Question for Peter

[peter]

And the winner is Miss Venezuela. 

I assumed it was quite clear by now that the problem with most assessments on size is very limited sample size and, as a result, doubtful conclusions at best, but apparently I was wrong. For this reason, I propose to go over the details one more time. 

1 - Is there a table that offers an overview of wild big cats size? Length, weight, skull and other dimensions? One based on large samples? After a few hundred years of research only? No.

2 - Is there a table on wild male Amur tigers then? Yes. There is the table published in 2005 by, amongst others, Kerley. Males averaged 294 cm. in total length, 195 cm. in head and body and 176 kg. Reliable? Yes regarding methods used and accuracy and no regarding sample size and selection. Meaning the table has 3-year old males and malnourished tigers. And no big male tigers. The reason is some of these apparently are able to destroy the Aldrich footsnare.  

Anything known on these 'big' male tigers escaping the Aldrich footsnares? Yes. They weighed and measured about a dozen male tigers after the table was published. Most of them were close to 200 kg. The heaviest, a young adult, was 212 kg. I don't doubt some males are heavier, but it isn't likely these large tigers will be captured with the Aldrich footsnare.

So what to say in the end? My guess is mature males would be 195-200 cm. in head and body in a straight line and about 190-200 kg. Anything known on skull size? No. Zilch. Based on the captive skulls I measured, my guess for now would be just over 14 inches, maybe a bit longer. Let's settle for 360,00-370,00 mm. for now.

3 - Is there a table on wild male Ussuri brown bears? Yes. We have Kucerenko's table. His 10 males averaged 196 cm. in head and body and 264 kg. Was length measured in a straight line? No. So what would be the length of an average adult male 'between pegs'? Judging from a Yellowstone male brown bear table I saw, my guess is 196 cm. 'over curves' equals 160-165 cm. 'between pegs'. What about the weight? According to Kucerenko, the average was 264 kg. But the range was 260-320 kg. (...). A bit strange, many agreed. I'm one of them. The table probably is flawed.

So what would be the real weight? Last year, three adult males were captured and weighed. They averaged 193,3 kg. in autumn (range 165-235 kg.). Quite a difference. What would be the correct average, 264 or 193? I don't know, but my guess is 193 is more reliable, because the researchers also collected info on the age of the bears. Furthermore, we know they were weighed in autumn, when bears are heavier than in other seasons. I don't think 2014 was a bad year for bears. Should we dismiss 264 then? No. Kucerenko also was a biologist. Maybe his table had large brown bears weighed in autumn. I don't know.   

My proposal is to take the average of both for now. This would result in 193,3 + 264 = 457,3 : 2 = 228,65 kg. in autumn. Assuming an average male would lose 25% in hibernation, the average minimum would be 171,45 kg. in early spring. If we take 228,65 + 171,45, we get to 400,10 or about 200 kg. for a year-round average (range 170-230).

The problem is there's no such thing as an 'average' for bears. You now know why. If we add individual variation is significant (some males apparently reach 700 pounds and over in autumn), we get to to a big question mark. As we want to get to a kind of comparison with male tigers, I propose to take 160-165 cm. for head and body in a straight line and 170-230 kg. for weight, with 200 kg. as a year-round average for an average adult male.

But 200 is way lower than 264, isn't? Yes. But Kucerenko also said brown bear females averaged 189 kg., whereas a more recent table said 145 kg. is the correct answer. Maybe Kucerenko's table, as I proposed, had large individuals weighed in autumn.  

Anything on skull length? Yes. There is Baryshnikov's table and it says 19 adult males averaged 407,00-408,00 mm. in greatest total length. Male bears also have 10-15% larger chests than male Amur tigers and the also are (relatively) taller.   

4 - So what do we have for wild male Amur tigers and wild male Ussuri brown bears? Adult animals only (6 years and over). We have a 195-200 cm. big cat of 190-200 kg. and a 162,5 cm. male brown bear just over 200 kg. most of the year. Let's say the bear is about 210-220 kg. as a working hypothesis. If we add individual and seasonal variation is much more pronounced in bears, the conclusion is brown bears are much more robust. In any season. If we add brown bears have longer skulls, body robustness becomes even more pronounced. Finally, there is no question extra-large male bears are heavier than extra-large male tigers. They're also relatively more numerous.   

5 - What about the outcome of confrontations between wild male tigers and wild male Ussuri brown bears? My guess is extra-large brown bears are immune. In average animals, the statistics favour the bear as well. Finally, we have to add season, individuality and age (experience) as factors. 

The statistics, therefore, clearly point towards an advantage of male bears. But male tigers are faster and more athletic and, as experienced hunters, also have the edge in killing. That's apart from extra-large and thick canines. Bears can take a lot of damage, but I wouldn't be prepared to test the amount of it in a bout with a male tiger if I was a bear. I also wouldn't want to risk a serious limb injury. Tigers are quite experienced with hamstrings. My conclusion would be a few rounds of sparring in some cases, but no all-out's.  

Any confirmation regarding this hypothesis? Yes. Male tigers do not hunt male bears and male bears do not rob male tigers. There will no doubt be exceptions, but my guess is the general rule would hold. In difficult times, however, all-out's have occured. The usual victims are the desperate, the angry and the incapacitated. I know of two male Schatuns killed in winter. My guess is they were emaciated and desperate. The large old male killed in July 1943 met the largest male tiger I know of. Of the two adult male tigers killed, one was described as average or a bit below. The two young adult male tigers killed fought a significantly larger male bear and it apparently took quite a bit of time.         

6 - Although brown bears, compared to other subspecies, seem to be in a different league, my guess is the pattern described will hold for all bears anywhere. Himalayan black bears can be large, especially in northern India. I've yet to read a report about a male killed by a male tiger. Sun bears have been killed in southeast Asia and Sumatra, but there are not that many reliable reports and my guess is it would take an experienced tiger to do it without injuries. Same for peninsular India. Most sloth bears killed were killed by specialists.

Amur tigers are the only ones who hunt bears (Himalayan and Ussuri bears) on a more or less regular basis. As a result of the skill needed and the risks involved, specialists developed. Most of these are males. There's no question they improve statistics, resulting in a slightly biased impression. 

7 - I once took my time to get to a kind of table on the outcome of bouts between Amur tigers and Ussuri brown bears. Predation wasn't included and there also was not enough on gender and age to get to conclusions. Tigers won most fights, but the downgrading of brown bears that followed (referring to debates on different forums) was a result of incorrect assumptions and a clever use of conclusions. One should always remember that a tiger not interested in a fight, because he's faster and more athletic, can leave a fight at any time, whereas a bear can't. If a fight goes all the way, it means the tiger thinks he has a decent chance. In spite of that advantage, bears got quite close in the classified results. What I measured, therefore, was the outcome of fights fancied by tigers. The tigers were right, but the margins were limited. This means brown bears are great critters.   

I've seen both in captivity and think it would take quite a tiger to beat a healthy male bear of similar weight in a fair scrap. There's plenty of evidence saying that significantly bigger bears, ambush or no ambush, are out of the equasion, but there's also some evidence suggesting a tiger is able to surprise a larger bear at times. But 'larger', in adult animals, wouldn't exceed 100-150 pounds.  

Same for remarks of bear fans about tigers. Most of it is close to crap. In the end, the outcome of a serious fight between a tiger and a bear of similar weight is just as inpredictable as the outcome of a fight between a lion and a tiger of similar weight. One could say one species is larger than the other, but that would be a superfluous remark as it was about the outcome of a bout in the similar weight division.

Want to discuss bouts between large animals? There's no debate. Wild male brown bears can be as heavy as a decent freight train and even at that weight they are anything but clumsy. Some Kamsjatka adult males, anything but smallish, habitually hunt 1-4 year old youngsters of their own kind. Their rates are not that bad.

If bears would be as clumsy as many propose, why is it the ultimate hunter able to dig the horns of a big male wild buffalo in the ground when he breaks their neck (referring to Berg's observations in northeast India) isn't prepared to take on a nice juicy big male brown bear in Wild Russia in lean times?

In order to get to a conclusion, I propose to just take the word of those in the know in Russia. They agree brown bears win 'on points'. But a point is different from life or death and tigers and bears know it would take a lot of desperation or rage to find out what a point really means. A great topic for a forum, wouldn't you say? Reply