|
Big cat and Bear tale
|
When tigers hunt bears, I feel sure that the tiger separates black bears from brown bears, knowing their different habits. But I doubt that the sex or age of the bear has any bearing on the big cat's choice of potential prey. Size matters. This goes for all bears, black or brown. Although a tiger does not put a bear onto a set of scales, he seems to have a picture in his mind of the size limit of which bears to stalk and which ones to avoid. This, I suppose, comes from perhaps a million years of hunting bears. Instinct. That size limit seems to be roughly 400 to 450 pounds ( roughly 193 kg ). This size range includes juvenile and adult she-bears. The famous tiger named Dale ( among other given names ) including "the bear killer" was known to have a preference for bear meat. Of all the many bears Dale killed, only two were adult she-bears. It appears that bears within the 200 and 300 pound range are the most sought after prey bears.
I believe that, should tigers come into contact with Himalayan bears which are much smaller than the grizzlies of the Russian taiga, even full-grown boar brown bears will be viewed as potential prey. In my opinion, it is not the sex of the bear that matters to the tiger, but the size.
I have come to the conclusion that tales told about animals by pioneers, animal trainers, hunters and explorers, and newspaper reporters from the early nineteenth century and into the mid-twentieth century must be taken with a grain of salt. I can only suppose that before television and movies, people enjoyed telling and listening to "whoppers". Then, for some time, the habit stuck. When we read about historical animal fights, they may or may not have happened at all. Even of those that did, many are half from fact and half from imagination to create a colorful story. What are we suppose to believe?
 (01-12-2019, 02:16 PM)brotherbear Wrote: I have come to the conclusion that tales told about animals by pioneers, animal trainers, hunters and explorers, and newspaper reporters from the early nineteenth century and into the mid-twentieth century must be taken with a grain of salt. I can only suppose that before television and movies, people enjoyed telling and listening to "whoppers". Then, for some time, the habit stuck. When we read about historical animal fights, they may or may not have happened at all. Even of those that did, many are half from fact and half from imagination to create a colorful story. What are we suppose to believe? That is a good question... more there is contradiction to modern day, the more skeptic I am. For sure back then some species like Siberian tigers were bigger than nowadays can be seen. Before people started "massacres" of some species by totally irresponsible hunting and taking so much space to live from animals, there was so much more prey animals etc. But hunter stories in times, when most people had no chance to really know... much easier even write books and put there exaggerations. Not too many people at least could even imagine for instance internet even 30-50 years ago :) Not to mention situation before ww2.... and earlier. Golden ages for storytellers to put some extra there :)
When one like myself studies the big cats of Asia, one of the two predators you end up respecting is the bear. Yes, tigers include bears in their diets, but bears can and do a very good job at defending themselves from tigers, and brown bears and I guess Asiatic Black Bears will take kills from tigresses. So I do have a healthy respect for bears, besides, I just can't "bear" to hate them. I'm such a failure at comedy.
(01-12-2019, 02:16 PM)brotherbear Wrote: I have come to the conclusion that tales told about animals by pioneers, animal trainers, hunters and explorers, and newspaper reporters from the early nineteenth century and into the mid-twentieth century must be taken with a grain of salt. I can only suppose that before television and movies, people enjoyed telling and listening to "whoppers". Then, for some time, the habit stuck. When we read about historical animal fights, they may or may not have happened at all. Even of those that did, many are half from fact and half from imagination to create a colorful story. What are we suppose to believe? I myself have also come to this conclusion as well while investigating another issue (please don't ask me what it was). AMUR TIGERS AND BEARS
In the Russian Far East, there is a rivalry that has been around for likely millions of years. This isn't a two way rivalry, it's a three way rivalry between the Amur tiger, Asiatic black Bear, and the Ussuri Brown Bear a.k.a Black Grizzly. It is well known that tigers will attack and kill bears, but mostly for food when their natural prey is scarce. However, there is apparently much more to it than that. Let's take a look at this situation shall we?
ASIATIC BLACK BEARS a.k.a MOON BEARS a.k.a HIMALAYAN BLACK BEAR (Okay seriously, why can't we all just stick with one name for this animal?)
The Asiatic Black Bear differs from it's North American cousin with it's white marking on it's chest, lighter weight (at least when it comes to max weights). However, one very important difference is that from what I've noticed, Asiatic Black Bears seem to be more aggressive than the American black Bear, but that's just me. These bears are known to hold their own against tigers on multiple occasions, for example, Jim Corbett wrote of an instance where a huge black bear chased off a bengal tiger. But black bears don't always get the upper paw, and we know that tigers, especially Amur tigers, include black bears in their diet. Tigers can and do hunt black bears successfully at any time of the year, and black bears are more frequently attacked by tigers (Tkachenko) and in that study, there is a picture of a black bear skull with an apparent puncture mark made by a tiger, and in the period of 1992-2000 black bears made up 18.2% of prey remains, and in 21.5% of excreta (Tkachenko). I have read before that tigers eat brown bears more often than black bears due to brown bears being not as good at climbing, personally, I do not believe this, simply due to the fact that since black bears are smaller and less powerful than brown bears and are therefore, easier targets, if anyone has knows it's true and knows I'm wrong, please, correct me on that.
BROWN BEARS
This is where is gets really interesting, tigers will actually attack and kill brown bears, but there's more to it than that. Brown bears will follow tigresses and juveniles in order to take their kills, but male tigers seem to be normally avoided by brown bears, and male tigers avoid male brown bears. The reason for this is because both animals know that they can easily kill each other in a full on fight, and see no reason to fight one another, so they practice mutual avoidance, and this is likely why it appears to be rare for a brown bear to fight a male tiger. However, these two do get into battles, and according to 2 documents I read, tigers seem to win more fights, but not always. But I should mention that the percentages of the fights were different in the documents for some reason. I did read of a mother tigress with cubs who fought a brown bear out of maternal instinct, and she won. But from what I read here on the forum, now there is the thinking that tigers expel brown bears because mother bears take their cubs to away from places with tigers, and that makes sense, because if you're a momma bear, then obviously you'd much rather not have to worry about tigers. However, in conclusion, male tigers and brown bears will normally avoid each other, both have powerful jaws, dangerous claws, strength, the tiger has lightning fast reflexes, while the hump of muscle on the bear's back not only allows it to be a great digger, but to also inflict some nasty injuries onto opponents, so they will avoid one another.
I look forward to hearing from you, and if I made any errors, please let me know so I can edit this.
Sloth bear versus tiger. A known and very commented fight here, but here are the chinese explanations (from 8mn 25sec) :
What do you think about ? 
Now this is highly unusual...
Dudhwa tiger may have been killed by huge sloth bear The 10-12 year old male tiger that was found dead in the Dudhwa may have met his match in a male sloth bear.  *This image is copyright of its original author "The dead tiger had serious puncture wounds on its head, one of its eyes was completely damaged and the claws were injured, which indicated that it had to face a tough fight with some other big cat," Field Director Ramesh Pandey told earlier. While initially they thought it was infighting among tigers, the carcass found in a waterhole was autopsied by a panel of 5 vets. The report said that the head and neck of the animal showed multiple punctured wounds leading to massive hemorrhage and shock from fighting with another large animal's teeth & claws. Teams started combing the area (around the water hole) and camera traps were installed there to look for the other carnivore which probably injured this tiger during infighting. While no pugmarks of another tiger were found around the water hole, images of a huge sloth bear have been captured by camera traps set 150 metres from the spot. The bear had a visible scratches on its face and seemed to be moving about with difficulty. “The nature of injuries on the neck and head of the tiger suggest they may have been caused during an attack by a sloth bear,” said DTR field director Ramesh Pandey. Source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new...8EWGO.html http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/artic...896070.cms (04-17-2019, 10:49 PM)Rishi Wrote: Now this is highly unusual... A good reminder about it, that when two animals with sharp teeth and claws meet and not huge size difference, anything is possible even though expectations would be something else. Hats off for that sloth bear, that has been fight of his life! 
It's far from conclusive, you can see many posts on the subject. The only autopsy result was death from puncture wounds by a large carnivore. A camera trap capturing a sloth bear with injuries 150 meters away after how many days isn't enough to come to any conclusions on the matter. We'll need more info first.
To put it in this way, wounded and dead tiger and wounded bear at approximately same area same time. Is 1+1=2 or maybe we should assume, that 1+1=3? There is small room for other possibilities naturally, but I know what I personally believe unless something else comes up. But that is of course my personal opinion :)
Again, there are many factors involved. Bears live in the jungle, so do tigers and so do 100s of other animals.
Not exactly 1+1=2 Read all the articles, neither states the autopsy results have anything to do with a bear, in fact its still under investigation due to the drag marks towards the water and also what the animal was doing in the water to begin with. All that is stated is that a large carnivore was responsible, it's also why they're still combing through camera trap photos from the past year to see which other Tigers use that watering hole as well. So again, there is far more information that needs to be accounted for before you can come to any conclusions. Look up "dead tiger in dudhwa" of fb,you can review numerous posts and convos on the topic.
When there is incident like this it is clear, that many people choose to not even consider, that a sloth bear could kill a tiger. I then again have always believed, that it is one possible outcome even though not probable. So I of course read with interest if there comes up more information, but speculations about this in different sites... not so interesting, easy to guess what there is written even without checking :)
But based on that information which Rishi shared I keep it simple and assume, that 1+1=2 :) As I said, that is my personal opinion and I don´t mind if some people disagree.
@Shadow : This isn't an heresy to think that an old tiger (12 years old) can be killed by a "huge" sloth bear (see #278) under suspicion. The sloth bear seems to be a very confortable animal with itself if it is able to sleep on the bare ground in a place also inhabited by the tigers...
When I see the fight at #277 between a tiger and a sloth bear, ok the tiger has the upper hand (leading the fight) but we don't see any decisive avantage either. Drawn match. Thus an old tiger... Let us waiting for the final conclusions of the investigation. (04-18-2019, 03:00 AM)Spalea Wrote: @Shadow : This isn't an heresy to think that an old tiger (12 years old) can be killed by a "huge" sloth bear (see #278) under suspicion. The sloth bear seems to be a very confortable animal with itself if it is able to sleep on the bare ground in a place also inhabited by the tigers... :) I think, that I said it quite clearly that if something new comes up, then of course it is interesting. This case looks quite clear for me based on information what Rishi had on his posting :) But if you are wondering why, I put here things, which I noticed: Dead tiger and with injuries indicating clearly, that it has fought with another animal. Veterinarian saying, that injuries are fitting to be caused by a sloth bear. No pugmarks of another tiger there. Approximately same time and very close there is seen clearly injured sloth bear with scratches. For me that looks to be very clear :) If some people disagree, that´s no problem. But with that current available information I don´t see any other logical explanation for that dead tiger than that it was killed by that sloth bear. Some other explanation doesn´t seem to be probable. I don´t think, that they find some new pugmarks etc. related to this incident anymore after many days  Of course there is a small possibility, that these injured animals just happened to be there by accident in same area and same time. But for me that sounds unlikely. If new facts come up, then different thing naturally. I just wonder if there is anything else to be found after so many days. But now I think, that I have said all what I had in my mind concerning this and I don´t care enough to debate this endlessly. My opinion and what things made me think so are now explained. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |