ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

[Apex Titan]

(10-24-2024, 09:57 AM)peter Wrote: APEX

Yet another series of interesting posts! Much appreciated. As a result of circumstances, I was unable to respond directly after you posted. In this post, however, I'll make up for it. That is to say, to a degree. I'll start from the bottom up, meaning I'll discuss your last contribution first. Before I do, a few words about the best way to present a story or theory wouldn't be entirely out of place.

ABOUT PRESENTING A STORY

I saw the video you used in your last post some time ago. The decision to watch it, however, wasn't based on the presentation. I read the articles used for the video and concluded the one involved had done his homework. Meaning he was well-informed. The moment I started the video, however, it took quite an effort to get past the first ten seconds. The reason is the voice guiding you through the video. Artificial Intelligence no doubt will conquer the world soon, but there's still a lot to be desired meaning it's not a good idea to present an interesting story in this way. My guess is not a few of those potentially interested left well before the end, because they don't take a story presented by a voice created by artificial intelligence serious. They have a point, because there usually is a connection between a story and the way it's presented.  

Same, to a degree, for not a few of your posts. I'm not referring to the info and the conclusions, but to the way you present a point. When you post, I quickly go over the complete post. It's an old habit enabling me to get to an opinion in a few seconds. If a book, article, story or post is interesting, it usually shows at the first page. I'm not saying I'm right all the time, but it's close. 

What do I see when I quickly go over a post you wrote? The answer is it often compares to an article in a newspaper most want to avoid at all costs. The reason is these 'articles' are written by someone who think he needs a lot of extras to attract attention. The most striking features are the strange spaces between sentences and paragraphes (a), the words used to underline a point (b) and the number (and colour) of the capitals used ©. Meaning the method you use fits those intending to tackle you like a glove. They they won't take your post serious and you know. In order to silence them once and for all, you add more capitals. Meaning your posts say they're intended for those who will dismiss them out of hand no matter what. 

Is this what you really want? The content says no. When reading your posts, an experienced reader will quickly conclude they almost compare to real interesting articles. Meaning you use many typical ingredients. I'm referring to way you construct the post, the number of references and, last but not least, the conclusions. Most unfortunately, however, the way you present your point also suggests you don't trust your readers one bit. The result is an overload of capitals, colours and repetitions. Meaning you're more or less destroying you post. 

My advice is to start trusting those interested in your contributions. There are many. Every time you post, the number of views sharply increases. Only very few readers respond, but that's a result of the way this section is moderated. What I'm saying is most readers are way more capable than you think. They don't need repetitions, capitals and all the rest of it. They're interested in good info and that's exactly what you deliver time and again. This is the reason you got the opportunity to post in this thread. Use it and drop the distrust typical for most of your posts. When you write an article, there'll always be responses. Accept some will be encouraging and others will be negative and move on.  

Continue as you did, but focus on good info only. Select a title that covers the post, start with an introduction, present your points in different paragraphs and finish with a conclusion. If you're up to it, add a paragraph in which you discuss your conclusions. In every decent article, the writer will try to reject or confirm his hypothesis. Give it a try and add a few tables or pictures when they really fit the content. Always remember it's up to the reader in the end.               

ABOUT THOSE WHO WORK WITH CAPTIVE BIG CATS

In one of the first posts of your series, you, regarding interactions between captive big cats and bears, referred to a post in which I discussed the difference between the general public and those who know a few things about fysicalo confrontations between humans. You suggested there would be a difference between them and the general public and also assumed professionals would favour captive big cats over captive (brown) bears. 

The answer is there is a difference between professionals and others. The reason is professionals had more tools to get to an opinion. With 'tools', I'm referring to knowledge and experience. They knew about the effect of speed, strength, flexibility and character in a fight. Although they were able to 'weigh' these factors, most of them didn't get to a clear conclusion. They did, however, agree 'strength' in general is a bit overestimated. According to most of those I talked to, the outcome of a fight is determined by the number of opportunities to get to a distinctive advantage. That and the ability to use these in the best way. Professional hunters, like big cats, are more experienced killers, whereas bears (not referring to polar bears) are not. Meaning they, for this reason, need more opportunities. A few examples. 

Clyde Beatty, in one of his books, discussed an incident between his Russian brown bear 'Bill' and Amur tigress 'Lil'. The bear got a great opportunity to settle an affair when 'Lil' suddenly fell in front of him. He got hold of the neck and was able to kill 'Lil' in this way. Beatty was surprised, because bears often bite and let go. I've heard similar stories from other trainers and keepers. They confirmed bears are critters, not biters. They rely on their strength to win a fight. When they bite, they use it to deliver multiple bites in different parts of the body, whereas big cats often try to find a vulnarable spot and hold on. If the neck of a bear is too large, they move to another vulnarable spot. When a big cat bites, the result, more often than not, is significant (local) damage. Captive brown bears, according to those I interviewed, do not seem to have a consistent method to overcome their opponent. More often than not, they rely on their size. When they bite, they target different spots. When they found a suitable spot, they tend to shake their opponent. In this respect, they compare to canids and, to a degree, sharks.  

I posted some parts of the interview with Tony Hughes in the days I was a member of the former AVA. Another trainer I interviewed was Gary Ambrose. Born in Malta, he wanted to be a trainer from day one. He worked with polar bears, Kodiak bears, brown bears, black bears, hyenas's (!), puma's, jaguars, leopards, lions and tigers. He knew about mixed acts, but preferred to work with tigers and, in particular, lions. When I interviewed him in the summer of 2001, he had a tiger act. The first day, we talked about his act and the tigers he used. On the second day, we focused on mixed acts and the exchanges he witnessed. 

In his experience, brown bears are very intelligent. Polar bears are " ... sly, cunning and more dangerous than brown bears ... ". Jaguars do not quite compare in the department of intelligence, but they are dangerous. Lionesses are easygoing, but males are not, especially in the period females are in heat. Tigers are more intelligent and less dangerous. In the mixed acts he had, problems were not uncommon. Male brown bears " ... like the fight and go for the kill ... ". In spite of that, they not seldom ended second best. The reason was they overestimated their abilities. Male lions fight for position. Male tigers fight animals " ... they don't like ... ". Fights between male tigers often are 'ritualized'. Male lions immediately go for it with everything they have and often injure each other. Fights between male jaguars are short and intense. Same for male leopards. Ambrose thought male lions stood the best chance in any fight. The reason was energy, character and protection (mane).  

Erich 'Klant' Hagenbeck, a very experienced director of a training facility, however, had a different opinion. Same for Daniel Rafo and Tony Hughes. When you read books written by trainers, you'll often conclude opinions differ quite a bit. The word I most often heard about male brown bears is 'tough', but they tend to overestimate their ability in a fight. In the end, as Tony Hughes stated, there's no such thing as species-related ability. It depends on the individual, the motivation, character and the presence of bananas (coincidence). My guess is most trainers I interviewed would have agreed.  

All this, mind you, relates to captive bears and big cats. Their wild relatives are very different. This is especially true for solitary hunters like tigers. Adult male Amur tigers, as John Vaillant said in his great book, really are survivors. Amur tigers are the only tiger subspecies that face serious competition from (brown) bears. Every adult wild male Amur tiger learned to deal with bears one way or another.  

Aramilev, in the video I recently posted, explained why Amur tigers have the best chance in a fight with a brown bear. My guess i most readers will struggle with his explanation, meaning they find it difficult to believe a 400-pound tiger would be able to overcome an adult wild male Ussuri brown bear twice that weight. I asked the 'professionals' (see above) in what way they would explain the difference between a big cat and a brown bear to the general public. Most of them thought it would be all but impossible to do so, because most people are unable to understand the effect of training and specialisation. It's much more easy to explain the difference between a professional bodybuilder and a non-athlete of similar length. The reason is the difference between them is easy to see. Meaning it's about what you see. This is something one has to accept. 

Does all this mean an adult wild male Ussuri brown bear is at a disadvantage in a fight against an adult wild male Amur tiger? Anybody's guess. I do, however, agree with the 'professionals' in that it's likely an wild male Amur tiger in his prime, as a result of his speed and aggression, will get more opportunities to use his teeth first. If this is the case, his opponent has a problem for the reasons Aramilev explained in the video. Adult Amur tigers, no exceptions, know where and when to attack and how to use their weapons in the most efficient way. They're expert killers.     

ABOUT 'OCHKARIK', 'RASHEL', 'CHLAMYDA' AND BATALOV 

We could start yet another discussion or decide to call it a day. It's a fact the big bear male brown bear following and robbing tigress 'Rashel' for some months in 2017 suddenly disappeared after 'Rashel' and 'Ochkarik' had a sitdown. Three years later, a very experienced man who knew all participants in this story concluded the big bear was killed and eaten by male tiger 'Ochkarik'. Those who disagree have a point in that there was no body. Those who think Batalov's deductions were correct have no option but to underline his experience and status. They both did a good job (also referring to the video you posted) and that's about it. 

One more remark to close the post. According to Batalov, male tiger 'Ochkarik' was 160-180 kg. Batalov knows about Ussuri brown bears, Himalayan black bears, Amur tigers and weights. To say he's experienced would be an understatement. Was he close?   

The video I recently posted shows 'Ochkarik' and two hikers. It's very difficult to get an estimate, but it is clear 'Ochkarik' was tall and quite robust. I also saw the video of 'Ochkarik' in his prime climbing a tree. There's no question he was quite a beast back then.  

I measured 3 adult (8-year old) captive Amur tigers in a Dutch facility in 1996. They ranged between 279-298 cm in total length measured in a straight line. Only one of them was weighed. Tiger 'Arames', the longest, was 184,5 kg, but he was quite slender. Also remember this was not long after the 7 tigers arrived. Important? Yes. The reason is they had been neglected for a long time (7-8 weeks) after their trainer had been killed by another tiger. Did the neglect have an effect? Most certainly. This is a photograph of tiger 'Arames' on the day the tigers arrived in the facility in the Netherlands: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

   
The photograph didn't say it was 'Arames', but it was him. He had recovered to a degree when I measured him, but my guess was he would have been closer to 195 kg (430 pounds) when he would have been fit. One of the other males, 'Amur', weighed at Schiphol Airport a few years later, was 211 kg. That male, although shorter and not as tall, was more muscular (fore-arm circumference 56 cm). His brother 'Igor' more or less compared. Compared to many other captive Amur tigers I saw, they seemed a bit smaller.    

How does 'Arames', photographed in a difficult period, compare to 'Ochkarik' in the two videos that were posted? I'll leave that one to our readers.

I get what you're saying about my last posts, however, I made it quite obvious that my posts were addressing the 'bear posters' in particular, especially the people who like to badly exaggerate the size of brown bears, and the people who like to arrogantly dismiss Alexander Batalov's conclusion and ridicule him.

Do I trust the 'bear posters' reading my posts? Absolutely not. You know, the same hypocrites who'd rather arrogantly dismiss, ridicule or insult highly reputable and experienced biologists/rangers when it doesn't suit their preconceived ideas and agenda, instead of accepting reality and facts.

I don't know why there are "strange spaces" between my sentences, I tried editing that, but it wouldn't allow me. I was also confused as to why that is. I don't like to write long paragraphs with too many sentences, it makes it more difficult for people to read. I like short paragraphs with some highlighted words, so it makes it easy and clear for everyone to read and understand my point.

As for Ochkarik. Although not a 'large' tiger (probably 180 kg), he was a very confident, powerful and formidable tiger who occupied and defended his territory for many years. In that entire area in the Durminskoye forest, Ochkarik reigned supreme. He was also a tiger that liked to hunt and eat bears. Like the male tiger "Odyr" (also a medium-sized male) Ochkarik proved that size doesn't mean everything. Both individuals are (and were, referring to Ochkarik who's dead now) very confident, bold, and dominant male tigers by nature. And both were able to kill and eat large (significantly bigger) male brown bears.

The vast majority of the general public (laymen) do not understand or know what it takes to win a serious fight, particularly a street fight. They think "size" or "weight" is the only important factor, which is ridiculous and far, far from reality. There are countless examples of people destroying and knocking out much larger and heavier opponents. The same goes for wild animals, especially predators fighting large individuals of different species. From what I've consistently seen, superior skills, weapons, speed, agility, power, reflexes, experience, killer instinct, precision & efficiency will certainly overcome your opponents size/weight advantage more often than not.

A very fast, powerful, agile and highly skilled fighter weighing, say, 135 - 150 lbs, can destroy a much larger and heavyweight opponent weighing 250 - 300 lbs, who is much slower, clumsier, less experienced, and much less skilled. I don't care how big you are, but the precision, efficiency, speed, and sheer fighting (or killing) skill will make a huge difference in a street fight where anything goes, or in a serious fight between a 400 lb tiger and a 800 lb brown bear. The experienced 'professionals' you talked to, understand this very well, and know the great importance and effects of training and specialization.

Hence why, there are multiple accounts of tigers killing larger / heavier brown bears, including large adult males.

Put it this way, is a tiger capable of killing a significantly larger/heavier bear in a head-on fight? Absolutely, more than capable and has done. Is a bear capable of killing a significantly larger/heavier tiger in a head-on fight? No. The bear would always get destroyed and eaten. And history, evidence, and countless accounts confirm this over and over again. This is the difference between tigers and bears. Reply

[Apex Titan]

A young Amur tigress chases a larger adult brown bear in Northeast China

In another new video captured on a Chinese researcher's camera trap, a large adult brown bear was seen fleeing from a smaller young female tiger in Northeast China Tiger and Leopard National Park. This is the 2nd video of an adult brown bear fleeing from a tigress.

This recent video was captured in Primorye in the Russian Far East. An adult male brown bear fleeing from a smaller tigress:

There are now two very recent videos of Amur tigers interacting with Ussuri brown bears. And in both cases, its female tigers chasing away larger adult brown bears. These videos confirm that even tigresses can be dominant in encounters with larger adult brown bears and chase them out of the vicinity.

Hence why extensive modern scientific field research and data shows, that even large male brown bears will rarely directly usurp a tigress's kill, in most cases, even large male bears will patiently wait for the tigress to finish eating, leave the vicinity, and then approach her kill and scavenge on the left-overs.

This is why large male brown bears sometimes follow tiger tracks in hopes of finding left-over tiger kills so they can scavenge on the remains. But when tigers, especially male tigers, return to their kills and find a scavenging brown bear, the tiger sometimes will kill and eat the bear.


From renowned tiger biologist and ecologist - Dr. John Seidenstecker

When a tiger returns to its kill and finds a wild boar or brown bear scavenging the kill, the tiger has a chance to kill another big meal:

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/C...frontcover Reply

[Apex Titan]

(11-04-2024, 06:31 PM)Apex Titan Wrote: A young Amur tigress chases a larger adult brown bear in Northeast China

In another new video captured on a Chinese researcher's camera trap, a large adult brown bear was seen fleeing from a smaller young female tiger in Northeast China Tiger and Leopard National Park. This is the 2nd video of an adult brown bear fleeing from a tigress.

This recent video was captured in Primorye in the Russian Far East. An adult male brown bear fleeing from a smaller tigress:

There are now two very recent videos of Amur tigers interacting with Ussuri brown bears. And in both cases, its female tigers chasing away larger adult brown bears. These videos confirm that even tigresses can be dominant in encounters with larger adult brown bears and chase them out of the vicinity.

Hence why extensive modern scientific field research and data shows, that even large male brown bears will rarely directly usurp a tigress's kill, in most cases, even large male bears will patiently wait for the tigress to finish eating, leave the vicinity, and then approach her kill and scavenge on the left-overs.

This is why large male brown bears sometimes follow tiger tracks in hopes of finding left-over tiger kills so they can scavenge on the remains. But when tigers, especially male tigers, return to their kills and find a scavenging brown bear, the tiger sometimes will kill and eat the bear.


From renowned tiger biologist and ecologist - Dr. John Seidenstecker

When a tiger returns to its kill and finds a wild boar or brown bear scavenging the kill, the tiger has a chance to kill another big meal:

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/C...frontcover

A size comparison between the tigress and the large adult brown bear she was chasing.

The brown bear was much larger and way more massive than the tigress. This clearly looks like a full-grown male brown bear:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[Apex Titan]

Is a Significant Portion of Bear Consumption by Tigers due to Feeding on Carrion?

Throughout the tigers entire range in the wild, in some areas and regions, bears (brown bears, Asiatic black bears, sloth bears & sun bears) regularly fall prey to tigers. Biologists, zoologists, forest rangers, guides, and hunters regularly find the remains of bears in tiger scats. But does this necessarily mean that the tigers "killed" and ate the bears?

Some people speculate that the majority of bear remains found in tiger scats by biologists, zoologists, rangers, and hunters, is mostly due to tigers "scavenging" on already dead bear carcasses (carrion), and not due to tiger predation. Their argument is, that just because bear remains (bones, fur & claws) are found in tiger scats, it doesn't mean or "prove" the tiger "killed" the bear. So apparently, according to their logic and guesswork ... highly trained, experienced, and reputable experts, biologists, zoologists, naturalists, rangers, and hunters are basically not competent enough to study and determine what animals tigers regularly hunt and eat.

An example; the claws and fur of an adult Himalayan black bear in the excrement of a tigress. Biologist Sergey Kolchin said the tigress had killed and eaten the bear: (September, 2021)

*This image is copyright of its original author

This whole false "carrion" theory is an absolutely nonsensical, badly flawed, and illogical opinion/speculation for various reasons. It's a well known fact that, as a rule, hyper-carnivorous predators like big cats and wolves rarely feed on carrion. Tigers will generally only eat carrion in times of desperation and starvation. These are usually very old, sick or injured tigers who no longer can hunt for themselves. It simply goes against the nature of a tiger, or any pure predator, to regularly eat carrion. This will never happen in reality. 

This is why in India and Southeast Asia, biologists, researchers, wildlife photographers, naturalists, and rangers never capture any pictures or videos of other predators like leopards, dholes, crocodiles, bears, jackals, wolves, etc, feeding on the dead carcasses of bull gaurs and wild bull buffaloes. They only repeatedly (and often) capture video/photos of tigers eating large bull gaur and wild bull buffalo carcasses. Why? because those are tiger kills, not carrion!

If it was "carrion" in many cases, then biologists, naturalists, rangers, tourists, and photographers would also capture numerous photos/videos of many other predators scavenging on the carcasses of large bull gaurs and wild bull buffaloes, not just tigers over and over again. Common sense.

The same logic applies to accounts of adult elephants and rhinos killed by tigers. Forest rangers, officials, guides, and naturalists only find evidence of tigers feeding on adult elephants and rhino carcasses, but no shred of evidence of other carnivores like leopards, bears, dholes, and jackals feeding on dead adult elephants and rhinos. This is very telling.

Not to mention, forest rangers, park officials, guides, and naturalists also find clear evidence of tiger attacks on the dead carcasses of adult elephants and rhinos, such as multiple claw marks, bite wounds, blood, and tiger pugmarks on the spot, which confirms that its a tiger kill.

Why are Bear remains regularly found only in Tiger scats, and not in the scats of other predators?

Tigers co-exist with a variety of different carnivores such as bears, wolves, dholes, leopards, crocodiles, jackals, etc. In the Amur-Ussuri region, Amur tigers share their range with carnivores such as brown bears, Asiatic black bears, Amur leopards (in some areas), wolves, raccoon dogs, and badgers.

Now, if the majority of bear consumption by tigers was due to feeding on carrion, then why don't biologists, zoologists, scientists, rangers, or hunters regularly find the remains of bears in the feces of other carnivores like Amur leopards, wolves, raccoon dogs, badgers, or other bears? Already dead bear carcasses (carrion) would be available to all predators. So why not?

Why do biologists, rangers, or hunters never find evidence of Amur leopards, wolves, bears, raccoon dogs or badgers also feeding on dead brown bears and black bear carcasses? Why plenty of evidence of only tigers feeding on bear carcasses?

In the Russian Far East, there are many thousands of bears and only, say, 700 - 750 Amur tigers. Due to the significant population ratio difference between the two species, biologists, rangers, and hunters should find the remains of bears in the scats of both Himalayan and brown bears far more often than in tiger scats. Why? because bears significantly outnumber Amur tigers and would have a much higher chance of finding carrion (already dead bear carcasses) than tigers would, period. Also, a bear's smelling sense is far superior to a tiger's, so they would find carrion far more frequently and easier than tigers would. Bears are active carrion scavengers, whereas tigers are active predators. So why not then? This makes no sense at all. It should be the complete opposite.

Omnivores like Himalayan and Ussuri brown bears are scavengers by nature, and both subspecies will regularly and willingly feed on carrion, and in spite of this, bear remains are very rarely found in the scats of both brown bears or Himalayan black bears in the Primorye and Khabarovsk regions. Raccoon dogs and badgers will also habitually eat carrion, but bear remains are never found in their scats during the summer or autumn months. Russian biologists, forest rangers, and hunters will repeatedly find remains of wild boar or deer in bear scats, but why not the remains of bears? (i.e. carrion).

Bears are well known to be cannibalistic, and will even scavenge on the dead carcasses of other bears, and yet, biologists, rangers, and hunters will very rarely find bear remains in the excrements of both Ussuri brown bears and Asiatic black bears in the Primorye and Khabarovsk territories. What does this clearly indicate?

Cannibalism in Bears:

https://publish.illinois.edu/maxallen/fi...-Bears.pdf

Wild boars are also active carrion scavengers and will willingly eat carrion at any opportunity, so how come biologists, rangers, and hunters never find bear remains in wild boar scats then?

In "Land of the Leopard" National Park, the population of Amur leopards is significantly higher than the population of Amur tigers. In fact, according to the latest reports, the population of Amur tigers in the reserve has stabilized and stopped growing, whereas the population of Amur leopards has significantly increased. There are only 56 adult Amur tigers living in the "Land of the Leopard" National Park and 129 Amur leopards living in the Primorye region, and vast majority (95%) of their (leopards) populations live in the "Land of the Leopard" reserve.

"Experts believe that the stabilization of the growth of the Amur tiger population is due to the maximum capacity of the habitat, which, apparently, the tiger population in the reserve has reached. The possibility of further growth of the tiger population will depend on the availability of resources."

"Experts also noted that there are 23% more females in the population than males, which corresponds to the optimal sex ratio."

https://mir24.tv/news/16597998/chislenno...la-predela

Amur leopard population is increasing:

https://www.vedomosti.ru/ecology/protect...o-leoparda

https://tass.ru/obschestvo/20451819

In the "Land of the Leopard" National Park, Amur tigers often hunt and eat bears, and bear remains are regularly found in tiger scats during the summer and autumn especially. But if the consumption of bears was really due to tigers mostly "feeding on carrion", then why don't biologists, researchers, rangers, or hunters never find the remains of bears in the scats of Amur leopards who significantly outnumber the population of tigers in the "Land of the Leopard" Reserve?

Bears are a 'delicacy' for tigers. Some tigers habitually hunt bears, and prefer killing and eating bears instead of ungulate prey. This is normal behaviour for tigers:

*This image is copyright of its original author

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

According to the badly flawed "carrion" theory/guesswork, common sense and logic says that biologists, zoologists, rangers, and hunters would also regularly find the remains of bears in the feces of other predators and omnivores of the taiga during the summer and autumn months, not just in tiger feces. The fact that this is not the case, confirms that Amur tigers are actively hunting, killing, and eating bears during these seasons.

Or just before their death, do all bears secretly announce to tigers when and where they're going to drop dead, so tigers can come and feed on their dead bodies? Is this what tigers and bears have been doing for thousands of years? Have they've been fooling all these biologists, scientists, researchers, rangers, hunters, and natives throughout history? Does this explain why bear remains are mostly found only in tiger scats on a regular basis, and not in the scats of other predators or omnivores?

In the Primorye and Khabarovsk territories, are a large number of bears, for some weird reason, just randomly dropping dead at an alarming rate during the summer and autumn months?

Notice the correlation between bear remains found in the male tiger's scats during the summer and winter months, and the observations of biologists who tracked him while he hunted for hibernating bears in their dens. Both the male tiger (possible sub-adult) and tigress were bear-hunters:

*This image is copyright of its original author

How Often do Tigers Feed on Carrion?

As specialized apex predators, tigers do not like to eat carrion, as carrion is often old, rotten, and less nutritious meat. Pure predators, especially large apex predators, like to eat fresh meat from animals they've hunted and killed themselves. It's an absolute laughable notion to think that a huge apex predator like a tiger regularly feeds on carrion, this is very far from reality. Tigers being "energy maximizers" always prefer to hunt the largest prey animals and eat fresh meat from actual kills.

Wild Tiger Health Project - Dr John Lewis

Veterinary Information for Wildlife Vets and Biologists Working with Wild Tigers

"Tigers rarely consume carrion."

https://wildtigerhealthproject.org/resou...of-tigers/


"Carrion and frozen meat are eaten rarely, only in cases of severe hunger - the tiger prefers live prey."

https://amur-tiger.ru/uploads/files/domy...075454.pdf

All biologists, scientists, and zoologists observe and report, that the large significant portion of bear remains regularly found in tiger scats, particularly during the summer and autumn months, is due to tiger predation on bears, not eating carrion. Biologists specifically specify this fact. The scat method is a very reliable method because it consistently shows what animal tigers are regularly hunting and consuming. Carcasses are much harder to find.

Data from biologist Tkachenko:

Carrion did not have a significant importance in the diet of tigers. Note that only twice did a male tiger "A" feed on a Himalayan bear, his old prey, and on a female wapiti that was killed by a tiger: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

Tigers resort to eating carrion only in times of starvation:

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/M...frontcover

Tigers are not known to eat carrion:

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/T...frontcover


Bear remains regularly found in Tiger scats in Southeast Asia

This study states and strongly suggests that tigers are major predators of bears and commonly prey on bears throughout their distribution in the wild. Tigers were found to kill and consume sun bears and Asiatic black bears in all 4 sites where their diet was studied in Southeast Asia. Indochinese tigers prey on Asiatic black bears, including full-grown adult bears of all ages and genders, while Malayan & Sumatran tigers hunt and kill adult sun bears of all ages and genders.

Just like in the Russian Far East, this study also proves that the common occurrence of bears in the diet of tigers in Southeast Asia, is due to active tiger predation on bears:

https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:82406f...s%20common

https://www.researchgate.net/publication..._sun_bears

The common consumption of bears by tigers was due to predation, not scavenging:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

The large amount of bears in tiger diets in some regions indicate that tigers can be major predators of bears in some areas. In general, tigers commonly prey on bears throughout their distribution in the wild:

*This image is copyright of its original author

By directly comparing the consumption of bears by tigers and dholes, biologists were able to determine that the common consumption of bears by tigers was clearly due to predation, while dholes rarely, if ever consumed bears. Which confirms what I stated above. If mostly "eating carrion" was the case, then biologists, researchers, rangers, and hunters would also regularly find remains of bears in the scats of other predators. It's plain and simple. But they don't, why? because tigers are regularly hunting, killing and devouring bears. Other predators do not.

Carcass of an adult male wild boar, remains of an adult bear (unknown subspecies), and a bull red deer, all killed and eaten by tigers. All 3 prey species are important food sources for Amur tigers:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Conclusion:

Tigers, being the largest terrestrial apex predators in their habitats, whose sole purpose is to hunt and regulate the prey populations, will rarely eat carrion. They strongly prefer to eat the meat of live prey (animals they've killed). Tigers, as a rule, only eat carrion in times of desperation and starvation. It contradicts the nature of a tiger to often feed on carrion. 

According to numerous scientific studies and observations, the vast majority of bear meat consumed by tigers, is due to predation, not scavenging on dead bear carcasses. All biologists, zoologists, scientists, rangers, and hunters who study the predatory behaviour and feeding ecology of tigers, agree and report that most, if not, all bear remains regularly found in tiger scats is due to tigers actively killing and eating bears.

The fact that bear remains are very rarely found in the scats of other carnivores and omnivores such as leopards, bears, wild boars, raccoon dogs, dholes, wolves, and badgers, and are only (and regularly in some areas and regions) found in the scats of tigers, clearly confirms that tigers frequently hunt and eat bears throughout their range in the wild.

The nonsensical "carrion" theory makes absolutely no sense and has no shred of evidence to support this false idea. Reality, nature, and plenty of clear evidence shows otherwise. Reply

[peter]

UPDATE ON THE DUTCH AMUR TIGERS IN KAZACHSTAN

Those interested in tigers no doubt heard or read about the intention to reintroduce Amur tigers in Kazachstan some time ago. The intention resulted in a decision to give it a try. After a lot of preparations, a series of interesting articles (some of which were discussed in this thread) and a long pause, two captive Amur tigers from a new zoo in a village in the northwestern tip of the Province of Noord-Holland (in the northwestern part of the Netherlands) were flown to Kazachstan not so long ago. 

The new zoo, 'Hoenderdaell', is a nice one. Some of the big cats are from the rescue center I often visited in the period 1990-2010. That facility, not open to the public, changed hands some years ago. The former director called to inform me. Most unfortunately, I never heard from him again.   

Coincidence has it I visited the new zoo about a year ago with my brother, sister and her daughter. On a nice summer day, we took our time to admire quite a few animals not often seen in zoos and the restaurant, according to my brother, wasn't too bad as well.

I wrote a post about the brown bears and the Amur tigers I saw. That is to say, I saw the bears (from a few yards). The Amur tigers home, however, was covered with a lot of bushes and trees. I only saw the female walking. Although the trail was all but invisible, I did, after a few minutes, see she was quite long and tall. One of the keepers I contacted turned out to be a student. He kept track of everything and knew a lot about the big cats and the bears. 

The brown bears seemed very healthy. The male in particular was an impressive animal. Based on the size of the brown bear I saw in the rescue facility I visited quite some years ago (see above), my guess was he easily exceeded 300 kg (662 pounds). The bear in the rescue facility, most probably, was well over that mark. His exact weight was unknown, but the vet assumed he was about 300 kg or a bit over. That guesstimate didn't quite cover it. When I was about to enter the room where he had been sedated with my tape and notebook, I was pushed aside by those leaving the room in a hurry. They told me the bear had quickly recovered from the drug and had broken a few ropes (...).  

Anyhow. The male brown bear in 'Hoenderdaell' was one of the largest I saw. Apart from that, he was athletic. After watching the mightby bear from a few yards for a couple of minutes, my brother started a discussion about Amur tigers and brown bears: " .. . So you're saying Amur tigers hunt male brown bears in the Russian Far East ... "? Before i was able to answer, a few visitors decided to enter the debate. It was quickly concluded even a decent male Amur tiger trying to approach the bear had to be very lucky to even reach the ambulance. Apex wasn't there, of course, but the student I referred to earlier (see above) seemed to have a somewhat different opinion. He, however, decided for a smile and told me how to contact him when the project he was working on had been finished.              

The Dutch Amur tigers, to return to the title of the post, got a few headlines before disappearing into what I expected to be a long silence. But I was wrong. When it was all quiet on the eastern front, my sister sent me a link to an article she found in a local newspaper. It's, of course, in Dutch:  

https://www.nhnieuws.nl/nieuws/342970/ti...kazachstan

I'm not saying it's a very informative article, but it's something and it also has a video (00:58) enabling you to see the female ('Boghdana') and, for a few seconds, the male ('Kuma') entering their new home for the first time. As far as i know, the intention is to 'rewild' their cubs. If there will be cubs, of course (both tigers are well past their prime). 

The female is long, tall and in excellent shape. The student told me 'Kuma' is a bit bigger. How do they compare to their wild relatives? Difficult to say, but the videos and photographs I saw suggest today's wild Amur tigers (I'm referring to healthy males with a territory) seem to be a bit more stocky than their captive relatives. 

ABOUT THE SERIES OF APEX 

Apex, in his impressive series about (the outcome of) confrontations between male Amur tigers and male Ussuri brown bears, concluded male tigers stand the best chance. Most of (today's) Russian biologists seem to agree, but every fight is close and a coin has two sides. Focusing on one can result in a distorted view.   

Kostoglod wrote about a large male brown bear following a tiger for 14 km. The tiger, judging from the heel width of the print (10,5 cm), most probably was a male. He 'escaped', but Apex said there is no reason to assume the tiger felt threatened by the bear. Male brown bears, after all, often follow tigers to scavenge their kills. Maybe the tiger just wanted to get rid of the bear, Apex thought. Could be, but it's a fact Kostoglod (as well as other biologists) found reliable evidence of Amur tigers killed by bears. These incidents occurred in the decades before the STP started. After 1992, as far as I know, not even a tiger cub was killed by a bear. Very strange. 

Kostoglod assumed (most of) the tigers killed had been struggling with health problems and added they might have developed into troubleshooters. Man-eaters are few and far between in the Russian Far East, but there are many reliable reports about youngsters (tigers ranging between 2-5 years of age), oldtimers and incapacitated adults entering villages in times of need. Most of them are arrested and rehabilitated, but most is not all. More tigers can result in more problems in a long and harsh winter and that's still without an outbreak of a disease affecting the animals they hunt. 

ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CAPTIVE AND WILD AMUR TIGERS

A few years ago, I invested quite a bit of time in reading (scientific and newspaper) articles in order to find reliable information about the length and weight of captive Amur tigers. Adult males, including a small number of young adults, averaged 220-225 kg (486-497 pounds) and 9.11 (302-303 cm) in total length measured in a straight line ('between pegs'), whereas adult females averaged 135-140 kg (298-310 pounds). The male weight sample is reliable (n=61), but the female sample is a bit wanting (n=15). 

The question is how wild Amur tigers compare to their captive relatives in this respect. The answer is we don't know. The famous, and much discussed, table published in 2005 (referring to tigers captured in the period 1992-2004 in or close to the Sichote-Alin Biosphere Reserve) said (a limited number of young adult and adult) males averaged 176,4 kg (389 pounds), whereas females averaged 117,9 kg (260 pounds). More recent data (refering to the period 2005-2024) suggests the average today could be closer to 420 pounds (190 kg) for males and 265 pounds (120 kg) for females, but a very experienced Russian biologist who assisted in capturing many wild Amur tigers recently said adult males average 486-535 pounds (220-240 kg) and added the upper limit is over 618 pounds (280 kg). He could be right, as Feng Limin said a male of 597 pounds (270 kg) had been captured in northeastern China some years ago. The difference between the averages mentioned is remarkable. 

The conclusion for now is adult wild male Amur tigers captured in the period 1992-2024 ranged between 312-597 pounds (141-270 kg). The average is anyone's guess, but according to Batalov and Fomenko (referring to a number of interviews and videos) an adult male of 442 pounds (200 kg) is considered as 'large'. 

All in all, one could conclude captive and wild males, weightwise, more or less compare for range. Captive male Amur tigers, however, average 486-497 pounds (220-225 kg), whereas wild males seem to be closer to 389-420 pounds (180-190 kg). A bit strange, as it's the other way around in most other tiger subspecies. 

A result of the harsh conditions in the Russian Far East? The population bottleneck in the 20th century? A lack of reliable data? We don't know. The only thing we know is only few wild Amur tigers have been captured in the last decade. Photographs, videos and rumours, of course, suggest wild Amur tigers increased in size in that decade, but chances are the situation in this department didn't change in one decade only. It is, however, likely more tigers and better conditions resulted in more variation at the level of individuals. Most large males were seen in remote districts.      

ABOUT CONFRONTATIONS BETWEEN MALE TIGERS AND MALE BROWN BEARS IN THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Recent information (referring to the information posted by Apex and the opinions of quite a few Russian biologists) suggests an adult male Amur tiger of average size (353-442 pounds or 160-200 kg) stands a very decent chance in a fight with an adult male brown bear. I'm not only referring to incidents described in books published some decades ago, but to a few recent incidents. 

The incident between tiger 'Ochkarik' and brown bear 'Chlamyda' (in 2017) was discussed at length. Batalov concluded 'Chlamyda' was killed and eaten by 'Ochkarik'. A conclusion based on a deduction, but it was a deduction of a very experienced biologist who knew both animals. There's, however, no doubt about the incident between tiger 'Odyr' and a male brown bear with a callus width of 18 cm in November 2022.      

One could use both incidents, and those discussed in the books I referred to above, to get to a conclusion regarding the most common outcome of a fight between adult males of both species, but that could result in a distorted view. As far as I know, most fights between males of both species resulted in dispersion. Fights with a tragic outcome more often ended with a dead bear, but male tigers have been wounded and killed as well. For this reason, one could conclude the margins are limited. The point, I think, Apex made is a fight between adult males of both species is not a one-sided affair. Far from it.    

About 15 months after his fight with the brown bear I referred to above, tiger 'Odyr' again attracted a bit of attention. When patrolling his territory, he found a hibernating male brown bear. The tiger didn't attack the bear, but roared, in this way disturbing the sleeping bear. The bear rose and left to hibernate elsewher. In a video published in February this year, Yuri Kya, heavily critized because of his comments about the fight between the male brown bear killed by 'odyr' in November 2022, suggested the size of the bear could have prevented an attack. Could be, but the bear was disturbed and decided to leave. And this could have been the intention of the tiger. I don't doubt there are more examples of male tigers pushing male brown bears out of their territory, but that is different from saying a fight between adult males is a one-sided affair. It isn't. There's reliable evidence of male tigers wounded in a fight with a brown bear (referring to a table discussed in this post some years ago) and that's still without the male tigers killed in 1913 and 1972. The problem is there's no information about both incidents.  

APEX      

Although we largely agree in most respects, we disagree in that I think black and white are not the only colours. I agree an encounter between a bear-experienced male tiger and an adult male Ussuri brown bear is not a one-sided affair, but there are many tigers and bears and in the end it always is about individuality and motivation. 

I agree tigers have a significant advantage. When they disperse, at 18-22 months of age, all subadults know how to hunt and how to use their teeth. There is, however, some evidence size could be more important than you assume. Although an experienced tiger is able to kill a larger bear, it's also likely there is a limit. I'm not saying a tiger would quickly exhaust himself in a fight with a large bear, but it will take time to overcome a bear with a neck circumference exceeding, say, 100 cm. It's quite likely a bear of that size, in particular in a long struggle, will get opportunities to injure or kill his opponent. The impact of injuries often is a bit underestimated. For a professional hunter like a tiger, a relatively minor injury can have serious consequences. Example.  

Here's tiger 'Snarl' (Kanha, January 1977) after a fight with tiger 'Arjuna':  

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

And this is his opponent 'Arjuna':

*This image is copyright of its original author

Tiger 'Arjuna', past his prime when he fought 'Snarl', was able to keep his sambar, but he was injured. The flap of skin hanging in front of one of his eyes impaired his vision and his ability to hunt. Not long after this photograph was taken, he perished. Not long after his fight with 'Arjuna', 'Snarl' was beaten by an older male. I found the photographs in 'Through the tiger's eyes' (Stanley Breeden & Belinda Wright, 1996).  

PROPOSAL 
       
For most of us, it's difficult to understand why a male tiger, at times, is able to overcome a male brown bear. For this reason, I don't think it would be superfluous to extent a bit on the difference between experienced big game hunters and omnivores. I'm referring to the impact of specific qualities. I don't want you to post videos of confrontations between humans (doesn't fit the thread), but I don't doubt there's a good information about the abilities of apex predators in books written by those who know more. 

One could start by describing the difference between a adult wild male and an adult captive male tiger. Every wild male Amur tiger that made it to adulthood and a territory, as Vaillant wrote, is quite something. Many people forget not a few males perish while trying. Male tiger 'Uporny' ('Tenacious'), for instance, wasn't the only male killed by another (larger and older) male. In captive tigers, this selection mechanism has been removed. Nearly all tigers born in captivity reach adulthood. John Vaillant could be a good idea to start for a discussion, but some letters published in the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society are as interesting. See what you can do. 

Your series on tigers and bears, judging from the number of views, attracted many readers. I agree the info you posted was both interesting and informative. If we include the links to the sources you used, I can only get to a job well done. Reply