Amur Tigers

[Apex Titan]

(08-31-2023, 12:01 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(08-28-2023, 10:20 PM)Apex Titan Wrote: The real average weight of modern Amur tigers is a complex topic, we simply do not know the real average weight. Large male tigers, for some reason, are seen more often in the Khabarovsk region than in Primorye.

The biggest male tiger in Russia, in recent years, was from the Khabarovsk territory. I'm talking about the huge male tiger "The Beast" aka the "monster" tiger from the Anyuisky National Park. Even biologists were in awe of his massive size. His size (referring to body length, bipedal height) slightly surpassed even a huge male brown bear's. There have been no tigers in Primorye, in recent years that have matched the sheer size of "the Beast" tiger.

And the "Beast" heel width consistently measured 13.5 cm in both winter and summer. Which completely excludes the possibility of the snow giving inaccurate heel width size.

Add to this fact, most of the young tigers in the Anyuisky National Park are direct descendants of the "Beast", so he has passed on his giant genes to many tigers there. There are also other huge male tigers with similar heel width sizes to the "Beast" that have also been traced in the Anyuisky National Park. None of these enormous tigers have been captured or weighed.

Biologist Alexander Batalov has also traced some very large male tigers in the Durminskoye forest, which is in the Khabarovsk region. 

Last year I read a Russian article on Amur tigers which stated that the largest Amur tigers in Russia are found in the Khabarovsk region. Unfortunately I forgot the title of the article, if I find it again, I'll post it.

Even if Primorye has the better prey density and higher population of tigers, for some reason, the largest male tigers (referring to camera trap photos, tree markings & paw sizes) are more often seen in the Khabarovsk region.

To get a more accurate estimate on the average size/weight of modern Amur tigers, mature adult male tigers from the Khabarovsk region must also be weighed. We cannot exclude a whole other region, especially where huge male tigers are seen.

The 'Siberian Tiger Project' biologists did a good job studying tigers from the Primorye region, but they didn't study nor capture and weigh ANY tigers from the Khabarovsk region.

From what I've seen and read, the largest Amur tigers today are from Northeast China and the Khabarovsk region in Russia.

When a debate start, sometimes the personal character and inner feelings may heat the situation, however, the seriousness of the debate is also showed by the quality of the information used. Saying this, I decided not to answer your previous post against me because is just full of crap, and this is because if you compare my post I used INFORMATION and EVIDENCE to show how wrong you are, but in your post you showed NOTHING against my information and you focused in attacks against me (megalodon, orca, etc., why is that even relevant here????). So, with all my experience in debates I decided just ignore your irrelevant post/attacks, simple.

However, this new post from you is, again, full of missinformation and pure especulation with no base, so I decided to answer it, and as usual I focus in the INFORMATION (which is important) and not in you (which is irrelevant).

1 - The size of the Amur tiger is not a complex topic, in fact, it has been explained several times by me since 2010 (as far I remember) and even to you in my last post. What you say "complex" is actually variations caused by the efects of human intervention in the Russian population of tigers. As I told you, Amur tigers had averages that fluctuated from c.220 kg to c.170 kg. Interestingly, while the body mass did changed during all these years since the past century, the body size do not (except for the girths), which shows that actually the body size of the population is the same and that the mass is afected by human preasure via direct hunting and depletion of prey. In fact, Sunquist et al. (1999) states that prey depletion is even more dangerous to tigers that direct hunting, and used the examples of the tigers in Nepal which were hunted and recovered relativelly quick, contrary to the Caspian tigers which were not hunted at the same level, but with a very small base population and the prey base depleted by the humans, could not recover. Of course, the hunting that we are talking is that of the old kings, which directly or not, regulated the hunts in they private game reserves, the modern poaching is even worst at some point, but that is another topic. In a nutshell, the size of the Amur tiger, modern and old, is not complex, but just a reflection of what may happen with a population of any animal if is affected directly by actions of the humans (against and in favor).

2 - I saw some pictures of tigers in the Khabarovsk territory and they are no different from the big males in China and even in Sikhote Alin. Relay in the size of an animal using only pictures with no point of reference is useless, but it seems that you insist on this. In fact, no one, and I say, no one that I have read say anything special about the tigers in this area. Actually, like I said before, the old documents like Heptner & Sludskii (1992) shows that this population was the first one in been afected by the hunting and depletion of prey, which suggest that they were never as abundant as the population of Primorsky and Manchuria, which did have records of giant tigers, in both size, weights and skulls.

3 - You mention that "biologist" says that this tiger known as "the beast" is estimated as big as a brown bear. I will like to see WHO says that, and what evidence they have for that. I have pictures of huge Amur tigers hunted in the past (Bengal tigers too), but unless they have real evidence (meaurements or pictures with references for the size), these estimations are no better than those made for the lions of the Ngorongoro Crater or the tigers of Kaziranga. I think this is the male, as the image says that came from Anyuisky NP, Khabarovsk Krai, width a metacarpal pad of 13.5 cm:

*This image is copyright of its original author

By the way you say that the heel width of this male tiger "consistently" measured 13.5 cm in both winter and summer, but I will like to see WHO measure it, the SAMPLE of those meaurements, in fact I will like to see ANY evidence about this that can actually prove that the print of the heel has been measured more than 3 times and at least to confirm your claim that "completely excludes the possibility of the snow giving inaccurate heel width size". in fact, I was checking the document of Kerley et al. (2005) about the body measurements of the Amur tiger in Sikhote Alin by the Siberian Tiger Project and I found that the biggest heel wide was of 12.8 cm and the biggest paw wide was of 15.5 cm, all measured in the flesh. However when the same paw prints were measured, from this same population it gives a maximum paw wide of 13 cm in the pad, and up to 16.5 cm in the total paw. So, there is a difference between the real measurement in the flesh and the measurement in the soil, here are the tables for reference:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

That means that a print in the soil of 13.5 cm will represent a real paw in the flesh or c.13 cm at the most, not of significan difference.

4 - I found a picture of a huge male tiger from Khabarovsk region, a big one:

*This image is copyright of its original author

But again, is no different than this one from Sikhote Alin:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Or this one from the Ussurisky Reserve:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

And yes, this is the male Luke (or Luk) when weighed 212 kg. You see my point? Unless we have a real point of comparison, we can't guess the weight of any animal based only in pictures.

All these males are "huge" at simple sight based in the heavy coats, BUT again there is no reference point to compare and in the winter Amur tigers are famous for having a huge coat. Now check these pictures of Amur tigers without the heavy coat:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Can you see the difference in the appreciation?  These are fully grow adult males, big and muscular, but certainly do not look like "freak giants". Again, a simple "view" of the pictures is not enogh evidence to claim an exceptinal size, specially when not even the old hunting records reported any exceptional size for the Khabarosvsk population.

5 - This part is interesting: "Even if Primorye has the better prey density and higher population of tigers, for some reason, the largest male tigers (referring to camera trap photos, tree markings & paw sizes) are more often seen in the Khabarovsk region."

Here you show how little you know about tiger biology and ecology. There are several documents that shows that both density and body size of the tigers are related with the prey base, we have famous cases about this (Nepal vs Sundarbans, for example). To say that "big" tigers exist in an specific region based in photos, tree markings and paw sizes and ignoring the prey base in not correct (for not saying other thing). I already showed why photos and paw prints are not entirely reliable, and now check that even tree claws can be deceptive, check this picture:

*This image is copyright of its original author

So no, prey density is FUNDAMENTAL for the development of the size of the tigers (or any other predator) and its population numbers, that is why the Sundarbans tigers with preys of not more than 50 kg (Chital deer) can't reach the size of Nepalese tigers with Sambar deers of over 300 kg. I can give you a few documents of Dr Karanth with very good information about this.

6 - I will finish with this:

a. "To get a more accurate estimate on the average size/weight of modern Amur tigers, mature adult male tigers from the Khabarovsk region must also be weighed. We cannot exclude a whole other region, especially where huge male tigers are seen."
Answer: I am agree with this, but do not expect any exceptinal size. Also, you are just creating a myth about the tigers in Khabarovsk region and this can be just an excuse for some "fans" in the future to say that "giant tigers" live there but that has not been captured, like the lions of the Crated and the tiger of Kaziranga.

b. "The 'Siberian Tiger Project' biologists did a good job studying tigers from the Primorye region, but they didn't study nor capture and weigh ANY tigers from the Khabarovsk region."
Answer: Right, but we have one record from a tigress captured by The Amur Tiger Programme in this region and weighed only 110 kg, the same as a similar sized tigress in Primorye. Of course, one specimen can't be use as entire reference, but it suggest that there is no apparent difference.

c. "From what I've seen and read, the largest Amur tigers today are from Northeast China and the Khabarovsk region in Russia."
Answer: Can you show ANY evidence (comparative pictures, measurements, hunting records, whatever you have...) that tigers in the Khabarovsk region are of exceptional size, appart from photos and especulations? Because I can show you several pictures of tigers in the north of China and Primorye with specimens of great size. I will not be surprised IF in the future (with a good prey base and protection agains poachers) the tigers from north China surpass the weights of the tigers in the Russian region.

The point is you, for no reason, got so triggered and started insulting me when I never insulted you. Attacks? You got no room to talk, you're the one who started the insults and attacks. So please, don't talk here. 

The reason I brought up the megalodon/orca/Livyatan topic, was just to expose your blatant double standards, which I clearly did.

Yes, your post had some information/evidence, but it was LIMITED INFORMATION/EVIDENCE. Stop talking like the info you posted was 100% conclusive and accurately determined the true average weight of modern Amur tigers, because it didn't, period. Once again, you haven't got a clue about the average weight of the Khabarovsk tigers, its as simple as that. You have ZERO info about this. Why? because modern biologists, particularly the ones you mainly refer to (STP biologists, Miquelle, Goodrich, Seryodkin, Kerley etc), never captured or weighed any tigers from the Khabarovsk region. In fact, even their weight samples from the Primorye tigers is limited and included some young males and unhealthy, emaciated specimens.

The size/weight of the Amur tiger is definitely a complex topic. Why? Again, we do not know the average weight of Amur tigers from the Khabarovsk region or northeast China. And in both these regions, there are really massive male tigers being traced and seen!!  How many times do I have to tell you this?  We'll get a much clearer picture and idea if biologists weigh large male Amur tigers from other regions and countries too.

How can you possibly say it's not a complex topic when the information/weight data is mainly based on Primorye tigers? The Chinese tiger biologist Feng Limin personally knows of a huge male tiger in northeast China that was recently captured and weighed 270 kg. He confirmed this on video, which I posted in the extinction thread. In another video, he also said that he personally came into contact with a wild male tiger weighing over 250 kg. I have no reason to doubt such a highly respected and experienced tiger biologist.

Try to understand this simple thing.... there are other regions where modern Amur tigers (apart from a few captured & weighed specimens) are not being captured and weighed. Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend this simple fact? Its ridiculous that your excluding other regions and only focusing on limited data from tigers in the Primorye region. So yes, some of your "conclusions" are also based on speculation.

And you once again misrepresented me and twisted my words. When did I ever say or imply that there's no correlation between prey density and size of tigers? Huh? when?  I very clearly said: "for some reason" the tigers from the Khabarovsk region seem to be larger than the tigers from Primorye. Meaning even I don't know why. Understand? But there are always exceptions to any rule. For example, Bergmann's rule applies to most large mammalian predators, but the Bengal tiger seems to be the exception to this rule.

I never once said or implied that prey density is not fundamental, however, there are always exceptions to the rule. It is a fact, despite there being a lower prey density, that huge tigers are being seen and traced in the Khabarovsk territory, which basically destroys your argument. According to your argument, tigers the size of "the beast" shouldn't even exist in the Khabarovsk region, because it has a low prey density, right?... not to mention the other very large males being seen and traced in the Anyuisky National Park and Durminskoye forest.

And its not just prey density that is fundamental..... genes/genetics are also.

The male tiger "the Beast" (also known as the "monster tiger") is as large as a large mature male brown bear, as proven by this clear camera trap photo here; Notice how the tiger, even though is standing further back from the tree, is still slightly taller than this bear. Both their skull, neck width and forequarters are very similar in size. The bear has a longer and shaggier fur coat which adds to the illusion of his overall thicker appearance:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The specialist who studied and monitored both the tiger and big male brown bear is Alexey Gotvansky. Here's what he said about their size:

"This large bear has been living here for a long time. You won't confuse him with anyone because of his height and power. And the tiger, which has already become a celebrity, is the Beast," notes Gotvansky. - Comparing photographs, among other things, you can understand how close the bear is to the gigantic size of a tiger."

https://m.facebook.com/zapovednoepriamur...460398472/

Note that the biologist Gotvansky says: "how close the bear is to the gigantic size of a tiger", which clearly implies that he thinks the tiger is the slightly larger animal. And this is a large mature male Ussuri brown bear he's talking about here, which, remember, is one of the largest subspecies of brown bear on earth, similar in size and weight to the Alaskan and Kamchatka brown bears.

Here's another remark by Gotvansky on "the Beast" huge size:

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://todaykhv.ru/news/society/23251/

This just proves how massive Amur tigers really are, and confirms the huge size of the tigers from the Khabarovsk region. This tiger "the beast" is a huge male, and biologists who work in the Anyuisky National Park are in complete awe of his sheer size! Hence the nickname: "The monster tiger". In fact, other Russian reports have dubbed this particular tiger as the "largest tiger in Russia". So its funny, despite the lower prey density, the largest tiger in Russia is said to be from the Khabarovsk region and not Primorye. Add to this fact, there are other very large male tigers reported in the Anyuisky National Park, so clearly, there are really huge male tigers in the Khabarovsk region. Have these giants been weighed? No. Do large, healthy mature males from other regions like Khabarovsk and northeast China need to be captured and weighed to get a clearer and more accurate estimate on the true average sizes/weights of modern Amur tigers? Hell yes.

You don't need a measurement or weighing scale to determine if an animal is large in size. Even a picture can very clearly tell everything. Its so obvious that the tiger "the beast" is an enormous male, who's the same size as a huge male brown bear.

Also, most of the young tigers in the Anyuisky National Park are direct descendants of "the Beast", so he has passed on his genes. This in turn should produce more large males.

Here's another comparison between a male tiger and male brown bear in the Khabarovsk territory (Durmin Game Reserve). Notice, if the tiger stood closer to the tree like the bear is, the tiger would be taller. Both animals, again, are approximately the same size:

*This image is copyright of its original author

And this picture comparison you posted proved nothing, if anything, it helps my case. The tiger (above) from the Khabarovsk territory, clearly looks more massive than the tiger (below) from Primorye.

And who said this tiger is a "huge male" or "big male" ??  Looks like a normal healthy mature male tiger to me:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This tiger from Primorye looks smaller and less heavy:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Now look at this massive, very robust looking male tiger from the Khabarovsk region: (Note, this is not in winter with a heavy coat)

*This image is copyright of its original author

I know tree markings can be deceptive sometimes because male tigers will jump up higher and mark their scent, but NOT most of the time. Tigers will almost always mark trees standing on their hind-legs. I can post countless pictures/videos showing this.

Here you can see an adult male tiger marking a tree by standing on his hind legs. This tiger looks a bit larger than this adult male brown bear:

*This image is copyright of its original author

And why do you keep saying "exceptional size"??  When did I ever claim that the Khabarovsk tigers are of "exceptional" size? You love twisting my words! All I'm saying is that I think (IMO) that the tigers from the Khabarovsk region are larger than the tigers from Primorye. How large is anyone's guess. But I'm not suggesting "much larger"....just a bit larger.

Of course not exceptional size because I've also seen many pictures of huge male tigers from the Primorye region.

One single specimen of a Khabarovsk tigress proves or suggests absolutely nothing. Thats a pointless argument.

All in all, your weight data/info of the Primorye tigers is limited. The Siberian Tiger Project's weight samples are not completely conclusive, there are other factors to consider. They weighed tigers from only ONE region and during a certain period of time, many years ago now. For the thousandth time now, there are Amur tigers that exist in other regions and countries, so to get a more accurate estimate on the true average size/weight of modern Amur tigers, adult male tigers from various regions need to be weighed, period.

And by the way, the male tiger 'Luk' weighed in at 212 kg as a young adult, not a fully-grown mature male tiger. Its highly likely his weight was even greater as he matured. There's a clear difference between young adults and mature adult tigers. So even 'Luk's' true size and weight as a mature adult remains a mystery. Reply