WildFact
›
Premier Section
›
Edge of Extinction
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
 (06-26-2023, 05:13 PM)Apex Titan Wrote: Email from Alexander Batalov regarding the tiger 'Ochkarik' killing the huge male brown bear 'Chlamyda'. Correct me if I am wrong, but now we have two cases of adult male tigers killing and eating adult male brown bears, but there is still no case of the other way around, is correct?  (06-29-2023, 10:49 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(06-26-2023, 05:13 PM)Apex Titan Wrote: Email from Alexander Batalov regarding the tiger 'Ochkarik' killing the huge male brown bear 'Chlamyda'. Yes. Now we have two recent cases of male tigers killing and eating large adult male brown bears. The bear that Ochkarik killed and fully-consumed was described to be an "incredibly huge" brown bear and "giant", likely 400+kg. The adult male brown bear that Odyr killed was also described to be "impressive-sized". Both male tigers responsible for the killings were medium-sized (below average) males around 160-180 kg. These cases also confirm that male tigers will even sometimes hunt and kill significantly larger adult male brown bears. There are no cases of the other way around, in fact, there's not a single reliable case in the last 30 years of a brown bear killing even a little tiger cub. Back in 2009 - 2010, there was a report about two radio-collared tigresses (adult female and an 1.8 year old juvenile female cub) that were allegedly "killed" by a brown bear. But the experts found no shred of evidence, no signs or a single trace at the scene, of any struggle or killing that took place. All they found was teeth marks from a "large predator" on one of the tigress's collar's. They then concluded (guesswork) that a "possible cause" of the tigress's death could have been by a brown bear. But this was pure speculation based on no traces or evidence. Both tigresses also died in an area and period when Amur tigers were severely suffering and some even dying from the canine distemper virus. One of the dead tigress's also showed signs of this disease prior to her death. So most likely, both tigresses died from the canine distemper virus and their already dead bodies were just scavenged by a brown bear. This would also explain why they found no injuries or wounds on the tigresses bodies that were inflicted by a brown bear. (06-30-2023, 06:19 PM)Apex Titan Wrote: es. Now we have two recent cases of male tigers killing and eating large adult male brown bears. The bear that Ochkarik killed and fully-consumed was described to be an "incredibly huge" brown bear and "giant", likely 400+kg. The adult male brown bear that Odyr killed was also described to be "impressive-sized". Both male tigers responsible for the killings were medium-sized (below average) males around 160-180 kg. These cases also confirm that male tigers will even sometimes hunt and kill significantly larger adult male brown bears. Thank you for confirming it. So, let me correct my self, in this case there are 3 cases of adult male tigers killing/eating adult male brown bears, because we have these two modern cases and also the case reported by Mazak from Yankovsky. Very interesting. 
ABOUT A MALE BROWN BEAR FOUND DEAD IN A NATURE RESERVE IN THE KHABAROVSKY KRAI IN NOVEMBER 2022 - III b
10 - Introduction This post is about 2 videos I recently saw. Both will be discussed at length. The series will continue in a few weeks. I'm preparing a post based on Kucherenko's book 'Predatory animals of the forest' (Moscow, 1988). The videos about orphaned Himalayan black bear cubs in which Kolchin features will also be discussed. Same for the video in which Aramilev offers his view. View? Yes. An educated and interesting one without a shadow of doubt, as he has access to more reliable information than all others. In spite of that, any view is bound to be an opinion in the end. What I read, heard (referring to trainers in particular) and saw (in facilities and zoos) suggest things are not as straightforward as many seem to think. Members of forums heavily involved in tigers and bears tend to go for black and white statements and simplifications, but reality is complex and always a bit different from studies. When living organisms are involved, you just never know. Furthermore, one has to remember the region between the Amur and the Sea of Japan is extended, largely empty and covered with forest, meaning it's very likely many incidents between tigers and (brown) bears go unnoticed. The information available allows for, let's say, some trends, but that's about it. Nearly all of those considered to be 'in the know' concluded tigers win most battles, but the margins are small and details are often missing, meaning there's a lot of room for speculation (see -13-). What we need to know now, is Amur tigers, Himalayan black bears and Ussuri brown bears have co-existed for a long time in the Russian Far East. Reliable observations suggest bears, regardless of their size and age, visit tiger kills whenever possible. For this reason, Amur tigers, in contrast to all other tiger subspecies, learn to interact with bears at an early age. We're not talking about sun or sloth bears, but large bears that pose a very real danger to young, old and incapacitated tigers. With 'large', I, weightwise, mean adults approaching (Himalayan black bears) or well exceeding (Ussuri brown bears) mature Amur tigers at the level of averages. That's without individual variation, which is pronounced in bears in general, and large subspecies in particular. There are, for instance, numerous reliable reports about adult male Himalayan black bears well exceeding 400 pounds. Large male brown bears can exceed 1,000 pounds and exceptional individuals (see -11b-) can approach and even exceed 1,200 pounds just before hibernation (...). Anyhow. The videos discussed in this post are interesting. One is based on an interview with an experienced hunter, whereas the other is a short documentary first broadcasted in 1977. The documentary doesn't have information about tigers and bears, but it's the only one I know of in which S. Kucherenko features and it has footage of a tiger 'calling' a red deer. 11 - Video based on an interview with an experienced hunter 11a - Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGaOg2QgujY (12:53) 11b - Summary of the video The video is largely based on an interview with a hunter. The Russian Far East has many hunting organisations. Their goal is diversification and protection of rare species. The 'hunting farm' or 'hunting estate' is their device to achieve this goal. Members of hunting organisations consider themselves to be 'true' hunters. This means they, like the one interviewed, despise those who hunt protected animals like tigers. The hunter interviewed had over 50 years of experience (...) and saw wild Amur tigers from close range more than once. He was both in Khasansky (extreme south) and in Krasnoarmeysky (extreme north of the Primorsky Krai). In 1978, he visited the Chugaev district (in the center of the Primorsky Krai), where he and a friend decided to build a winter cabin. They hunted sable and squirrels. On the Gazprom hunting farms, they also hunted for meat (01:10 - 01:50). Before they started building a winter cabin, they slept in the car. In November 1978, the hunter and his friend met with the legal owner of the district they had selected. That is to say, they met with his prints when he visited the car. Initially, he didn't show himself. He was just there to make himself known (02:10 - 03:00). In the period they were building the winter cabin, the tiger paid his respects every 7-10 days. When they went out to hunt, however, the tiger kept a close eye on them. At times, he was only 20 yards away. He never threatened them or their two dogs, but wasn't afraid. After they shot an animal, the tiger waited for them take their share. After they left, he took care of the rest (03:01 - 04:37). The hunter got a close look at him when he was walking to the cabin on his own. It was a well-fed male with a 'heel width' of over 12,0 cm. They watched each other for a few minutes. The hunter said the tiger felt like an old friend (04:37 - 05:40). Apart from collecting his fair share from those visiting his ranch, the tiger hunted himself. The hunter found his victims, including quite a few 'moon' bears, more than once. Near the cabin, two tigresses hunted. They lured their victims by disturbing branches and leaves with their tails (...) and encouraged their cubs to follow their example (05:40 - 06:11). The hunter and a few friends visited Hassan District in the extreme south of the Primorsky Krai. They used two cars to get there. When preparing diner, a rifle was fired. The shot attracted a tiger. It took a small dog right in front of them, ignoring them completely (06:11 - 06:40). Tigers only attack humans when they're hunted, even when they're wounded. They're not affected by wounds and lightning fast (06:40). When the hunter and his friends visited a rich hunting estate and built a cabin for the winter, they often saw tigers at close range. They tigers quickly decided the men were to be trusted. The old hunter said a tigress hunted close to the cabin with her two cubs (...). A large male, most probably the father of the cubs, hunted nearby (07:25). In a district in the southern part of the Primorsky Krai, near a road, the hunter saw a tiger partly under the roots of a tree. The roots were covered with earth and branches. He started digging and pulled the bear out. The tiger, quite young and inexperienced, killed the medium-sized bear and ate part of him. The hunter said he had seen similar scenes many times (07:55 - 08:30). In November 1978, brown bears began to appear near a river to prepare for the salmon run. One of them, with a print that overlapped the prints of two men with size 45 (...), learned to rob wild boars killed by a tiger. He surrendered his kill without a fight. The scene was repeated many times, until both animals suddenly disappeared. He was surprised, but added Ussuri brown bears can be as large as Kamsjatka brown bears. In a good year, a large seaside brown bear can be 600-700 kg (08:30 - 09:23). Tigers and brown bears try to avoid a fight, but the tiger guards his territory zealously. A guest from Denmark, after shooting a hazel grouse, was warned by a large tiger. Tigers often are close to hunting estates and hunters and seem to distinguish between hunters. Hunting farms often have wild boars and red deer. Tigers 'regulate' their population size (09:23 - 11:20). When food is scarce, tigers often visit villages and even large cities like Vladivostok (11:20). 11c - Conclusions In 'normal' conditions, adult wild Amur tigers do not pose a threat to humans. That, however, doesn't mean tigers fear them. Hunters entering the territory of an adult male for a prolonged period of time to hunt, say a few weeks, usually are 'informed' about the situation by the legal owner of the district they selected. This, depending on the size of the territory and the location of the owner, takes 7-10 days. After the tiger introduced himself, he will keep a close eye on them in order to make sure they understand a sitdown is needed before they can start hunting. When an agreement is reached and a hunting pass is granted, the legal owner gets a percentage of every kill. Not all hunters know about this rule. Some of those who don't, or don't care, will be warned when they start hunting. If the hunter and the tiger agreed on a deal, there will be no problems. If they didn't, anything is possible. In the video, the hunter said one tiger in a district in the extreme south of the Primorsky Krai was alerted by a rifle shot. He took a dog right in front of the men, meaning he didn't care about them at all. If one of them would have wounded the tiger, chances are the tiger would have retaliated. Most people killed by tigers in the Russian Far East were (and are) hunters. Hunters not interested in (the needs of) other hunters, that is to say. Here's a bit more about humans, Amur tigers, problems, attacks, rules of conduct and exceptions. You'll quickly notice exceptions are not very few and far between. The main reason they (can) have serious results is a lack of good information about the situation of wild animals in a specific district and season. Not seldom, they face challenging conditions: https://factsanddetails.com/russia/Natur...-5082.html This regarding the situation in more or less 'normal' conditions. The problem is 'normal' situations in the natural world tend to be volatile at the best of times, meaning they are quite a rarity. You just never know. Rumour has it (referring to an article published in the National Geographic in January 2022) wild Amur tigers are under siege once again. Most of us assume poachers kill 10-15 Amur tigers every year, but in the article it was concluded the real number is between 50-75 (...). A devastating conclusion. Although it was countered by Aramilev, the conclusion was based on two, quite lengthy, visits of an undercover journalist. A journalist with a degree in Biology at that. Meaning all bets are off once again. I'll discuss the article in my next post. Returning to the video. The hunter interviewed isn't the only one who said adult tigers in particular distinguish between people. Although biologists and rangers have been attacked by Amur tigers (read 'The Snare for Tiger'), not one of them was killed. Nearly all attacks were a result of what seems to have been a lack of knowledge, although I thought I saw something close to arrogance as well (referring to a biologist who took pictures of a wild male tiger captured with a footsnare for a prolonged period of time). Pavel Fomenko's case was different. In a rehabilitation facility, he suddenly found himself between a tigress and her cub. Both animals lived in different cages and Pavel ended up between them. The tigress considered him a threat, destroyed the fence (...) and told him to move. Although her decision (to protect her cub) resulted in a serious injury, she didn't kill him. After reading the article a few times, I concluded this also could have been the result of a decision. In all cases mentioned (referring to attacks on humans), the conditions were more or less 'unnatural'. Stress, both in humans and in wild animals, often results in unpredictable, and therefore, dangerous situations. In the Primorsky Krai, Amur tigers, including immature animals, often hunt bears, and 'moon bears' in particular. The hunter interviewed said he knew of many cases. He also saw a large male brown bear rob a tiger (gender unknown) for a prolonged period of time. Although he was surprised, he added some seaside male brown bears can reach a very large size. This observation made in November 1978 near a river close to what would have been the Sea of Japan, in my opinion, is as reliable as it gets. The hunter saw it himself and he saw it more than once for a prolonged period of time. He was surprised the tiger abandoned his kill, meaning it's likely he heard, or, as likely, saw tigers defending their kill against male brown bears as well. It could be the size of the bear was a factor, but it has to be added the situation in that district in that period of the year was exceptional. Just before the salmon run, the abundance of food attracted many animals. Some tigers followed the wild boars and bears to the river. It's known Amur tigers attack adult male brown bears, but incidents of this nature are rare. Two of the incidents I know of happened in winter, meaning it's quite likely non-hibernating males ('Shatuns') were involved. Most 'Schatuns' are emaciated, often desperate, animals willing to take on anything. Another male brown bear, described as " ... very large ... " ('Der Tiger', V. Mazak, 1983, pp. 189), was killed in dense forest in summer near the Sungari river. His killer, at 11.6 in total length measured 'over curves' ('Der Tiger', 1983, pp. 186), was the longest wild Amur tiger I know of. It also was one of the most massive:  *This image is copyright of its original author These incidents happened in the forties and fifties of the last century. Apart from the young adult male tiger killed by a 'very large' male brown bear in 1960, there are no reliable reports about male brown bears killed by tigers or the other way round in the sixty odd years that followed. In 2017, however, male tiger 'Ochkarik', the favourite of Batalov (most probably) killed, and completely consumed, the large male brown bear that had harrassed tigress 'Rochelle' and her cubs for a long period of time. Not long after she had complained about the bear to the father of her cubs, the big male brown bear ('Chlamyda') suddenly disappeared, never to be seen again. In spite of the lack of solid evidence (Batalov only found a few heels), there's no reason to doubt the conclusion of a biologist who studied tigers and bears for many years. A man who knew 'Ochkarik' on top of that. In November 2022, an adult male brown bear with a pad width of 18 cm (front paw) was killed by a male tiger in the buffer zone of a nature reserve in the Chabarovsky Krai. Those who know think male tiger 'Odyr' was the one who killed the bear. Here he is:  *This image is copyright of its original author The observation of the hunter in the video discussed above suggests the very large male brown bear that robbed wild boars from the tiger for a prolonged period of time in November 1978 could have used the situation to it's advantage. It could be the tiger, as a result of that situation (referring to the presence of many prey animals near the river), wasn't willing to defend his kills against an exceptional male brown bear. The male tiger that killed a very large male brown bear near the Sungari river in the summer of 1943 also could have used the local conditions to it's advantage. The bear was killed in dense forest (see the first photograph of this post), enabling the tiger to ambush, and quickly kill (Jankowski didn't find traces of a prolonged struggle), the bear. The photographs of the male bear that stalked and robbed tigress 'Rochelle' for a prolonged period of time in 2017 suggest he was a very large individual:  *This image is copyright of its original author Tiger 'Ochkarik', the father of the cubs of 'Rochelle', was a bit smaller than an average wild male Amur tiger. According to Batalov, who weighed many bears and tigers, he was 160-180 kg. In spite of the significant difference in weight, Batalov, as experienced as they come, is convinced 'Ochkarik' killed and completely consumed the large male brown bear. The male brown bear killed by male tiger 'Odyr' in November 2022 had a palm width of 18 cm, meaning he was a full-grown adult. The information I have suggests an adult male brown bear with a palm width of 18 cm in that region is at least 250 kg in good health (referring to recent tables). Tiger 'Odyr' has a 'heel width' of 11 cm, meaning he, like 'Ochkarik', is medium-sized male at best (there is a strong correlation between 'heel width' and weight in adult wild male Amur tigers). Using the incidents that happened in 2017 en 2022, one could conclude weight doesn't seem to be a significant factor in a clash between an adult male tiger and an adult male brown bear. It could be 'Chlamyda' was ambushed by 'Ochkarik', but the bear killed in November 2022 most certainly wasn't. Yuri Kya found evidence of a prolonged fight. Tigers ambush animals they consider as food. Animals considered as competitors are confronted. What I read, strongly suggests wild male tigers at times deliberately enter fights with dangerous animals like large wild boars, wild buffaloes and bears. The reasons are unknown, but it could be John Vaillant ('The tiger', 2010), who wrote " ... Amur tigers will occasionally kill bears solely on something that we might recognize as principle ... " ('The tiger', pp. 140), could have been close. In the Russian Far East, most adult bears are quite large animals that need a lot of energy. Not easy, as they largely depend on roots, insects, berries, salmon and small animals. In order to satisfy their needs, bears, therefore, need to invest a lot of time and energy. Another problem is most food items lack a vital ingredient: proteine. As a result of the ever present food problem, most bears are willing to take a risk in regions that have professional hunters. This is the main reason Amur tigers learn about bears at a young age. Big bears no doubt prevail in some clashes near kill sites, but tigers are intelligent animals able to distinguish between individuals. They also have a great memory. Those who know about them agree adult males in particular are vindictive animals. My guess is the 'principle' Vaillant referred to is related to food, or, more accurately, ownership. As the taiga had to let go of all courts, judges and laywers many years ago, tigers and bears meeting at a kill site have no option but to discuss problems related to legal ownership themselves. According to Kucherenko ('Predatory animals of the forest'), the exchange of arguments usually is a noisy, and quite bloody, affair. 12 - S. Kucherenko 12a - Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2wbs8C2uNk (18:36) 12b - Summary of the video Compared to the videos and documentaries I saw, and I saw quite a few over the years, this one, called 'Where the Amur tigers roam', stands out. At least, in my eyes. The quality isn't in the shots, the story or the commentary. It's a result of a combination of factors. How get there? You start with the intention to produce something of value. And value, almost half a century after it was first broadcasted, it has. The main reason is it shows the natural world as it is, or more accurately, was. The producer takes his time to show you the beauty of the region between the Amur and the Sea of Japan. It speaks for itself, meaning there's no need for a barrage of comments. The voice fits and that's also true for the comments. They fit the shots like a glove. Same for the music. It's great and fits all shots. So much so, it seems as if it was composed for this documentary in particular. In between the shots and the comments, the one viewing the documentary is offered a lot of time to absorb the scenery and the information. Every now and then, the one leading him into a region of stunning beauty takes his hand to show him a few more things he didn't know about. Although well informed and as interested as the one watching, the guide isn't taking the credits for what he's offering the one viewing. In this documentary, the animals and the forest do the talking. What are they saying? Only someone able to connect to something many of us lost is able to understand. The problem is he's unable to inform others about the things he felt and sensed. Language is a great tool to communicate, but it's only a narrow path in a forest of sensations many never experienced, let alone understand. This, returning to the documentary, is how you do it. One could say the skill to convey a message isn't in a combination of spectaculair shots, interesting comments and a clear message at the end and be close. It's in something different. I'm not saying recent documentaires about the natural world don't compare (many are quite interesting), but the approach is different these days. Urgency and weight replaced peace, essence and quiet as the most vital ingredients, so it seems. Considering the current state of affairs (referring to the plight of the natural world just about everywhere), I understand. And yet. In my day, a good documentary of an interesting series about the natural world often attracted a crowd. Today, this is not the case anymore. Although still amazed at the beauty of our planet, many feel overwhelmed by the number of the problems deposited at their plate while watching. They feel helpless, lose interest in the big picture and focus on things they can do. It could make a difference in the end, but it will take time. Time we don't seem to have anymore (referring to pollution and climate change in particular). As to the content of the video. In the seventies of the precious century, the region between the banks of the Amur to the Sea of Japan was largely empty. Like today, it had large tracts of untouched forest. In summer it's all but impossible to see, let alone study, those making their home in the forest, but when the snow starts to fall the situation changes. It's in this period biologists enter the forest. They never know what they're going to see, but experience told them some of their views will have to be adapted when spring starts again. The reason is the natural world changes all the time (00:00 - 01:50). Many of us think life in the natural world is tough, especially in regions that have large predators. It most definitely is. At times. For some animals. Adult large predators, however, are few. And, not seldom, far between. Prey animals know. They also know they'll be informed about their thereabouts well before they arrive at the scene. If a big cat, in spite of the information system in use, kills a deer or a wild boar, all animals living in that part of the forest know. The kill will alert them, meaning the cat has to invest more energy in hunting. If the investment, energywise, is too costly, the cat will move to greener pastures. This is the main reason the territory of, for example, an adult male tiger is quite large, especially in regions where prey animals are few. Meaning the threat, although very real, isn't constant. Wild animals, adults included, play a lot. They also interact with other species. The documentary has some nice shots of a youngish male brown bear and a mature male wild boar. They seem to chase each other. Are they testing their abilities, or are they playing (03:10 - 06:00)? In spite of the presence of tigers, the Russian Far East has other wild cats. The southern districts of the Primorsky Krai have leopards. In most other districts, lynxes are present. The ones living in the northeastern part of Siberia, at the level of averages, have the largest skull of all subspecies. Adults often hunt roe deer. The documentary has a few nice shots of lynxes (06:20 - 08:00), but it also shows red and spotted deer (08:00 - 12:00) and a lot of other small animals and birds. When you say deer, you say tiger. The documentary has nice footage of a tiger following spotted and red deer walking on a clearing. You have to pay attention though, as the footage only lasts a few seconds. The tiger moves through the forest like a ghost (10:50 - 10:55). Weatherwise, autumn is the best season in the far eastern taiga. In that season, many animals are at their best. Red deer in particular feature in the last minutes of the documentary. In autumn, males challenge each other for mating rights. In that season, they often pay less attention to threats. Tigers know. Many hunters think tigers are able to lure some of the animals they hunt. Animals like red deer. True? Kucherenko knew about the observations of hunters. His students can be seen blowing a horn developed to attract male red deer. Does it have an effect? Yes. Are tigers aware of the call of the red deer? They are. Are they, as many think, able to 'call' a male red deer? The answer is affirmative again. Watch the footage showing a tiger practising his abilities in this department (15:50 - 16:20). I'm not saying the call is flawless, but it's not bad. Not bad at all. Why do tigers 'call' red deer? The answer is red deer are large animals. If a tiger is able to kill one, it will feed him for about a week. Energywise (referring to investment and return), it doesn't get much better. The problem is every forest has clearings. In autumn, male red deer mainly operate on them. As long as they stay there, tigers are at a disadvantage. In order to get close to a deer, they need cover. By calling, and 'challenging', an adult male deer, they try to lure him to the edge of the forest. So it's true tigers are able to copy the 'call' of wild deer? Yes. If you want to know more about tigers with a degree in calling, read 'Dersu the trapper'. Arseniev's classic was first published in 1941, but there's a McPherson & Company reprint (1996). Buy it if you can. Great book. Tigers are also able to call other animals. Animals like the wild buffalo. George Hogan Knowles ('In the grip of the jungles', 1932 - there's a Natraj reprint published in 2007) can tell you all about it. His stories were discussed in the tiger extinction thread some years ago. The documentary, to wind it up, is interesting from start to finish. Watch it if you have time, as it's a glimpse into the past. Allthough the Russian Far East now has more tigers than in 1977, something changed in these 46 years. Back then (1977), life often was slow at best. I know, as I was there. Today, local overpopulation, severe pollution, new technological developments, a lack of fundamental choices and a loss of gatekeepers resulted in a situation I would describe as speedy, volatile and threatening (referring to pollution and climate change in particular). We're very close to all kinds of edges, but most people apparently still don't see a bad moon rising. 13 - To finish the post In the introduction (see -10-), I said things between Amur tigers and (brown) bears are not as straightforward as many seem to think. Those who have reliable information about clashes between these two giants, as that's what they are in their prime, think tigers win most. By about 2:1, so it seems (referring to recent information). This means tigers, in spite of the advantage they have (referring to their ability to leave a fight not going their way), have been killed in fights with brown bears. Although it's likely most of them were adult females, young adults and immature animals, adult males have been killed as well. I know of three cases, but it's quite likely there are more. My guess is they were killed by adult male brown bears. The reason is I never heard of a male tiger killed by a female brown bear. According to those who followed tigers in the snow, all female brown bears attacked were killed:  *This image is copyright of its original author There's no need to discuss a fight between a male tiger and a male bear resulting in the death of the tiger. The reason is a male brown bear often has a (significant) weight advantage. Furthermore, they're as robust as they come and that's still apart from their legendary strength. Discussing a fight in which the bear is killed, however, is quite a challenge. The reason is most find find it hard to believe a male Amur tiger of, say, 400 pounds, is able to kill a male bear of, say, 650 pounds. I understand. Nearly every adult male brown bear is an impressive animal. Weaponwise, however, an adult tiger, to put it mildly, compares. Big cats kill with their teeth. To be more accurate, they kill with their canines. A set of four is great, but most wild males will readily sign for three. Compared to those of a mature male brown bear, the upper canines of a mature male Amur tiger are (quite a bit) longer and more robust. The 'snout' of a tiger is shorter and, therefore, less vulnarable. The zygomatic arches are wider. Their 'gape' is impressive. The upper skull is much more vaulted. The design of the skull, to keep it short, enables a male tiger to exercise a lot of force at the tip of the canines and quickly kill a large animal:  *This image is copyright of its original author Here's the skull of an adult male Ussuri brown bear (first posted by 'Warsaw') for comparison. The skull of the bear is longer (referring to greatest total length), but narrower at the arches:  *This image is copyright of its original author Apart from that, a tiger is more agile and faster. Last but not least is the big cat is a professional hunter. Tigers have been apex predators for a very long time. The information collected in many thousands of years is present in every adult tiger, captive or wild. A wild tiger is an observing and intelligent animal able to develop and adapt it's behaviour over time. Not seldom, adults develop into specialists. In some regions, tigers are deer killers. Those in the Caspian region, however, were wild boar specialists. In the Russian Far East, adult males not seldom develop into wild boar or bear specialists. Brown bear specialists, that is. For a tiger, a brown bear is more 'in reach' than a Himalayan black bear. Himalayan black bears can climb trees, whereas adult brown bears can not. These bear specialists, to be sure, do not, as many seem to assume, specialize on hibernating bears. Recent information says they hunt them in summer and autumn. In fact, they thrive on them. So much so, they often lose weight in winter, when most brown bears hibernate. And what about the difference in weight at the level of averages? Well, mature male brown bears in the Russian Far East are significantly heavier than mature male Amur tigers. In spite of that, they only very seldom, if ever, challenge a male tiger. Recent research says male brown bears displace Amur tigresses, but it doesn't happen very often. Biologists didn't find evidence of male Amur tigers displaced by male brown bears. It no doubt happens (see -11c-), but it's something out of the ordinary. Remember these remarks are based on recent research. Research conducted in the Russian Far East, not Bulgaria. And what about tigers displacing male brown bears? There's no information available, but we do know adult male brown bears only seldom hunt. Tigers, in contrast, are professional hunters. In the Russian Far East, many hunt bears. Most focus on Himalayan black bears, but male tigers, and bear specialists in particular, hunt adult female brown bears. Not very often, but more often than 'every now and then'. Are adult male brown bears immune? Apparently (referring to the two incidents discussed above) not, but those who know agree adult male Amur tigers and adult male Ussuri brown bears avoid each other. As to strength. There's no need to discuss the strength of an adult male brown bear, as nearly all adults are massive animals:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author And what about tigers in this respect? Most adult males are powerful animals able to quickly overpower herbivores at times well exceeding their own weight. Compared to their captive relatives, wild Amur tigers (referring to recent photographs and videos) seem more muscular and more stocky:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author I'm not saying mature wild male Amur tigers, strengthwise, compare to a mature wild male Ussuri brown bears, but the differences between both species (referring to adult males) could be more limited than we assume. Also meaning a clash could go both ways. Not a conclusion to the liking of those involved in simplifications, but it seems the most plausible considering all facts. As to some of these facts. Brown bears are known for their endurance. True? Our member 'Apex' recently posted a video showing a fight between two large male brown bears in Alaska in the brown bear thread. Less than a minute after the clash erupts, the one filming the encounter (an experienced guide) says it's the longest fight he saw by a margin (...). Like male tigers, male bears engage for short periods of time, say 30 seconds. Not that different from well-trained human athletes, so it seems. Why is that? The reason is it is very difficult to exercise maximum strength for a prolonged period of time when you have a large and muscular body. Even a 'long' fight (referring to male brown bears) seldom exceeds a few minutes. And what about tigers in this respect? Not a few members of animal forums are convinced big cat like tigers quickly exhaust themselves in a fight. Their 'well-known' (referring to statements of quite a few posters) bursts of energy can even result in 'overheating'. True? Every serious fight between two well-matched large predators (referring to bears and big cats in particular) will result in quick exhaustion. This is why the animals involved often need breaks to recover their breath. That, however, doesn't mean the fight quickly ends in all cases. At least, not in tigers. There are many reliable reports about serious fights between male tigers lasting for hours. So most assumptions about strength and endurance of brown bears are just that? Far from it. An adult male brown bear can destroy a decent car or a heavy wooden front door of a well built cabin in seconds. He can run in the snow in hill country for quite some time and that's not even half of it. But a male Amur tiger compares in many respects. It's not as clear-cut as many assume. All of those who know say adult male Ussuri bears and adult male Amur tigers avoid each other. For very good reasons. A fight, like Vaillant said, hurts. Furthermore, it's dangerous. A tiger can kill a brown bear and a brown bear can kill a tiger and both know. And what about the alleged advantages of a tiger in a fight? Most of those who know seem to agree, but the margins are small. In a fight anything is possible. The outcome isn't a result of adding up advantages. It could be about experience and, in particular, motivation in the end, but circumstances and coincidence need to be considered as well. You just never know. Here's two more photographs of an Ussuri male brown bear (pay attention to the man holding the head of the bear) and a male Amur tiger. Judging from the teeth, the bear seems quite old. The male tiger was a young adult:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author What I'm really saying is it's imperative to find, and evaluate, good information before starting a discussion and taking a stand. Not a few arguments used by those involved in discussions about the abilities of tigers and, in particular, bears in a fight seem to be far-fetched, if not invalid or incorrect. One could say a poster deliberately going for simplifications is misinforming the public and be close. Are we, to wind up the post, to conclude Amur tigers are different from other subspecies in the bear department? Yes. No doubt about that one. All wild Amur tigers that made it to adulthood graduated in bears. When young Amur tigers, at 18-22 months of age, become more independent, chances are their first kills will be contested. We know, because some youngsters were radio-collared. Tiger 'Boris' was one. Well before he reached adulthood, he killed at least 2 (young) bears interested in his kill. Other young tigers, however, leave when a big bear approaches. My guess is most young Amur tigers learn about brown bears the hard way. The first thing they need to learn is to leave a fight not going their way in time. Indian tigers compare to Amur tigers for size and weight, but not in the bear department for the reasons discussed in this post. Some individuals hunt bears occasionally, but most do not. Remember the posts in the tiger extinction thread about tigers caught in 'rings' in Nepal in the twenties and thirties of the last century? More often than not, they tried to avoid bears also caught in the 'ring'. With 'bears', I don't mean brown bears, but Himalayan black bears. Not big males, but, in most cases, females with cubs. Read 'Big game shooting in Nepal'' (E.A. Smythies, 1942) to find out more. In the Russian Far East, Amur tigers don't try to avoid Himalayan black bears. Not seldom, they hunt them. Although they often select small bears, adult males, at times able to reach 440 pounds or a bit more, are also hunted. Brown bears are a very different ball game. As far as I know, only Amur tigers deliberately hunt brown bears. Most tigers involved in brown bears are experienced males. They hunt bears up to about their own size. Although a large (150-200 kg) female can oppose a male tiger for some time, all females attacked by male tigers were killed (referring to recent information). Fights between adult male Amur tigers and adult male Ussuri brown bears, as was stated above, are very uncommon, but they happen. Linda Kerley knows a few things about tigers and bears. Her opinion was discussed more than once. Kucherenko is 'in the know' as well. In his book 'Predatory animals of the forest', he's quite explicit about confrontations between tigers and bears. My proposal is to have a closer look. Before discussing his book, however, I'll post the link to the article in the National Geographic I referred to above. It was published in January 2022 and needs to be discussed.
To add to Peter's remarks about Amur tigers hunting brown bears and bear specialists. I think another important factor to consider is that in the Sikhote-Alin, tiger predation is the main natural cause of brown bear mortality (Pikunov, Seryodkin). The brown bears of the Sikhote-Alin are huge bears, rivaling the sizes of the Alaskan and Kamchatka brown bears. (Sergey Kolchin, 2022, M. Krechmar, 2005).
The fact that tiger predation is the main natural cause of brown bear mortality, proves that tigers are a major threat and danger to brown bears in the Ussuri taiga. So it's not surprising that some male tigers become brown bear specialists, and sometimes, even large male brown bears fall prey. Olga Krasnykh (back in 2018) stated that she noticed that there are not many brown bears in Primorye (tiger territories) compared to Kamchatka and Sakhalin, regions which are devoid of tigers. Adult brown bears in the Kamchatka peninsula and Sakhalin region lack natural predators, but in the Primorye region, adult brown bears do have a natural predator - Amur tigers. Krasnykh's observations, as well as other evidence I posted in this thread, strongly suggests that Amur tigers regulate the populations of brown bears in the Primorsky territories. The only natural predators of adult brown bears are tigers or other bears:  *This image is copyright of its original author https://www.thoughtco.com/brown-bear-facts-4175063 Monitoring, Survey, Utilization and Threats to the Populations Of Asiatic Black Bear and Brown Bear in Sikhote-Alin Pikunov D.G., Seryodkin I.V. Tiger predation is the main natural cause of brown bear mortality in Sikhote-Alin:  *This image is copyright of its original author Access full text (study) here: https://global.wcs.org/Resources/Publica...00000.aspx While I have no doubt that many young tigers learn (referring to Peter's comments) about brown bears by interacting with them at kill-sites, I also think it's very likely that many young tigers learn how to kill bears by watching their mothers hunt and kill bears. Also by feeding on bear kills made by their fathers. Several recent cases over the years (2014 - 2020) prove that young Amur tigers and tigresses (juveniles & adolescents) will also actively hunt bears. The juvenile tigress 'Philippa' actively hunted and killed Himalayan black bears and wolves! For 6 months, specialists repeatedly found the remains of bears that she had killed and eaten. The juvenile tigress 'Elena' also killed and completely consumed a bear of unknown species. And the young male tiger 'Vladik' also actively hunted bears, preferring to hunt bears in autumn. These young tigers and tigresses never learnt about bears from interacting with them at kill-sites, but purposefully hunted down, killed and ate bears. Most likely, taught to them by their mothers. Its a fact that tigresses are far more active at bear-hunting than many people assume. Wildlife Filmmakers recently captured footage of this tigress hunting for bears: (Frozen Planet II, 2022)  *This image is copyright of its original author Peter said that Amur tigers are different (regarding bear-hunting) from other tiger subspecies, well, this is definitely the case. Everything I've read strongly indicates that in the Russian Far East, tigers seem to clearly have a bear-hunting culture. Although both Bengal and Indo-chinese tigers will hunt bears at any rate, Amur tigers hunt bears on a far more regular basis, to the extent in which bears are actually one of the Amur tigers favourite prey items. In both the Primorye and Khabarovsk regions, bears (in summer and autumn) are hunted and killed on a regular basis. Amur tigers are true bear specialists. Amur tigers are different in this respect, some tigers actually prefer hunting and eating bears instead of ungulate prey animals. For Amur tigers, bears are a delicious delicacy. (Viktor Storozhuk, 2017). "Some striped predators prefer this delicacy (bears) to ungulates, this is normal behaviour for them." https://iz.ru/677772/2017-12-01/tigr-i-l...-natcparke https://primamedia.ru/news/650351/ http://programmes.putin.kremlin.ru/en/tiger/news/25644 The frequency of bear-hunting among adult tigers likely has an affect on the cubs. This is probably why some juvenile tigers are not afraid of attacking and killing bears. From a young age, they were most likely taught by their mothers, who often brought bear kills home, or witnessed their mother kill bears, that the bear is a prey item. Its also well known that even male tigers will sometimes share his kills with his family. If a male tiger shares his bear kills with the tigress and cubs, chances are that the cubs will learn that bears are a food object for them. I'll post some of the accounts I mentioned above, so people can read for themselves. Juvenile tigress actively hunting Bears and wolves "Philippa the tigress has been living in the wild for almost half a year. She not only confirmed her excellent hunting skills, but also surprised by the variety of her diet and her stable schedule: a successful hunt with a tigress every six to eight days. For six months, the tigress's diet included: Himalayan bear, wolf, roe deer, wild boar and (red) deer. The remains of smaller prey are not always found." "Of all the variety of "food items" available, only the elk remains, which she has not yet "tried" to eat. But young Philippa has everything ahead, she is only two and a half years old, - environmentalists said."  *This image is copyright of its original author https://eaomedia.ru/news/629066/ https://vremya-bir.ru/2017/10/09/tigrits...ohotitsya/ "According to specialists from the Tiger Centre, Philippa has demonstrated extremely good hunting skills. She has regular – every six to eight days – and diversified prey, including Himalayan bears, wolves, roe deer, boars and Manchurian wapitis, on her menu." https://conservewildcats.org/wp-content/...or-web.pdf Here is the juvenile tigress 'Philippa' who was already a bear-killer at such a young age:  *This image is copyright of its original author Juvenile tigress 'Elena' hunted and killed a Bear Also note that this juvenile tigress even killed a large male wild boar with no problem: http://programmes.putin.kremlin.ru/en/tiger/news/25882 https://mir24.tv/news/16364780/ne-zlite-...-ei-kabana https://ampravda.ru/2019/06/13/089037.html Young tigress 'Elena' chased huge bears which scattered in panic from her:  *This image is copyright of its original author https://mirnov.ru/rubriki-novostey/yeto-...ossii.html This same young tigress hunted and killed a bear: (6 September, 2020) According to Vyacheslav Kastrikin, deputy director of the Khingansky state reserve for scientific work, during the next certification of one of the predator's clusters, the remains of the first medium-sized bear she had caught were found. “So far, it has not been possible to reliably establish what kind of bear was eaten by Elena - brown or Himalayan, but the fact itself is remarkable in that it is the first “clubfoot” in the diet of a tigress. And, having obtained it, she completely closed her trophy list for potential victims from large mammals. Of course, with the exception of the second type of bear,” says Vyacheslav Kastrikin.  *This image is copyright of its original author https://livebir.ru/siela-miedviedia-i/ https://amur-tiger.ru/press_center/news/1477 Young male tiger 'Vladik' actively hunted bears Vladik preferred to hunt bears in autumn:  *This image is copyright of its original author https://news.rambler.ru/incidents/388078...rodu-tigr/ https://ria.ru/20171231/1512028610.html These young, inexperienced tigers and tigresses who are hunting bears at such a young age, as they grow older, bigger, stronger and more experienced, they'll start to hunt larger adult bears. Adult bears are regularly killed and eaten by tigers, especially male tigers who even prey on large bears. All in all, there seems to definitely be a bear-hunting culture among Amur tigers in the Far East Russian taiga. Incidents like this (pictured below) happen quite often, especially in summer and autumn:  *This image is copyright of its original author
AMUR TIGERS THREATENED ONCE AGAIN
In my previous post, I referred to an article published in the National Geographic in January 2022. It was written by Dina Fine Maron. Here's the link: https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/ani...body-parts In a few days, I'll add a summary and a conclusion.  (09-07-2023, 02:05 AM)peter Wrote: AMUR TIGERS THREATENED ONCE AGAIN The traditional Chinese medicine market has been an absolute disaster for big cat conservation. With tiger numbers in Indochina lowering, there has been a huge uptick of jaguar poaching in places like Bolivia and the Guyanas to replace the decreasing supply of tiger bones. It's all terrible and combating this kind of poaching is challenge because these groups are hard very hard to track. (09-07-2023, 08:29 AM)Balam Wrote:(09-07-2023, 02:05 AM)peter Wrote: AMUR TIGERS THREATENED ONCE AGAIN Agreed in all respects, Balam. The future looks a bit bleak. Changing a culture takes time. A lot of time, in fact. Time wild big cats don't have. The Chinese, however, are trying to change the tide. In the northeastern part of China, the new wind resulted in a new, very large, reserve, serious conservation and a smallish, but quite stable population of Amur tigers and Amur leopards. I posted about Feng Limin, a well-known tiger biologist, but there are more and quite a few of them have produced interesting articles and papers for quite some time now. Furthermore, poaching is considered a serious offence in the Russian Federation and, even more so, in China. Those who know say those involved in poaching also are involved in other criminal activities. Furthermore, they're, not seldom, connected to those involved in laws in some way or another. Meaning it takes a well-organized, and quite wealthy, state to stand a chance. That's still apart from integrity and commitment. Most unfortunately, integrity and politics don't seem to mix anywhere. For this reason, apart from, perhaps, the People's Republic and the Russian Federation, an international task force is needed. A post with a link to an article about organisations involved in serious poaching wouldn't entirely be out of place, I think. I know this thread is about the ecology of wild tigers, but we need to inform our members and readers about anything that can be considered a threat. There's parasites, diseases and falling trees, and there's enemies. Natural enemies like big bears and human enemies. Like professional poachers.
ABOUT THE SIZE OF ADULT WILD AMURS TIGERS - I
1 - introduction I've been following the proceedings in the thread 'Amur Tigers' for a while. This post is a response to the discussion about the size of wild Amur tigers in that thread. I'm referring to the discussion between 'Apex Titan', 'GuateGojira' and, right at the end of it, 'Balam'. I decided to move the 'discussion' to this thread, because this thread has more views. Meaning more members and readers will have the opportunity to follow the discussion. I wrote 'discussion', because the interaction between Apex and Guate isn't quite up to standard. Meaning one in particular compares the contributions of the other as those of a fanboy, if not a child that just learned to write. I didn't say he considers him a halfwit, but it's close at times. Also meaning one of the vital ingredients of a discussion, mutual respect, is lacking. Not what we want. Before we continue, a few words about the one targeted by Guate ('Apex Titan') wouldn't be entirely out of place. Apex, to keep it short, has enemies. Not a few of them consider him an ill-informed youngster involved in serious misinformation. That's still without his alleged 'preference' and his attitude. They don't understand why one of the co-owners of Wildfact decided to offer him the opportunity to post in one of the best-viewed threads. There are two reasons Apex has enemies. The first is his posts contradict the views of posters interested in bears in particular. The second is his 'attitude'. Meaning he doesn't like beating round the bush and swimming in circles. Also meaning he's quite direct. Do his enemies have a point? Informationwise, they don't. The information Apex posts underlines the results of recent research conducted by very competent people working in the Russian Far East. Regarding the way Himalayan black bears, Ussuri brown bears and Amur tigers interact, they concluded male representatives of both bear subspecies only very seldom displace adult Amur tigresses. They never found evidence of a male Amur tiger displaced by a male brown bear. It no doubt happens (referring to an incident witnessed in 1978 that was discussed in a recent post in this thread), but incidents of this nature seem to be few and far between. Apex, on top of that, added a confrontation between a male Amur tiger and a male brown bear isn't as one-sided as many assume. Do field biologists agree? Yes. in a period of about 3 decades (1992-2023), they didn't find a male Amur tiger killed by an Ussuri male brown bear. In fact, they didn't find a single tiger killed by a bear (referring to both subspecies). And what about male bears killed by male tigers? In 2017, a very large male brown bear that had been following, and robbing, a tigress with cubs ('Rachelle') for a prolonged period of time ('Chlamyda') suddenly disappeared from the radar. Two years after he disappeared, the man who knew him quite intimately, A. Batalov, concluded he was killed and eaten by male tiger 'Ochkarik', the father of the cubs of 'Rachelle'. Five years later, an experienced team found the remains of a male bear killed and partially eaten by male tiger 'Odyr'. I'm not saying those questioning both incidents do not have a case, but the information collected in the period 1992-2023 suggests Apex has a point. And what about male Amur tigers and Ussuri male brown bears? Do they agree? Everything we know, strongly suggests they try to avoid a serious encounter. For very good reasons: fighting a dangerous opponent, like Vaillant said, hurts. Furthermore, it's risky. And what about the alleged 'attitude' of Apex. When he joined Wildfact, we had a sitdown. Meaning he knew the invitation to post in the tiger extinction thread was a result of what I had seen in 'Carnivora', where he posted interesting information based on reliable sources. He also knew we don't like animosity over here. Did he deliver in both departments? The answer is affirmative. As to the one who invited Apex to post in the tiger extinction thread. Not a few of those complaining about Apex seem to forget Wildfact wasn't created to select those that excel in the department of being nice. The forum, as announced at the top of the home page, is about those making their home in the natural world. We prefer information collected and discussed by field biologists in peer-reviewed documents, but information collected by those who live close to wild tigers and those who, many moons ago, hunted them will also be discussed. Same for those who worked with them (referring to trainers). Meaning this forum really is about good information and not something else. In order to get there and enable all members to participate, rules of conduct were invented. Over here, they really count. If there's one thing our mods don't like, it's a lack of respect. In order to prevent problems in that department, mods not only read words. They also have a nose for what's not said, but suggested. All this to support those prepared and willing to act in the spirit of the law, I mean rule, and to get to productive discussions. And this was the last word about 'controversial' posters, discussions, insults and all the rest of it. Every member posting in the tiger extinction thread was invited by the one who started the thread. The reason they were invited is quality. Meaning they're able in the department of what we consider to be good information. Also meaning they, qualitywise, should be able to discuss information in a respectful way. 2 - Before starting the discussing 2a - The opinions of Apex, Guate and Balam Apex, to keep it short, thinks adult wild Amur tigers (referring to recent photographs and information about the 'heel width' of wild Amur tigers) might be a bit bigger than the table published in 2005 suggests. Guate, on the other hand, thinks the table is representative. Balam thinks size and prey density are intertwined, meaning she thinks tigers living in a region with long and harsh winters and few large prey animals are unlikely to reach the dimensions of their relatives living in the prey rich alluvial flood plains in southern Asia (and northeastern India in particular). As to total length and weight at the level of averages. Guate thinks Amur and Indian tigers roughly compare, whereas Balam suggests it's likely Indian tigers, for the reasons stated above, are a bit bigger (heavier). 2b - The difference between young and mature adults Before we start the discussion, it's imperative that all involved agree to distinguish between age groups. The reason is there are significant differences between young and mature adults. Wild male Ussuri brown bears are considered adult when they reach 9 years of age. Even after they reach that age, they continue to develop. Wild male Amur tigers are considered adult when they reach 6 years of age. Like male brown bears, they continue to develop after reaching that age. If you want to know a bit more about the morphological differences between young and mature adults (referring to Amur tigers), my advice is to to go back a few pages. I posted quite extensively about a few recent articles I read. Captive Amur tigers, to keep it short, reach adult size at a younger age than their wild relatives. Not seldom, they're even a bit heavier than mature adults. During the transition to adulthood, however, they lose body mass. Fat is replaced by muscles and their skulls (referring to the skulls I measured) continue to develop as well. They 'restart' growth between 5 (females) and 6 (males) years of age. It's not known if they continue growing until their death, because the samples didn't have tigers of 10 years and older. Although wild tigers seem to need more time to develop, recent information about the relation between age and size in wild tigers collected by biologists working the Russian Far East, Nepal and India more or less confirms the conclusions about the relation between age and size in captive Amur tigers: both males and females continue to grow when they reach adulthood. Hunting records (referring to what used to be British India in particular) suggest most exceptional tigers shot a century ago were quite old. Experienced hunters, for this reason, mainly targeted old males. 2c - The table published in 2005 As far as I know, there's only one table about the size of wild Amur tigers. It was published in a document released in 2005. The document is in Russian, but the table made it to most forums anyhow. The table was extensively discussed. Same for this forum (see the posts and tables about the size of wild Amur tigers in this thread). Apex has a few doubts about the table published in 2005. One reason is the tigers were captured in one reserve only. Another is young adult males were included. This still is without the remarks in 'The snare for tiger', 2012). This paper is important, because it, most probably, has information about some of the tigers in the table. Apex, referring to photographs and the 'heel width' of some males, thinks Khabarovsk tigers could be a bit larger than those that made it to the table. Guate said the table is reliable. He added photographs are unreliable. Same for information about the 'heel width' of wild tigers. The main reason wild Amur tigers are not as heavy many assumed is the conditions deteriorated between 1960-2005. Guate and Balam refer to recent peer-reviewed publications. Meaning they consider the case closed. 2d - Recent information The question is if Guate and Balam have a point. In order to get to a reliable answer, good information is needed. Guate thinks it's there, but others have a few doubts. While it's true quite a few wild Amur tigers have been captured, measured and weighed in (the eastern and southern districts of) Primorye, there's no information about the size of tigers in Khabarovsk and northeastern China. At least, not in peer-reviewed documents. Feng Limin, in a recent video, said tigers have been weighed in northeastern China. The young adult male captured after he attacked a car a few years ago was 225 kg. At least two other males, reached or exceeded 250 kg. A century ago, hunters agreed tigers in Manchuria were larger than those in Korea and in what used to be the Sowjet-Union. If the information about the three males weighed in northeastern China is correct, it would mean northeastern China, like a century ago, still produces large tigers. Guate has very good reasons to be wary, but his opinion has to be weighed against the opinion of those who had the opportunity to see wild tigers in Primorye, Khabarovsk anbd northeastern China. Remember we're talking about opinions, because the data needed to get to a conclusion aren't there. It isn't superfluous to repeat reliable information about the length and weight of wild adult tigers today, both in India and in the Russian Far East, is limited. Meaning both Apex and Guate could have a point. We just don't know. So how get to a conclusion about the size of adult wild Amur tigers? 2e - Proposals The first proposal, apart from the remarks about interacting and rules of conduct, is to forget about being right or wrong. It's not important and inproductive. The second proposal, for the moment, is to sideline, otherwise interesting, articles about the relation between the size of carnivores and prey density in general. What is needed to get to a conclusion is specific information about the size of adult wild Amur tigers. The third proposal is to discuss 'The snare for tiger' (2012). The reason is it has specific information about some of the tigers that made it to the table published in 2005. That and the effect the capture had on their health (referring to their teeth in particular). It also has a few, indirect but important, remarks about two Amur tigresses allegedly 'killed' by bears some years ago. The fourth proposal is to discuss the table published in 2005 I referred to above. The question is if it is really representative of all (adult) Amur tigers, including those in Khabarovsk and northeastern China. The fifth proposal is to go over the arguments Guate used to dismiss information about the 'heel width' of wild Amur tigers. The sixth proposal is to reconsider information published in other papers, articles and books. I'm thinking of V. Mazak in particular, as he's one of the very few who measured a number of skulls of wild (and captive) Amur tigers (referring to 'Der Tiger' and 'Notes on Siberian long-haired tiger'). There's, however, more good information we can use. The seventh proposal is to consider reliable information about the size of captive (Amur and Indian) tigers. The assumption is there's a direct relation between captive and wild relatives of a specific subspecies. The eighth proposal is to get to an overview (referring to skull size, actual standing height at the shoulder, total length, body dimensions and weight). I'll leave the first two proposals for what they are and wonder if one of those interested in the discussion is prepared to go over 'The snare for tiger' (third proposal) and the table published in 2005 (fourth proposal) one more time. If so, it would be much appreciated if the findings could be discussed in a post. My intention is to get to a table with information that was published in different articles and books in the recent past. Information about the skull size, actual standing height at the shoulder, total length, body dimensions and weight of captive (and wild) Indian and Amur tigers. Will take some time. I hope Guate and Apex will be able to overcome their problem. What we need to answer the question is good information. Not something else. (09-26-2023, 08:05 PM)peter Wrote: ABOUT THE SIZE OF ADULT WILD AMURS TIGERS - I Hi peter, definitelly you share a couple of interesting ideas and also, there is more information in the way from your part and also from mine. But, I will like to touch a few points of your post that I think are important. 1 - I feel very weird that about 30% of your post is just about Apex, talking not only good about him but sound almoust like a "justification" for his attitude that is arrogant and unable to see his mistakes or to follow the scientific process to make an hypotesis based in facts, which is also, in your words, not what we want. We, as old posters, know about this type of people and we already know what we need to do with this type of posters. In this case, the information that he shares about "tiger vs bear" is good, I don't denied it and I even asked him information about this, so I believe that he is a good poster but need "education", direction and to learn how to post. Animosity is part of the game, and certainly will escalate until one of the posters decide that do not worth the effort to continue waisting time, which what I tried to do. But as he continue and continue and continue, with the same thing, that is why I decided to show him the errors in his hypotesis. 2 - Comparing captive with wild specimens is not a good way, remember that the development of the captive animals is manage by the humans, which in the good zoos is way better than that of the harsh wild evironments where the ill specimens will certainly die. Based in your own tables, and the specimens measured by Mazak, wild Amur tiger are too far to reach those body masses, I estimated that the heaviest wild Amur tigers wil reach about 270 kg, but masses of over 400 kg are certainly impossible in the forests. On body size, certainly the biggest specimens measured by Mazak and you are reached by the biggest Amur tigers, but if that is repeated now is the incognite. There is where we need evidence and measurements, and for the moment, only the Bengal tigers reach the huge sizes of they own past and the past of the Amur specimens. However, this means that there are no giant tigers in the forest? Of course not! And that is the point that Apex (and I hope you don't) forget or ignore. I am fully convinced that there are bigger specimens out there, thanks to the better conservation and the higher prey density in the area, and my hopes are placed in the Ussuri region and the north of China. I was provided with new information about new captured specimens that in fact surpass the figures of the Siberian Tiger Project and the modern average is probably over 200 kg in males (females are ignored by most of posters, terrible by the way as the tiger society is based in females and if the females are not healthy, well......). However, I still need more data to confirm and publish this data and this is what experience told me, that patience pays, and I will wait what is necesary until we can have confirmations from the real experts via emails to me or a published document. 3 - About the Siberian Tiger Project specimens, it is very frustating that modern posters have NO IDEA about how, when and who stablished the famous Siberian Tiger Monograph, that was published in 2005 and only in Russian. By the way, the full document is LOST, yes, is fully lost because at least in my side and using other VPN's, the original website of the WCS Russia was deleted and I sadly only saved two chapters in this computer, the 6 and the 7. The good news is that these two documents are those about the size. And here comes why I say that modern people and internet trolls do not know a damn aboutt his documents, and is because they ONLY mention Slagth et al. but no one of them mention Kerley et al.! So, they have no idea that the measurements and weights are part of two different chapters and two different authors. Other thing, who spread the lie that the specimens captured by the Siberian Tigers were problematic, sick or in bad conditions? I have the full documents and in ANY PART mention this, but this is the mantra repeated by the fanatics that try to discredit the work of these scientist that for many years dedicated they entire life and work to leard, study and save the tigers in the Russian Far East. If everybody take to time to READ the paper, or at least to read the tables from Slaght et al. we can see that "problematic" animals were separated from the main sample, they are NOT included with the regular ones. Also, the documentof Kerley et al., which is the one with the body measurements, use only the normal and healty specimens. Now, while the females are all of them in good conditions, three males were not. Only three males from the sample were found in not so good conditions and this is clearly explained in my tables and they body mass were remouved from the sample since the beggining. Also, they body size is not afected as they are in the range of specimens that are normal, so they lenght/height/girth were not remouved as there is no reason for that. So, People should stop spreading lies about these two documents, the captured animals were healthy, that is all. As to the age, all the documents that we see now use sexually mature specimens as "adults", that is why the use animals of over 3 years old in the sample, however I took to the time to add the age in my tables, based of course in the documents of the STP and also the monograph, so we can directly see the age when they were captured, and those that I could not found, I just put them "over 3 years". Conclution is that all the information about the captured animals is available, not only in my tables, but also in the documents of Slaght and Kerley and also the original papers of the STP. Here there is no missinformation, conspiracy or anything crazy, is just about the missinterpretation and lies of some fanatics out there. 4 - About the document "The snare for tiger", we can check it but that is more related about the method of capture, not about the sizes and weights recorded. So, while is important to take in count about the animal management and the risk on the captures, it is not relevant for our conclution about size. I don't see any issues reported with the tigers capture in Thailand and they use the same method (as fer I remember). So about your proposals: 1st - It is important to stablish the rules, and one of them is that what we are going to discuss must be based in evidence, data and a real backup. If only pictures and paw prints are going to be presented, sorry but I am not interested. Besides, you say this: "his opinion has to be weighed against the opinion of those who had the opportunity to see wild tigers in Primorye, Khabarovsk anbd northeastern China. Remember we're talking about opinions, because the data needed to get to a conclusion aren't there." You are right, are only opinions, but you can tell if when you saw the tigers that you measured, if you don't believed that they were the biggest ever? Human emotions are also something important to weight in an "opinion". And if we return to the old cases like Kaziranga tigers and Crater lions, at the end the assumptions that were made were not entirely backuped by the available data. 2nd - Let's refer to Dr Karanth. Also, Dr Miquelle metioned something about this in the paper that I publised. We can also study the cases of the variations in India and Sundarbans as a surrogate. You will see that prey density in tigers make a difference. 3rd. - If you going to focus in that particular paper, I advice you to read also the other papers of the STP and get the full information. Nothing was hidden in those old reports, if not, how do I got the information of the health status of the three males that I remouved from the column of weights? 4th. - The specimens captured by the STP are not only those from 2005, they captured more after that year. So, you should take also my table for reference and remember also the specimens that were captured by the Amur Tiger Programme, which obviously are not included in the monograph of 2005. About representativity, definitelly I don't see any difference with those of Khabarovsk, but those from the Ussuri region were already bigger than those from Sikhote Alin and I am confident that those from north of China are even bigger. However, we can't realy our conclutions only in pictures and I will continue insisting on this. 5th. - You can't base an "argument" based in the single heel of a single male. Also, you need to take in count the information provided by experts, if you check Heptner & Sludskii (1992) they present a good table about heel size and estimated weight and I don't see them saying that a tiger with a big heel automatically weighed 250 kg. Heels are good to estimate the sex and relative size, but as I showed, there is a difference between the print of the heel and the actual measurement in the flesh. 6th. - We already have saw the information of Mazak, skulls and body measurements, nothing new for the argument and only a backup to show that captive Amur tigers are huge, which we already know. But I will like to see a comparative table of the skulls measured by him, you, and the other published in several documents already presented in this same forum. Interesting as a feedback of the past. 7th. - Captive vs wild is not good. Remember that we have Sumatran tigers of over 185 kg in captivity (apparently pure breed). The tables of Slaght and Kerley are available everywhere, I can put it tham here again there is no problem. But if we are going to discuss them I will need to say that you will need the full paper, not only the tables. My own tables are also available and updated, so we can use them are surrogates for details (if anyone do not want to dig and rearch for the details by themselves). The floor is open, who is going to dance first?
GUATE
We met well before Wildfact was created. Furthermore, you've been here from day one. I consider you a friend and that will never change, meaning I accept you're 'The One who greets with Fire'. Part of the deal. Also part of the deal is friends talk straight. What i was saying (referring to my previous post) is it's unfair, and pointless, if a senior member, and one with a reputation at that, targets a younger member for no reason. You, of all people, should know how it feels when someone targets you. I'm referring to the exchanges in the period 'WaveRiders' was here. He was the new kid on the block and delivered quality, but I didn't like the way he went for our mods and you in particular. I told him, but he ignored the advice and continued until a decision was made. You know I'll defend a friend, that is. You also know I dislike members using their experience and reputation to act in a similar way as Wave did. Apex, to be sure, didn't contact me to complain. I acted because I want those who post in this thread to cooperate. They were invited because they have what is needed: quality (not only referring to access to good information). You're one of them, but so, in my opinion, is Apex. Both of you have different qualities. Next time you see something you don't like, contact me. And when you start a discussion, focus on arguments only. I don't mind the occasional touch of logic, but stay away from what we see every bloody day all over the net (arrogance, insults and all the rest of it). And when you feel the fire burning, just count to ten. Back to the issue at hand. I'm, to be more precise, referring to the fifth proposal. About the correlation between 'heel width' and weight in wild Amur tigers You said there's a difference between a print left in, say, soft snow and an actual measurement of the paw 'in the flesh' in that a print is always larger than an actual measurement of the pad 'in the flesh'. Meaning a print isn't accurate and, for that reason, unreliable. You're, of course, right. In spite of that, the remark is irrelevant. Field biologists and rangers, as you know, not often have the opportunity to measure a wild tiger these days. When you study a rare species, one thing you want to avoid at all costs is risks. Every capture has risks. For this reason, biologists and rangers often have no option but to use indirect information to get to a guesstimate. Like a print. Although a print isn't accurate, it isn't about accuracy. It's about the correlation between the print and the size (weight) of the animal that left it. The question is if a print enables a ranger to get to the information he's after. If he's following a tiger that might have to be captured, his aim is to find out a bit more about the specifics (gender, age, size and condition). He knows there's a quite strong correlation between the width of the pad of the front paw ('heel width') and the weight of the tiger that left the print. The 'heel width' of adult females ranges between 8,5-10,0 cm, whereas healthy adult males range between 10,5-13,0 cm, at times a bit more. He also knows adult Amur tigresses range between 100-130 kg (up to 140) these days. Male Amur tigers (using confirmed weights only) range between 140-212 kg (140 for 'Tikhon', a very old male, and 212 for 'Luk', a young adult captured in the southern part of Primorye), but a large male in his prime might be considerably heavier (referring to recent information about the weight of wild male Amur tigers captured in northeastern China). An adult healthy Amur tigress leaving a print with a 'heel width' of 9,5-10,0 cm is large. Chances are a pad of that size corresponds with a tigress of 120-130 kg, possibly a bit more. A healthy adult male Amur tiger leaving a print with a heel width of 12,0 cm is larger than average. Note I added 'healthy' every time, because the information I have strongly suggests the correlation between heel width and weight is affected by age, health and conditions. One of the tables in the document published in 2005 (Table 7.3) has detailed information about the size of 13 wild adult male Amur tigers and 10 adult wild females. It's, again, not superfluous to underline tigers Table 7.3 has a few young adult males (3-4 years of age). The average heel width of 10 'adult' tigresses captured in the period 1992-2004 was 9,2 cm (range 8,5-10,0), whereas the average heel width of 12 males captured in the same period was 11,4 cm (range 10,5-12,8). All tigers and tigresses were captured in the Sichote-Alin Biosphere Reserve and its environs:  *This image is copyright of its original author We know (referring to another table in the document published in 2005) tigresses averaged 117,9 kg, whereas males averaged 176,4 kg (389 pounds). Does this mean an adult wild Amur tigress with a heel width of 9,2 cm is 117,9 kg and an adult wild male Amur tiger with a heel width of 11,4 cm is 176,4 kg? In the Sichote-Alin Biosphere Reserve, at the level of averages, the answer (in that period of time) is affirmative. At the level of individuals, the answer is no. Like always, it depends. My proposal is to have a closer look at the correlation between 'heel width' and weight in average-sized wild males. Table 7.3 says males captured in the Sichote-Alin Biosphere Reserve and it's environs in the period 1992-2004 averaged 176,4 kg (range 125-200) and 11,4 cm in heel width (range 10,5-12,8). The heel width, to be complete, was measured 'in the flesh' (all males were captured, measured and weighed). I do not, as you seem to assume, doubt the accuracy of the information, but wonder if the table is representative. There are two reasons. The first is young adult males were included. The second is the table has no information about tigers in the Khabarovsky Krai and northeastern China. My 'hypothesis' for now is the inclusion of young adult males in particular had an effect on the averages (referring to heel width and weight). Is there a tool to get to a kind of assessment? A tool like, say, 'heel width'? The answer is affirmative. I found 3 tables that have the information needed and selected 6 wild males at least 5 years of age. The average heel width of these 6 was 11,56 cm (range 11,5-11,8). Anything known about the health of these males? The answer is four had health problems. Significant problems, I may add. The first male (168 kg and 12-13 years of age) had his front paw nearly torn off by a brown bear (...), whereas the second (a 10-year old male of 192 kg) was killed by another male. He had a pathology of the paw bone and was no match for the other tiger. The third male (185 kg, but with a relative low fat index) had been injured by a bullet. He was shot when he attacked a group of hunters. The fourth male (171 kg, but with a relative low fat index) was shot with a permit because he had attacked domestic animals. Male five (189 kg at 6,5-7,5 years of age) and male six (a young adult of 207 kg), healthwise, seemed to have a clean sheet. I, by the way, added the young adult ('Banzai'), because the information I found suggests he could have been a bit older than 4 when he was captured. In spite of the (significant) problems, these 6 males averaged 185,3 kg (range 168-207), whereas the males in the table published in 2005 averaged 176,4 kg. Not a big difference, but it is if the health problems of the 6 males I selected are considered. Meaning age, weightwise, seems to be as important as health, if not more so. Also meaning the inclusion of young adults (referring to Table 7.3) had an effect on the averages. Anyhow. The information available suggests heel width is a quite decent indicator of the weight of a wild tiger, especially if there's additional information. More often than not, it will enable experienced woodsmen and biologists to get to a decent guesstimate. About the size of tigers in the Anyuisky National Park To close the post, a bit more about the tigers living in the Anyuisky National Park. It's located in the Khabarovsky Krai. The organisation responsible for the reserve (and 7 others) operates a kind of online magazin, not very different from the site of the Amur Tiger Programme. I read all reports posted between 2015 and the end of 2022. What I read, suggests the conditions were very good in most years. As a result, tigers thrived. Employees not seldom expressed their amazement at the size of some of the males. One of them, nicknamed 'The Beast' for obvious reasons, was very tall and left a print with a heel width of 13,5 cm. An exceptional individual? No doubt, but he wasn't the only one of that size in that park. In a period of about 5 years, prints with a heel width of 14,0, 15,0 and, more than once, 16,0 cm (...) were seen repeatedly. Remember all measurements were taken by well-trained people, who've seen their fair share of wild Amur tigers. One of them is Aleksey Gotvansky. He started working in the Anyuisky National Park in May 2019. In that year, Gotvansky and Nadeshda Yavorskaya maintained cameratraps, executed hydro-biological research and explored little-known river valleys and dense forests. They walked many a mile. Gotvansky also patrolled roads used by 'tourists' with cameras. And rifles. Poaching is a problem everywhere in the Russian Far East. When poachers heard about the remarkable Anyuisky tigers, they decided to pay the national park a visit. Remnants of illegal camps and poached animals were found and quite a few cameras were stolen. Following and confronting poachers in a remote region is part of the job. Gotvansky, an environment specialist at the 'Federal State Budgetary Institution 'Amur Reserve', thought about 30 tigers lived in the Anyuisky National Park in the winter of 2020. The valley of the Pikhtsa river in particular was quite popular. It had 8 tigers. Some of the males he saw, to use his words, were 'gigantic'. Gotvansky installed 70 new cameras in the Anyuisky National Park. You said a large print left in the snow is a lot smaller in different conditions. True, but not all prints Gotvansky saw were left in snow or mud. In July 2020, when looking for an escaped horse in the forest (...), he found a print with a heel width of 16,0 cm. He said the print was left by a 'monster tiger'. A few weeks later, in another part of the Anyuisky National Park, he found a second print with a heel width of 16,0 cm (...). That print was left by another male. In the last week of July, that tiger killed a large wild boar. The fight, lasting for 20 minutes, attracted a lot of attention in the village. Gotvansky repeatedly found the remains of Himalayan black bears killed by tigers, but the horse that settled in the park was left in peace and recaptured 7 months later (...). The Anyuisky National Park, by the way, was visited by camera crews in 2015, 2017 and 2019. One of the crews was working for Hafner. His documentary about the Amur tiger was discussed in this thread some time ago. Did they see the 'monster tiger' with a heel width of 16,0 cm? I don't know, but Gotvansky saw him again in October 2020. One of the things Gotvansky noted time and again was old male tigers often migrated to other regions in times of need, leaving their realm to their young adult sons. Experienced tigers seldom, if ever, perish in times of need. Their children, however, did. Tigers up to 1-2 years of age are vulnarable when wild boars disappear. In Anyuisky, subadults (2-3 years of age), most probably for this reason, not seldom joined forces after they left their mother. The African swine fever had a profound effect on the tigers in Anyuisky. Wild boars all but disappeared. The only ones not affected by the disease were solitary old males. Only few of them were targeted by tigers. There is a good reason, as Ussuri wild boars are the largest of all subspecies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAbveShfBUk The 2020-2021 winter was a bad one. Three tigers were killed in road accidents (cars) and another was found dead close to the village of Arsenyevo. As a result of the lack of wild boars, tigers had to work a lot harder. Many left the National Park, whereas unknown males entered. One of them, seen near the Kiya river, was, yet again, a male of exceptional size. Not too far away, two, to use Gotvansky's words, "... gigantic ... " males lived near the Nilo-Channel and the Tormasu river. In July 2021, Gotvansky, after walking 95 km (...) in the Pikhtsa river valley, checked one of the cameras. It had a few pictures of an enormous male brown bear and a male tiger of similar size ('The Beast') embracing the same tree. Gotvansky said both animals approached a height of three meters (...). Have you ever seen an adult male Amur tiger standing on his hindlegs, Guate? An average-sized adult male reaches 7 feet (referring to the top of the skull), but I saw a few who well exceeded that mark. The former Zoological Museum of Amsterdam has an adult male brown bear from the Russian Far East. Standing on it's hindlegs, it was about 7,5 feet. I measured the bear myself. It was a very impressive animal. Remember not one of the Amur tigers I measured was exceptional. Same for the brown bear. I recently saw an adult male brown bear in a Dutch facility that would have exceeded that mark by a very decent margin. Gotvansky said both the bear and the tiger approached 3 meters while standing on their hindlegs. I don't know if he referred to the top of the skull (unlikely) or the height of the claw marks and I also don't know if he really measured the marks, but I do know he saw quite a few wild brown bears and Amur tigers in the period 2019-2023. If he says a bear or a tiger is 'very large' or 'gigantic', I take his word for it. The photograph, by the way, clearly shows the bear and the tiger were standing on their hind legs. I selected the (large) version first posted on the net in order to emphasize the size of both the tiger and the bear:  *This image is copyright of its original author It's known large male Ussuri brown bears can reach 400 kg, at times some even well exceed that mark. I'm not saying 'The Beast', weightwise, compared, but it's clear he compared for length. My guess is he was heavier than 'Luk', the young adult male captured in a reserve in the southern part of Primorye a decade ago. One reason I got to that conclusion is I measured a few captive male Amur tigers. One of them was 'Arames', an 8-year old male. When I first saw him, he had just arrived. Like the other 6 Amur tigers, he, after an accident (one of them killed the trainer), had been neglected for a long period of time (about 7 weeks). I'm not saying I could count his ribs, but it was close. In spite of that, he was 185,5 kg. In normal conditions, he would have been quite a bit heavier. One of the two other males was weighed at Schiphol Airport a few years later. At 10-11 years of age, he was 211 kg. Tiger 'Arames', measured in a straight line, was 194 cm in head and body length. He was a bit longer than the two other males, but not as robust. One of the others, possibly as a result of the long period of neglect, suffered from an inflammation. During the photoshoot, he was very aggressive. So much so, that all present left the room in a hurry. Standing on his hind legs, his skull reached the top of the cage. I measured the cage later. The height was 7 feet and a few inches. The Amur tigers were of average size, perhaps a bit smaller. Most captive Amur tigers are a bit longer and taller than most other big cats, but not by much. The difference between captive Amur tigers and other big cats, however, is significant at the level of averages. The main reason is very large individuals are seen quite often. Furthermore, exceptional Amur tigers really are exceptional in most respects. In many years, the late Dr. P. van Bree saw one exceptional African lion. At 216,7 cm in head and body length (measured in a straight line) and 280 kg, he was quite something. Exceptional Amur tigers, on the other hand, are quite common. Some of them (referring to healthy animals only) really exceed 300 kg and 220 cm in head and body length. Mazak (1983) thought the famous Duisburg Zoo tiger was the largest in his day, but the table I posted a year ago shows he wasn't. The 4-year old male shot in the Köln Zoo in 2012 that featured in a paper that was discussed some years ago (this thread) was 240 cm in head and body length (...). The photographs of his skull (including a ruler in every case) suggest it could well exceed the largest skull Mazak measured. The young adult male, to be sure, wasn't obese, but healthy. Same for the other males that exceeded 280 kg (referring to the table with information about captive Amur tigers posted in this thread). You (referring to your previous post) said it's pointless to compare captive and wild Amur tigers, because wild Amur tigers, unlike their captive relatives, face difficult conditions, energy deficits, poachers and dangerous competitors. While I agree it's very likely there could be significant differences between captive and wild Amur tigers at the level of averages, I'm not that sure about exceptional individuals. There are too many reports about large males from reliable observers to be ignored. It could be the differences between wild and captive Amur tigers are more limited than we assume. Recent research suggests this could be the case in the skull department. Sizewise, in fact, there's little to choose between skulls of wild and captive Amur tigers. The main difference is in the shape of the skull. Wild male Amur tigers in particular, like Mazak said, often have a very well developed sagittal crest. In this respect, they differ from all other mainland subspecies. A result of eating frozen meat, the authors thought. They added the rostrum of wild male Amur tigers is significantly narrower than the rostrum of their captive relatives. But the skulls Mazak measured point in a very different direction and wild females, often lacking the well developed sagittal crest, also eat frozen meat. Here's another photograph suggesting wild Amur tigers can reach a great height when standing on their hind legs:  *This image is copyright of its original author There's, of course, a difference between claw marks and the height a tiger can reach with his head, but there's some evidence an exceptional individual can reach a height of 8, perhaps even 9, feet when standing on his hind legs:  *This image is copyright of its original author There's no doubt whatsoever that an exceptional male polar or brown bear can reach 9 feet when standing on his hind legs. This photograph was taken in 1984:  *This image is copyright of its original author Returning to the tigers living in the Anyuisky National Park. In 2021, not a few tigresses lost their cubs. The reason was starvation. In spite of the lack of young tigers, the population in the national park remained stable. One last remark about the correlation between heel width and (alleged) size in wild Amur tigers. Apart from the reports from the Anyuisky National Park, I found reports about large prints in other districts in the Khabarovsky Krai in the period 2015-2022. Time and again, they amazed those who measured them. To conclude While the Gotvansky's and Yavorskaya's of this world patrol unexplored, hilly and densely forested districts in difficult conditions in one of the national parks recently established in the Russian Far East in order to protect a rare species, those who never saw a wild big cat on the other side of the globe discuss, and severely question, their (referring to Gotvansky and his collegues) ability to measure a print and estimate the size of the tigers they saw. In fact, those questioning the ability of well-trained rangers not seldom also question, if not disqualify, other members of the forum they joined. As co-owner of a forum about the natural world, I feel obliged to respond to those involved in severe preference (referring to those interested in bears) and those prepared to dismiss, and even ridicule, people interested in the same, rare, species at a forum. Because they, for instance, deal with information in a slightly different way. Do I want to invest my time in a response, knowing those involved in severe preference and arrogance will never give an inch no matter what? Do I think my efforts will have a result? Does a one-legged duck swim in circles? One more thing, Guate. I agree one has to be careful when information about the size and weight of wild animals is offered by someone considered to be 'in the know'. I also agree photographs can be, and often are, misleading. The best way to solve problems in that department is to use peer-reviewed documents and great books only. But this strategy has disadvantages in that it severely limits the scope. Furthermore, there's a difference between accurate information and reality. If anything, it increases the chance you'll be surprised one day (when tiger biologists started work in India, they entered the forest with 400-pound scales). As to misinformation. No matter how much you know and no matter your experience, chances are you'll be misled one day. Even the best education won't result in a clean sheet in that department. You know people, mistakes and deliberate misinformation are on good terms. You also know (referring to recent research) most people, for different reasons, lie every day. Mazak was misled and he wasn't the only one. All of them paid. The main reason they did is people in general often take pleasure in the downfall of others. Human nature. Life, however, isn't about competition, status and everything else highlighted every day in newspapers, glossies and talk shows. Life is about doing what you want to do, about focus and about developing the ability to deal with setbacks and problems. In order to get there, an open mind is important. In the end, it isn't about general information, but about something specific. Something you in particular understand. Books, no matter how interesting, are of little use in this respect. You are your book and it's your job to read it and add a few chapters that fit. In the end, life is about things that often have no shape, colour and definition. Your job is to find out what that means. I don't think it's superfluous to repeat the worst thing you can do when you face a problem is to close the door and buy an extra lock. Being defensive and adding a lot of extra rules in order to prevent more problems, without a shadow of doubt, will result in what you want to avoid at all costs: fear and a complete standstill. My guess is those who've been there would tell you to face every problem and to move on to the next one. As that is one of the few things you can be sure of. Is Apex, as you suggest, really unaware of science and the accepted methods to get to knowledge? Or does he prefer a different method to get to information? One that can result in, say, some kind of insight? Remember there is a difference between knowledge and insight. During my years at college, I saw people loaded with knowledge fail tests that required something else time and again. And the other way round. One of the most able men I met, bound to graduate with honours, decided to quit just before he was invited to defend his thesis. I still visit the supermarket where he has been working ever since. We talk about tigers and lions and drink coffee. I avoid moving to philosophy, because I would go down real fast. Talking about going down. My youngest brother never read a book. Well, maybe one or two. He preferred the ring and a decent knock-out. In spite of the lack of what many consider to be vital information, he knew more than I did after years at college and that conclusion is not a result of brothership. What I'm saying is everyone is different. Every individual selects, and follows, a road that fits. Your job is to follow yours and to stay away from judgements. If you see a member posting misinformation, you act. If you see a member involved in speculation, you (can) respond. It is, however, important to distinguish between misinformation and a post with an explorative character. You was misled by someone selling stories, locked the door and bought a new book with rules. Rules you apply without exception. A productive strategy? We both read many documents published in the period 1992-2023 and know all adult wild male Amur tigers captured in that period, depending on age, health and local conditions, ranged between 140-212 kg. But we also know most wild tigers will never be weighed. Same for their captive relatives. Finally, we know captive Amur tigers show a lot of individual variation. It's a fact large males occasionally exceed 300 kg. Is it possible an exceptional wild male, like a century ago, could get to that weight as well? Those who hunted them 100-150 years ago were sure they could, but most of their records were dismissed. For good reasons, but on has to remember there is a difference between using an accepted procedure (to get to information) and the means available. Back then, it often was all but impossible to move, let alone measure and weigh, an exceptional male tiger or lion shot in a remote district. One of the few exceptions, like Mazak said, was the tiger shot near the Sungari river in 1943. The photograph taken shows a very robust animal that was 11.6 in total length 'over curves'. According to Jankowski (referring to his book published many years after the event), the skin of that tiger was 375 cm. Is a wild male tiger of that size, as Jankowski said in his letter to Mazak, really able to approach, or even exceed, 300 kg? Historical (referring to wild male Amur tigers) and recent (referring to captive male Amur tigers) records suggest exceptional males were, and are, able to reach that weight. Could 'The Beast' have been one of them? And what about the males leaving a print with a heel width of 15,0-16,0 cm in Anyuisky? We don't know. The only thing we, to a degree, know (referring to the tables I recently posted) is captive male Amur tigers weighed in the last century averaged 490-500 pounds (n=61). Male Amur tigers in Chinese facilities today (referring to recent publications discussed in this thread), however, average about 460-470 pounds. Did they lose weight in the last century, or are the averages found a result of selection or smallish samples? The 'historical' average adult wild male Amur tiger seems to have ranged between 475-495 pounds, but the sample used to get to that conclusion was very small. One conclusion I got to when I went over all records I consider reliable is exceptional male tigers of large subspecies are 30-40% heavier than an average male, at times even a bit more. If wild male Amur tigers today, as Miquelle suggested a decade ago, really average 430 pounds, an exceptional male today should be able to reach 560-600 pounds. My guess, however, is exceptional individuals, like in India and Nepal, are able to reach 650-700 pounds in their prime. As you and Balam suggested, it depends on the conditions, but there's a bit more to it. The prey base in northeastern Asia never compared to what we see in northeastern India today. In spite of that, both 'historical' records and recent skull measurements strongly suggest wild tigers in that part of Asia compared to their relatives in southeastern Asia. If anything, Amur tigers seem to be a bit longer. Same for the skulls I measured. You said it's very likely I was impressed by the big cats I measured. The answer is I was, but not for the reason you suggested. In spite of my tape, I always was amazed at what I sensed. I'm not only referring to the immense strength of an adult male lion or tiger, but to something difficult to describe. Every time I measured a male lion or tiger, it felt I entered a different dimension. One not defined by size. Most people have no clue as to what a big cat really is, but I did notice those unable to use their ears or eyes seemed different. Not seldom, they were elated when they touched them. The senses of the blind seem more developed than those who can see. They also seem to use the brain in a different way. What they sensed and felt, was something beyond words. Words, at least today, often seem to be used to disguise what people really feel. Those who know about communication agree it isn't about words, but something else. You can't pin it, but feel, or sense, it. Those who use and develop untouched senses, like trainers, rangers and artists, know. But they in particular don't have a say anywhere. Like big cats, they decided for elusiveness and adapted to the brave new world. One created by those who benefit from a society in which abilities, vital connections and true (authentic) knowledge have been replaced. By machines and, let's say, symbols. Symbols you can buy. If you join, of course. The conclusion of a man heavily involved in voodoo? Conspiracies? Far from it. I know a few things about senses, because I was born in the house of my father's parents. His mother was blind. I spent many days with her. Her world was different from those able to use their eyes. When she was young and able to see, she had many friends. After she lost her sight, they continued to visit her. I still remember their meetings, because they were very different from what I saw elsewhere. In those days, people often seemed to have more, let's say, natural abilities. I'm not referring to math, but to skills in the department of interaction and expression. Not a few of the ones visiting my grandmother were great singers and storytellers. In spite of the poverty and the terrible wars, their heart seemed more 'developed' than those who have a similar object today. Animals seemed a bit different as well. Back then, in and outside of the city, cats, dogs, birds, rats, mice, rabbits, pigs, donkeys, horses, cows and the occasional lion were considered as true friends by those who lived with them. When they offered an animal to a friend or neighbour, the discussion wasn't about money but about the personality of the animal in question. Today, most animals are pets. You can buy and get rid of an animal at any time, just like with toys. Again, animals responded. What we see today, is a reflection of what we think and feel. What is it, I wonder, we really created? (10-10-2023, 08:00 AM)peter Wrote: GUATE Hi peter, nice to see you starting the discussion, based in data and in your educated form. Is good to read you as allways. It is a good balada, but now is my turn with a passionated tango! Correlation between 'heel width' and weight in wild Amur tigers It may be a surprise to all the people that has not read the document of Kerley et al. (2005) that the scientists of the Siberian Tiger Project did managed to stablish correlations between several body measurements and check how reliable are to get the weight of the Amur tigers, however, before to disclose the results, let me show you what I got. Based in the sample of the individual tigers from Dr Linda Kerley and team, I got a sample of 12 sexually mature males (in other words, "adults" of over 3 years old) with both body mass and front heel wide. From these sample, 3 are reported with healty problems, and from these at least one was in good shape in its first capture. The next image shows the sample together with its name, weight and heel wide.  *This image is copyright of its original author Table 1 shows the figures as are show by Dr Kerley and team in the monograph, the result provide the lowest correlation (r2=0.1559). Table 2 shows the specimens with the maximum weights recorded (take in coun that male "Aleksei" was not weighed in its dfirst capture, but estimated between 160-170 kg, depending of the source, so I use a figure of 165 kg for the calculation, even then the correlation is just slightly better but still unreliable (r2=0.1859). Table 3 include only the healthy specimens but use the average weights, the final result is a little higher correlation (r2=0.2435) but is still under the 0.5 necesary for reliability. Table 4 use the healthy specimens with using the highest weights recorded for them, the correlation is the best (r2=0.27) but did not reached the 0.5. In conclution, using this sample we found that there is no correlation between the weight and the heel wide of the male tigers, altough we must remember that the figures of the heel measurements are also averages of several measurements, which may affect the result. Now, I will include the specimens reported by Igor Nikolaev and Victor G. Yudin in the document "Conflict between man and tiger in the Russian Far East" of 1993. There is the paper where you got the extra males that you mentioned before and the sample of this study says that based in the analisys of 75 tiger deaths, 40% of the tigers were killed in or near settlements, 32% were killed by poachers and the death of 28% of the animals were not human related. In few words, these animals were mostly problematic animals and based in the description most of them were injured or in bad state. This is the table that I furnished and that include only the male specimens that were actually weighed:  *This image is copyright of its original author Those in black were clasified as "reliable" as they health status was not that bad, with high fat index most of them, all of them over 3 years old and few patologies. Those in blue were clasified as "problematic" based in the fact that the fat index was middle to low and the injures reported were more serious. Finally those in red were clasified as disable as they were in bad shape with low to starving status most of them and all had serious injures and were very ill. Please take in count that this clasification is just from my part so it is not necesary the final form to clasify the specimens. It is interesting to note that one of the biggest heels (12.0 cm) belonged to a male of only 145 kg! No fat index was reported but probaly it was in very bad conditions.  *This image is copyright of its original author Using these males and those from the Siberian Tiger Project and The Amur Tiger Programme, the Table 1 use all the specimens and the correlation is very poor (r2=0.1039), the lowest of all, taking in count that big paw specimens were in very bad conditions. Table 2 used only the the healhty specimens from the STP/TATP and the "reliable" specimens from Nikolaev & Yudin (1993), and the correlation is among the highest (r2=0.2386) of this group. Finally Table 3 use the healthy specimens of the STP/TATP and the "reliable" and "problematic" specimens from Nikolaev & Yudin (1993), and provide the highest correlation of all (r2=0.2913). At the end no combination provided a correlation over 0.5. So, using all these specimens we could conclude that the heel wide is not a good predictor for body mass in male Amur tigers, but which was the conclution of the scientists of the Siberian Tiger Project in 2005? Incredible they sample of 11 adult males, they got many more measurements and here are the results from the table 7.5 in Kerley et al. (2005): Original in Russian:  *This image is copyright of its original author Translate to English:  *This image is copyright of its original author As we can see, based in 19 measurements from captured and death animals the wide of the front heel resulted with a very high correlation of r2= 0.55 (n=19), but the highes one is wide of the front paw with a correlation of r2=0.65 (n=20). This means that the relation is significative and that a calculation of weight based in the wide of the paw (not the heel) is regularly reliable, however is still not enough estatistically speaking as is too close of the 0.5 which means that any calculation based in the size of the paw is like a 50/50 bet and must be taked with caution. Now check that for females the wide of the front heel is the most correlated with r2=0.55. However, ths is nothing agains the measurements tha actually shows very high correlation, like is the chest circunference in males (r2=0.95) and females (r2=0.86). That is why in figure 7.3 of the same document they develop an equation with the chest girth, and not with the paw/heel wide. In conclution, while the wide of the fron paw in males, and the wide of the front heel in females, shows significan correlation (over 0.5) is still not enought to get a reliable form to get the weight of the animal that created it, like we see in the samples that we got from living animals. Now, you mention that Biologist use the paw/heel to get the weight of the animals right? Actually that is not correct, they only use these measurements primarly to get the sex, age and possible health status of the animal in order to made the population census, now the weight is something that they don't do, and is only they own personal guesses, educated and maybe usefull, but only guesses. If you can get the book "The Ecology of the Amur Tiger based on Long-Term Winter Observations in 1970-1973 in the Western Sector fo the Central Sikhote-Alin Mountains" from Anatoliy Grigorievitch Yudakov and Igor Georgievitch Nikolaev, translation from 2004, there you can see in Chapter 1 that how and why they use the paw prints, and in ANY momento they mention anything about weight, and there is a lot of data about tracks in that chapter. In fact this fragment is very interesting:  *This image is copyright of its original author Now you see my point? These are not my words, but the words from the real scientist that studied the tigers in the field. Check this from Heptner & Sludskii (1992):  *This image is copyright of its original author As you can see, they only say that big males are over 200 kg, but that is all, only rogue estimations and at the end, as the previous book said, paw prints are mostly used to estimate sex, age and health status. You don't see professional Biologist stating that a tiger with a big heel weight "this" or "that", even the picture of the "giant" monster tiger of the Khabarovsk region do not mention any weight, only say that is "big" and big is a wide form to describe an specimen. In fact, I have several pictures of "huge" tigers captured by the STP but as we know, none of them surpassed the 205 kg. So that is why I say that using a single measurement (or a picture with no point of comparison) is impossible to get an accurate estimation of the size/weight of an animal. Next post I will continue with the other parts of your post. (10-10-2023, 08:00 AM)peter Wrote: About the size of tigers in the Anyuisky National Park You mention that in a period of about 5 years, prints with a heel width of 14,0, 15,0 and, more than once, 16,0 cm (...) were seen repeatedly. I highly doubth this, but the reason is not the size, but the "heel". I have saw a constant confusion between "heel" and "paw". To bettern understan check this image:  *This image is copyright of its original author Here we can see that is completelly different to measure the paw (which will be the full hand, in red) and to measure only the heel (in blue). If we check the table if Kerley et al. (2005) we can see that , here is the table for reference, again:  *This image is copyright of its original author Here we can see that the paw of the large males can get up to 15.3 cm in length and 15.5 cm in wide, in that case the sizes that you mention of 14 - 15, or even 16 cm are probably paws, not heels. By the way, can you show that source of those measurements and who took them? If pictures are available that will be even better. By the way, even when all measurements were taken by well-trained people, who've seen their fair share of wild Amur tigers, that doesn't mean that errors can't be made, not only human ones, but also those caused by the soil (remember my previous post about that). I know that in the past paw prints did reached 16 cm (Heptner & Sludskii, 1992), but unless several measurements can be taken, with more or less regular soil status, variations can happen even between the same animal, if not check the "experts" from India that used paw prints for census that magically invented tigers of diffeent sizes based in prints that at the end never existed. The history of Mr Aleksey Gotvansky is very good and impressive, but again, did he measured a heel or a paw? That is what I want to know and also see the publication were he specifically said that. About your question: "Have you ever seen an adult male Amur tiger standing on his hindlegs, Guate?" I had several oportunities to saw brown bears standing in they high legs, the biggest one was an old Kodiac male from Alaska in the Zoo La Aurora in Guatemala, in that time that zoo was more like a Menagerie than a modern zoo so the cages were very small and the animal had a very small space of a couple of meters and just walked around it all the day, very sad. Even then, I saw the animal standing several times and I can tell you that the male certainly was close to the 3 meters from the ground to the tip of its nose. When the Zoo changes and had now open evironments the poor old bear looked much more happy and even from the distance (now it was a big environment) it looked huge. About tigers, I only saw "Bengal" ones, but they are immense, specially a big white one from a circus that was as wide as a table and its tail was as wide as my arm! The tigers were certainly over 300 kg, and its length probably over 200 cm, certainly a giant. However, these are only my personal appreciations and with no measurements is imposible to know how big they were, if they are were only average specimens (except for the tiger, that one was very fat). This worries me: "Gotvansky said both the bear and the tiger approached 3 meters while standing on their hindlegs. I don't know if he referred to the top of the skull (unlikely) or the height of the claw marks and I also don't know if he really measured the marks, but I do know he saw quite a few wild brown bears and Amur tigers in the period 2019-2023. If he says a bear or a tiger is 'very large' or 'gigantic', I take his word for it. The photograph, by the way, clearly shows the bear and the tiger were standing on their hind legs." Can you see why I am exceptic? You se that you don't know how he (Gotvansky) estimate the height, if it was to the top of the skull (which you and your personal appreciation says that is unlikelly, with no evidence of the contrary) or to the tip of the paws. Also, you are not sure if he actually measure it or is only an estimation. These are too many guesses with no point of reference. About his personal appreciation on big specimens, again, I use your personal experiences and my own too, and I can tell you that astonishment and admiration cause impressions that certainly affect personal judgements. In my comparative images you can see that an "average" specimens looks HUGE agains the human siluete, so how can we know if the "big" specimens that Mr Gotvansky saw are giants or just "average" specimens without a real measurement? Pictures, again, are useless unless you have a point of reference, sorry, but I can't play by using guesses from different people. Animals looks amazing of course, but like I showed before, we don't know if they are giants, average or even small specimens without a point of comparison. I know that bears in the area do reach up to 363 kg and that estimations put them over 400 kg in some cases, but there is no evidence than that particular bear in the picture weighed that, remember that the longest male measured by the Siberian Tiger Project, that measured 224 cm in head-body, weighed only 240 kg. As I said before, I have several pictures of adult male Amur tigers with people at they sides and they look huge, but none of them weighed over 205 kg, so again, pictures are deceptive. Check a few:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author If you don't knew what I told you about these tigers and they weights, how much will you estimate for them? You mention the 4-year old male shot in the Köln Zoo in 2012 that featured in a paper that was discussed some years ago (this thread) that apprently was 240 cm in head and body length, I highly doubt that measurement. The same sources that you quote show it. The tigers measured by Mazák were huge, and the taller (but not longer) and massive male of Dr W. Gewalt was a real giant, but none of them had a head-body of 240 cm "between pegs". Maybe if the specimen was measured "along the curves" and pressing several times the tape I can buy it, but if not, that is certainly a gross exageration. Check the image of this tiger:  *This image is copyright of its original author Now check the comparative image of the tigers that Mazák reported:  *This image is copyright of its original author In my appreciation, the tigers from Mazák look bigger than the specimen of Köln Zoo. I do believe that comparing wild tigers with captive tigers is not fair, but if you read again what I said, I was focused in the weight, not in body size. In body size wild tigers reached the same as the biggest captive tigers. The biggest tiger from Brander was of the same size than the biggest tiger of Mazák of Dr Gewalt, and the Amur tiger hunted by Jankovski also do the same. But in body masses, certainly no wild tiger since the last 12,000 years since present will weight the same than the giant tiger "Jaipur". That is that I believe that captive tigers will have the advantage agains the wild ones, except in the case of the Bengal tigers, when happen the contrary. About this picture:  *This image is copyright of its original author How you know that the tiger do not jump like this?  *This image is copyright of its original author Other thing, how tall is the man in the picture? That is important. About this picture:  *This image is copyright of its original author That is certainly a big cat, just like this:  *This image is copyright of its original author Again, captive well feed giants. Finally, about this polar bear:  *This image is copyright of its original author This is a good example of what a personal impresion can cause. You say that this polar bear is "huge" but actually it is not, as the woman with it is Ursula Böttcher and she measured 5 ft 1 in (1.55 m) tall, so that afect the perspective of the size of the polar bear. Here is another picture:  *This image is copyright of its original author Certainly and small but very brave woman! Perspective, personal appreciation, amazement and emotion, all this affect how we see a picture. (10-10-2023, 08:00 AM)peter Wrote: To conclude Nobody is questioning the work of people like Gotvansky and Yavorskaya, in fact that is what started all this. When a person with no evidence and full of prejudices says that the top experts biologist of a particular species used "inhumane bullshit methods" and offer no evidence about his claims, that should start a red alert, but for some reasons that was ignored by all here. The work of these people saved and continue saving the tigers in all the world, but one thing is the work to protect a tiger and other is base a claim in the personal appreciation of a person that never measured those animals, against those that actually did and published they results. I believe in what Valmik Thapar said about tigers, but about measurements I will ask to Sunquist or Karanth, not to him, you know what I mean. I am not agree that sticking to the facts limit our scope, specially in modern days when there is a big theoretical framework already created. Am I deniyng that Amur tigers over 220 kg exist in modern days? Of course not and you can read, and copy-paste my MANY post where I specifically said that big tigers certainly exist, but we can't just use a single paw/heel print and a couple of picture to justify something. I certainly focus in the south of the Ussuri region and the north of China, where history said that the biggest Amur tigers existed and as I said before, I have new evidence (still not published) that shows that the figure of 212 kg is no longer the heaviest Amur tiger on record, which is great! By the way, I am not sure why the Biologist arrived to India and Nepal with scales of 500 lb, but something tells me that is more related with costs than other thing, but that is irrelevant in this conversation. About your point of people that lie every day, that is why I am exceptical of emails or screenshoots with no reference. If a document is published will be more reliable than a single image with no reference. Your example of Mazák actually shows my point, he trust in some sources and failed, next time he was more cautions, the same with Pocock. I normally like to read your experiences and stories, but this time is to much rhetoric for a simple topic. Apex came shooting crap to the Siberian Tiger Project and its experts, so I acted, simple. Latter he presented an idea based in a single paw print and a few pictures as a "fact" and I showed him that he was talking only smoke with nothing concrete. There is nothing about been close to new information, if not, all my work and tables will not exist. I am the best example that been open to new information is the key to evolve, and that is why now many people in the web kwons that the Amur and Bengal tigers are equal in size, that Bengal are bigger in modern days, that Barbary lions were never the giants told by hunters, that the Ngandong tiger exist, etc. etc. etc. All that work happened because I was open to new ideas, but as followers of the science we allways need to have evidence to start correctly. That is my point all this time. About captive Amur tigers and they body mass, I am not surprised. When I made the first table of captive Amur tigers in 2012 I noticed that the Amur tigers in captivity ofter weighed between 180 - 220 kg and I found only two tigers that surpassed the 300 kg. Of course your new work have a bigger sample but the results are about the same. This can be explained that most of these specimens follow strict diets and are not allowed to eat as much as they want. Is a possible explanation. About the skulls of Bengal and Amur tigers, a new study where Dr Yamaguchi is involved actually explain why the skull of the Amur tiger is longer and more massive. Remember that I hypotesized that the large skulls were the result of tigers preying on wild boars and competition with bears? Well actually they went even deeper and conclude that the massiveness is related with the fact that they need to eat frozen meat and that is why they need a bigger masticatory aparatus, that also afect the entire area of the muzzle. However, on average the difference between them (Bengal and Amur) is very small and the biggest skulls are about the same size in both populations. I would like a comparsion between wild specimens only, but that will be difficult as Mazák never published the individual Indian skulls, although I believe that all came from wild animals. Amur tigers, on the other hand, he included captive specimens too and must of the new skulls reported are also from captivity. Plus, the sample size is very differente.
GUATE
A very interesting series of posts, as always. A few of the points you addressed will be discussed below (from the top down). a - Weight and heel width In the end, to keep it short, it is about Table 7.5 (Kerley et al., 2005). It says the correlation coefficient ® between heel width and weight in more or less healthy wild Amur tigers of 3 years and older is 0,55 for males and females. Meaning heel width really is a decent indicator of size (weight). The correlation between chest circumference and weight is much stronger, but in order to measure the chest, you need to capture the tiger first. In order to capture the tiger, you need to follow the trail and get to a guesstimate in order to administer the correct dose when you find him. The point I made, however, is age, health and conditions have an effect. Health, as you underlined, is an important parameter, but age even more so. In wild tigers, there really is a significant difference between a young adult (3-5 years of age) and an adult male. Only few healthy wild young adult male Amur tigers reach 170-180 kg. Most range between 140-160 kg. b - The height of the polar bear In my previous post, I said large male polar and brown bears can reach a height of 9 feet when standing on their hind legs. I added a photograph of Ursula Böttcher and polar bear 'Alaska' taken in 1984. You said the photograph is deceptive, because Ursula was 5.1 only. Also meaning 'Alaska' wasn't 9 feet. Finally meaning I was wrong. Let's assume Ursula, as you said, was 5.1. When she performed, however, she always wore boots. The heels (referring to the photograph I posted) could have been about 2 inches. Meaning she was about 5.3. Let's assume for now she was 160 cm. I had a closer look at the photograph you posted and used a ruler to get to a guesstimate. Ursula has a height of 90 units. Let's say 1 unit equals x. If Ursula, wearing her boots, was 160 cm, it means x (160:90) is 1,777. Polar bear 'Alaska' has a height of (just over) 153 units. This means he was (153 x 1,777) 271,88 cm on his hind legs, perhaps a bit more. One feet = 12 inches (30,48 cm) and nine feet = 108 inches (274,32 cm). Alaska was 271,88 cm (a bit over 8.11). The difference between 274,32 and 271,88 = 2,44 cm (almost 1 inch). Meaning I was just about right. Ursula, as you said, was a brave woman. All of those prepared to enter the ring with a full-grown predator have a lot of confidence. I interviewed quite a few trainers and read a number of books in which trainers feature. Most big cat trainers worked with bears before they started with cats. They agreed adult male polars bears can be very dangerous. If an adult male likes you, however, he is a true friend prepared to defend you no matter what. I posted a true story and heard of more stories I consider reliable. Brown bears, on the other hand, are different. Adult males in particular can be moody and unpredictable. c - The Köln zoo tiger You said you doubt the length of male Amur tiger 'Altai'. To underline your doubt, you added a photograph showing both 'Altai' and his keeper. I assume you remember post 1,549 (18-04-2018)? Our member 'Betty' posted 'Two fatal tiger attacks in zoos - Case report' (Tantius, B. et al., 2015). Those executing the autopsy measured the tiger. He was 240 cm from nose to tail root. The tail was 96,5 cm and the total length was 336,5 cm. The report has a few photographs of the skull. Every photograph has a ruler. When I read about the incident, I tried to find out a bit more. The videos I saw didn't suggest he was an exceptional individual. Same for the photographs I saw. It has to be remembered, however, that 'Altai', at about 3 years of age, still was a young adult when he arrived at the zoo. At that age, male tigers are still growing. Wild adult male tigers, as you know, continue to grow after they reach adulthood. In length, there usually is a pronounced difference between a young adult and a mature male. Those present at the autopsy (read the case report) were professionals. I assume they measured the tiger in a straight line ('between pegs'). The reason is I talked to Dr. D. Mörike, curator of the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart in 2012. I asked her in what way big cats are measured in zoos and natural history museums in Germany. The reason I asked was some of the labels of the skulls I measured had additional information about the length (and weight) of the former owner of the skull. She said every big cat was measured 'between pegs'. No exceptions. The case report (see above) isn't clear about the method that was used to measure 'Altai'. Was the tiger measured before the autopsy started? If so, in what way? By who? If not, was the skin perhaps measured after it had been removed? It was, after all, an autopsy. I didn't find answers to these questions, but assume for now those who measured the tiger followed the protocol. Meaning 'Altai' most probably was measured in a straight line. All photographs of the skull in the case report, as I said above, have a ruler. The ruler has a length of 12,5 cm. I know a photograph can't be used to get to a measurement, but the photographs in the case report were taken by someone who knows his business. My guess for now is the skull was exceptional. In order to find out more, I intend to visit the museum that has the skull and measure and photograph it myself. I also want to contact Tantius to find out a bit more about the way the tiger was measured. Anyhow. Tiger 'Altai' was just 4 years of age when he was shot, meaning he still had a bit of growing to do. If you want to find out a bit more about tiger 'Altai', read post 1,549. Post 1,559 has scans of the complete case report. And while you're at it, read post 1,583 (about a large captive Amur tiger in China) and post 1,586. The last post has interesting information about the weight of two exceptional wild male Amur tigers shot in Korea. Unfortunately, the information was never discussed. d - Amur tiger skull measurements I recently read 'Phenotypic plasticity determines differences between skulls of tigers from mainland Asia' (Cooper et al, 2022). The paper is well written and interesting, but the dataset isn't available yet. It's remarkable their findings largely contradict Mazak's conclusions ('Notes on the Siberian long-haired tiger, Panthera tigris altaica (Temminck, 1844), with a remark on Temminck's mammal volume of the Fauna Japonica', Mazak, 1967). Mazak also found adult wild male Amur tigers have a very large sagittal crest, but the skulls he measured also had a wide rostrum. The explanation offered in the recent paper is interesting (referring to the well developed sagittal crest of wild male Amur tigers), but doesn't quite seem to cover it. My aim is to post the link soon. e - Anyuisky tigers In my previous post, I wrote Gotvansky saw prints of which the heel width ranged between 13,5-16,0 cm. He described the tigers that left them as 'very large', 'enormous' or 'gigantic'. You said it's unclear if he referred to the width of the print of the fore paw or the width of the heel. I reread the reports and concluded he referred to the width of the heel. This conclusion is confirmed by the photograph in one of the reports. It shows a print in the snow and a tape. Gotvansky really measured the width of the heel, and not the width of the paw. No question. Are Anyuisky tigers really exceptional? The photographs I saw suggest males in particular are robust animals with large skulls. The Khabarovsky Krai seems to produce quite a few of them. I'm referring to, for instance, the 3 photographs Apex recently posted in the Amur tiger thread. They show Kolchin, a tigress and a male. All of them were 'trapped' by the same camera. Although the male seems to be a bit closer to the camera than Kolchin and the tigress, he seems to be plenty robust. In spite of what I consider to be 'cimcumstantial evidence' (regarding the size of some males in Anyuisky), I still have a few questions. The tiger known as 'The Beast' had a heel width of 13,5 cm. This is the tiger standing next to the big old male brown bear in the famous photograph first posted by Apex. Gotvansky knows both and said they were exceptional individuals. I have no clue as to his weight (referring to 'The Beast'), but those who saw him agree he was very large. Gotvansky, however, said Anyuisky has more exceptional males. Some of the prints he found had a heel width of 16,0 cm. The prints, to be sure, were not found in winter, but in summer. He described the tigers that left them as 'gigantic'. Are we to assume these males exceeded 200 kg? Or 250? A report of 22 December 2017 not written by Gotvansky says males with a heel width of 10-13 cm range between 200-350 kg, whereas females with a heel width of 9-12 cm range between 150-250 kg (...). Do these prints and weights relate to Anuisky tigers? Have they been weighed? I don't know, but I don't think it's likely. I do know Anyuisky had 16 tigers in December 2017 and 25 in 2022. Remarkable, as the national Park is not that large. It points towards good conditions. It's unlikely the discussions about size will be concluded one day. The reason is only few healthy tigers are captured these days. For now, one can only say some male tigers in some districts of the Khabarovsky Krai seem to be large. Considering the heel width of some and the observations of Gotvansky, they could be as large as they come. A result of good conditions? Protection? A combination of factors? One of the factors seldom discussed is age. Based on what I read, Anyuisky seems to have a few old individuals. Although some struggle with their health at times (referring to observations of Gotvansky), they always seem to recover. In about 5 years, Gotvansky, apart from the 3 tigers killed by cars and a male tiger found in a river, never found a dead adult in the park. In the years wild boars were few and far between, tigers solved the food problem by moving in and out of the park. It's known wild tigers continue to grow in length when they reach adulthood. In good conditions, they continue to put on weight for a long time. Anyuisky is located in a quite remote region. It could be possible most tigers (get the opportunity to) die of old age. Anyhow. This is one of the Anyuisky male tigers. Is he average-sized? Large? exceptional? If exceptional, does that mean he's 220 kg? Or, like in northeastern China, 270? We don't know. I do know he's compact, stocky and large-skulled:  *This image is copyright of its original author Would he compare to the Duisburg Zoo tiger, who, at 320 cm 'between pegs' (measured), 110 cm at the shoulder while standing (measured) and 280-300 kg (estimated), was the largest Mazak ever saw? Or is the model similar and the tiger average-sized? The Duisburg Zoo tiger was about 6 years of age when he was measured and photographed, meaning he was entering his best years. The Anyuisky male seems to be older. Is this the reason some of the males in the national park have large legs and paws, large skulls and a robust body?  *This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |