There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
01-22-2015, 07:38 AM( This post was last modified: 04-02-2015, 12:46 AM by peter )
(01-20-2015, 12:24 AM)'faess' Wrote: I know you posted an account from one of Mazak's books, saying that a large Tiger killed a bear bigger than himself and ate it, but he wasn't the direct source. but in of the books from the main source (in this case, Jankowski) mentions the same account, EXCEPT for the fact that he never brings up the predation on the tiger's part. It just states that had eaten a bear. So where did this whole tiger killing bear come about? Jankowski's book never mentioned it, but Mazak's book did. Is
Hi Faess,
I heard rumours about Warsaw's counter to Mazak's information on the big tiger and the big brown bear. I tried to find it, but couldn't. What to say for the moment?
Mazak's information on the giant tiger and the big male brown bear he killed was based on a letter of one of the sons of the Jankowski who featured in the book 'The Tiger's Claw'. The letter was written in May 1970. Most quotes Mazak used were about the extraordinary size of the Sungari River tiger. From the details and the photograph, the tiger was an exceptional individual.
A few pages after discussing the size of this tiger in his book, V. Mazak wrote Jankowski had added that they found the remains of a " ... very large male brown bear ... " the tiger had killed and eaten. Apart from saying they found his skull and a leg, there were no details. That's it.
You wrote one of the Jankowski's recently published a book about his experiences. Very interesting, I would say. For some reason, he wrote about the giant tiger, but not on the bear. Warsaw is an excellent tracker, but a wee bit preferenced at times. His preference, on the other hand, also serves as a great drive to find things.
If Jankowski didn't write about the bear, the question is why he didn't. Below are a few speculative remarks.
a - The incident happened in July 1943. Today is January 2015, a difference of 72 years. The first question is if the Jankowski who wrote the publication was the one who saw the tiger and the bear himself in 1943. If not, I won't bother to respond to Warsaw's implicit question.
b - If it was the Jankowski who actually saw the tiger and the remains of the brown bear, the question is why he waited so long to tell us about it. My guess is he probably is in his nineties by now (...). Maybe he just forgot a lot of details.
c - If he didn't, maybe it was no news for him that the tiger killed a brown bear. Remember the Jankowski's were very experienced and probably knew Amur tigers hunt bears. I know biologists stated tigers do not hunt male brown bears, but I also know that locals have a different opinion. Also remember the tiger was an exceptional animal. At 300 kg. or thereabout, he could have overwhelmed a bear of near-similar size.
d - Also remember experienced Russian biologists (Sysoev, Sludskij, Arseniev, Krechmar and Pikunov) agreed there isn't much to choose between a male brown bear and a male Amur tiger in most cases (except for exceptional animals). Most give it to the male bear because he often is heavier, but that doesn't mean all fights will end in the bear's favour. It could go either way when both more or less compare.
The trainers I interviewed underlined the opinion and experience of the biologists mentioned above in that most thought male brown bears tend to overplay there hand at times. They are powerful animals well capable of handling a male tiger, but that doesn't mean they get it their way in a fight. Tigers are faster, as strong and heavily armed. Teethwise, an average male brown bear engaging an average male Amur tiger faces an opponent of his own weight or better, meaning he should always be wary. Wild animals know this, but captive animals tend to explore their limits, at times at their peril.
Male brown bears are not as invincable as many seem to think. Mazak published three records of wild male brown bears killed by male tigers and I also know adult polar bears have been killed by tigers in circuses. These reports are not based on rumours. Also remember all fights between male brown bears and tigresses or immature male tigers (wild animals only) won by bears described or pieced together by biologists were prolonged and close. In all fights, the bears were described as 'large' or 'very large', whereas their opponents probably were half their weight. Things could work out differently when a mature male Amur tiger is involved. Adult male bears, on account of their weight and robustness, no doubt have a slight advantage, but the margins would be small. Too small to call, I think.
If you want to know more, read post 242 in the tiger extinction thread again. It has everything Mazak published. I propose to post the link to Warsaw's post on the Jankowski publication first. When you post it, do it in the tiger extinction thread, because I won't miss it. Regards,
