russian biologist Bromlej once found a brown bear killed by a tigress in spring. The bear, at 158 cm. in length, was 170 kg. It didn't look good for bear-posters. The debate started. The bear was a very fat cub, some tried. The weight was just an estimate, others said. The tigress was a very large one, they thought.

I tried to make a case for an adult female or a young adult male bear. The reason was weight. A brown bear often loses 20-30% of his weight during hibernation. A bear of about 170 kg. shortly after hibernation (the bear Bromlej found was killed in early May), for this reason, probably was (well) over 200 kg. before he or she (Bromlej didn't say if the bear was a male or a female) entered hibernation. This argument, of course, was dismissed and no conclusion was reached.

What to say in the end? It is an undisputed fact a tigress killed and ate a brown bear heavier than she was in early spring. A singular incident or not? Could a male tiger get to a similar result? We don't know, but in tigers and bears you never know. Eternal enemies. Reply