There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
11-16-2014, 12:42 PM( This post was last modified: 06-07-2016, 04:01 AM by peter )
TIGERS AND BEARS IN RUSSIA TODAY - IV
A - THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH
After reading everything I have and talking to a few people 'in the know', I concluded there's no such thing as 'absolute truth'. Tigers hunt bears in some regions and not at all in others. In regions where they hunt bears, tigers hunt them occasionally in some seasons. In others, bears are an important source of food. Some male bears, according to researchers, hunt tigers at times. Nearly all researchers think males of both species are most active as hunters, but I think females could be more active regarding bears than is assumed.
When tigers hunt bears, they usually hunt immatures and females. Same for male bears hunting tigers. The reason is risk limitation, I think. There are few clashes between males. One could conclude adult males of both species, as a result of an advantage in size, would seldom perish in fights. But those who provided information on fights and victims wrote the score is about two to one in favor of tigers. In about half of the fights, there was no decision reached.
If tigers hunting bears, as many suggest, are experienced large males hunting smaller bears, how is it possible so many tigers perish in fights? Are they no match for smaller bears, do they hunt larger bears than we think (including males), would a significant number of (tiger) victims be immature males or females or is there something else going on? Something we don't know about.
B - JOHN VAILLANT
What about John Vaillants remarks on tigers and bears in his great book on the Sobolonye man-eater? Everything he wrote was based on what researchers, hunters and locals saw or found. Authentic, first-hand information only, I mean. Miquelle also thought it was a great book.
Do male tigers occasionally take on bears as a result of what Vaillant described as 'principle'? They apparently do, meaning not all fights are a result of food or displacement. I read time and again that male Amur tigers are vindictive animals. Do they target large bears as well? I'm not sure. Based on what I read, I concluded large male bears are not targeted, but others, about similar in size to a tiger, are. Some of these probably are male.
What is 'a large male brown bear' and do they really go unchallenged? If so, why have different researchers concluded male tigers are seldom displaced (I only read about one case)? When a bear persists, a male tiger would have to give way, one would think. But it very seldom happens, researchers say.
Do large bears, as some suggest, use tigers as hunting dogs, to be robbed at will without a fight? If so, why did Krechmar say adult males of both species are very close in tooth and claw? Not one is dominating the other in a fysical fight, he said. Could it be large bears try their luck because they often have no option, whereas male tigers can hunt again? If so, what about this 'vindictiveness' so many talk about?
All in all, there still are many unanswered questions. I also noticed many findings of researchers contradict others. Finally, I noticed there apparently are tiger-researchers and bear-researchers. Both often seem to come up with 'proof' for statements of a dubious nature at the right time. I really don't know what to make of it.
C - ANIMOSITY
The only thing I can say from experience is there often is a lot of animosity between captive tigers and bears, especially between Amur tigers and brown bears. The animosity between both is much more pronounced than what I saw in tigers and lions. Tigers and lions often don't like each other. They would fight given the opportunity, but it wouldn't be all the way. In many cases, it isn't that intense. It would be about dominance in most cases.
The emotions regarding brown bears I saw are close to hate and obsession. The objects of their hate, often large male brown bears, knew it and obviously felt nervous, even with bars between them. I talked to trainers who had experience with both and they confirmed what I had seen. Males can't be mixed.
After what I saw, I concluded the (unconfirmed) stories on fights between wild males are true in that tigers probably often take the initiative. Bears, like in wild boars, would use their energy to defend theirselves. The intensity would be such, that tigers probably would spend themselves very fast, which would result in very frequent breaks. They would target the neck of their opponent. As male bears have a lot of muscles in that area, it would take a lot of time to reach the vertebrae. Tigers would succeed in some cases and not in others. It's do or die, I think. Most tigers who perish probably pay for a mistake, just like in wild boars. Those prone to mistakes are those driven by rage and hate and my guess is young adults would be the most likely candidates.
Although I still think I am probably close, I was surprised to find that researchers concluded many fights between wild animals were initiated by bears (...). So what do we really know? And if we know something, would it hold? Would it be the 'absolute truth'? My guess is no. The only thing I'm quite certain about is the animosity.
Bears living close to big cats usually make a living of robbing them whenever possible. Size, I think, is irrelevant. Even the black bears severely hunted by tigers in the reserve Tkachenko worked in didn't fear tigers and robbed them whenever possible.
What do we know for sure about all true wild carnivores? They don't accept any kind of intrusion when eating, let alone an attempt to rob them. As this is what bears do for a living, my guess is this specific treat is the most likely explanation for the animosity I saw time and again. Cougars lack the size to engage a bear, but tigers do not. They probably often are so enraged, that they, after a period of loss after loss, probably are prepared to risk life and limb in a fight with a larger kleptocrate. If they lack the power to win an open fight, they would try to get even in another way.
D - AMATEURS AND PRO'S
As both species have lived in close proximity for thousands of years in spite of the animosity, there has to be a balance. The only way bears would be able to get there is immunity of some animals, both male and female. These outsized animals, I think, are the ones who keep tigers in check. If they wouldn't be there, tigers would have made short work of them.
Not in Indonesia, south-east Asia and India, but Russia only. The reason is bears in Russia in particular often feed on tiger kills. At times, perhaps often, they maybe have no other option.
Apart from these exceptional bears, it would be very close in the other leagues. My guess is tigers could have their nose just in front (they are, after all, professionals and often choose the conditions). On the other hand. If they don't have to meet, they no doubt would use the oportunity. Males, I think, in particular. The reason is both would prefer to minimize the risk.
This is what we see in Indonesia, south-east Asia and India. The number of encounters is very limited and most animals involved in attacks are large male tigers. Sloth bears, although larger than their distant relatives in south-east Asia, could be targeted more often than other bear species. But 'targeted' would be too heavy to describe the intention of tigers regarding sloth bears.
Adult male Himalayan bears, larger than their relatives in north-east Asia, probably are never threatened. Males usually are larger than sloth bears and some males are not to be trifled with. The old boy I saw in the Zoologischer Garten in Berlin was just as large and robust as the one in my previous post.
The only real professionals in bears and tigers are Amur tigers and Ussuri brown bears. In some parts of Primorye, clashes between giants only seen by very few still happen every now and then. We can only imagine what they saw.
I have always been somewhat baffled by two conflicting views concerning brown bear and tiger behavior towards each other. Both views from highly reliable sources. It is often mentioned that mature males of both species completely avoid contact with each other. Then, other sources claim that their is an animosity between them similar to that between the lion and the spotted hyena. I remember the reports of the male grizzly that escaped from Predator World in Missouri in 2007. Instead of leaving the zoo property after escaping his enclosure, the bear went straight to a tigers enclosure and found his way into it. Inside was a tigress, and the grizzly killed her.
Is it possible for an American grizzly to instinctively recognize the scent of a tiger? Or, was this this event merely a quirk? As for the two conflicting view points, I believe that there is some truth to both. Wild animals do not study a rule book. I believe that most fights that do occur between mature males of both species occur at kill sites. However, I would think that more often as not, one or the other simply backs away and the confrontation is decided by bluff.
But, if like you say ( Peter ) if there is a strong animosity between them, then perhaps there is more violence in the taiga than I would have guessed.
11-16-2014, 08:01 PM( This post was last modified: 11-16-2014, 09:06 PM by chaos )
(11-16-2014, 12:42 PM)'peter' Wrote: FUTURE POSTS ON TIGERS AND BEARS
I will post a lot of what I have bears and tigers in different regions shortly. The problem is it is a lot. I'll have to make some choices. In the end, the intention is to create different topics with chapters in order to keep things readable. Another object is to let the information speak for itself. I'll add a few comments here and there, of course.
CHERKASSOV
As for the book on Cherkassov. I didn't know about that book, but I read quite many others. Tigers feature in some and not others. One reason is Amur tigers have always been limited in numbers. Another is those looking for Amur tigers often were noticed and even observed themselves. Many wrote about it and not one liked what he saw. Some, for that reason, decided to call it a day.
THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH
As for 'the truth' about bears and tigers. After reading everything I have and talking to a few people 'in the know', the impression I have is there's no such thing as 'absolute truth'. Tigers hunt bears in some regions and not at all in others. In regions where they hunt bears, tigers hunt them occasionally in some seasons. In others, bears are an important source of food. Some male bears, according to researchers, hunt tigers at times. Nearly all researchers think males of both species are most active as hunters, but I think females could be more active regarding bears than is assumed.
When tigers hunt bears, they usually hunt immatures and females. Same for male bears hunting tigers. The reason is risk limitation, I think. There are few clashes between males. One could conclude adult males of both species, as a result of an advantage in size, would seldom perish in fights. But those who provided information on fights and victims wrote the score is about two to one in favor of tigers. In about half of the fights, there was no decision reached.
If tigers hunting bears, as many suggest, are experienced large males hunting smaller bears, how is it possible so many tigers perish in fights? Are they no match for smaller bears, do they hunt larger bears than we think (including males), would a significant number of (tiger) victims be immature males or females or is there something else going on? Something we don't know about.
JOHN VAILLANT
What about John Vaillants remarks on tigers and bears in his great book on the Sobolonye man-eater? Everything he wrote was based on what researchers, hunters and locals saw or found. Authentic, first-hand information only, I mean. Miquelle also thought it was a great book.
Do male tigers occasionally take on bears as a result of what Vaillant described as 'principle'? They apparently do, meaning not all fights are a result of food or displacement. I read time and again that male Amur tigers are vindictive animals. Do they target large bears as well? I'm not sure. Based on what I read, I concluded large male bears are not targeted, but others, about similar in size to a tiger, are. Some of these probably are male.
What is 'a large male brown bear' and do they really go unchallenged? If so, why have different researchers concluded male tigers are seldom displaced (I only read about one case)? When a bear persists, a male tiger would have to give way, one would think. But it very seldom happens, researchers say.
Do large bears, as some suggest, use tigers as hunting dogs, to be robbed at will without a fight? If so, why did Krechmar say adult males of both species are very close in tooth and claw? Not one is dominating the other in a fysical fight, he said. Could it be large bears try their luck because they often have no option, whereas male tigers can hunt again? If so, what about this 'vindictiveness' so many talk about?
All in all, there still are many unanswered questions. I also noticed many findings of researchers contradict others. Finally, I noticed there apparently are tiger-researchers and bear-researchers. Both often seem to come up with 'proof' for statements of a dubious nature at the right time. I really don't know what to make of it.
ANIMOSITY
The only thing I can say from experience is there often is a lot of animosity between captive tigers and bears, especially between Amur tigers and brown bears. The animosity between both is much more pronounced than what I saw in tigers and lions. Tigers and lions often don't like each other. They would fight given the opportunity, but it wouldn't be all the way. In many cases, it isn't that intense. It would be about dominance in most cases.
The emotions regarding brown bears I saw are close to hate and obsession. The objects of their hate, often large male brown bears, knew it and obviously felt nervous, even with bars between them. I talked to trainers who had experience with both and they confirmed what I had seen. Males can't be mixed.
After what I saw, I concluded the (unconfirmed) stories on fights between wild males are true in that tigers probably often take the initiative. Bears, like in wild boars, would use their energy to defend theirselves. The intensity would be such, that tigers probably would spend themselves very fast, which would result in very frequent breaks. They would target the neck of their opponent. As male bears have a lot of muscles in that area, it would take a lot of time to reach the vertebrae. Tigers would succeed in some cases and not in others. It's do or die, I think. Most tigers who perish probably pay for a mistake, just like in wild boars. Those prone to mistakes are those driven by rage and hate and my guess is young adults would be the most likely candidates.
Although I still think I am probably close, I was surprised to find that researchers concluded many fights between wild animals were initiated by bears (...). So what do we really know? And if we know something, would it hold? Would it be the 'absolute truth'? My guess is no. The only thing I'm quite certain about is the animosity.
Bears living close to big cats usually make a living of robbing them whenever possible. Size, I think, is irrelevant. Even the black bears severely hunted by tigers in the reserve Tkachenko worked in didn't fear tigers and robbed them whenever possible.
What do we know for sure about all true wild carnivores? They don't accept any kind of intrusion when eating, let alone an attempt to rob them. As this is what bears do for a living, my guess is this specific treat is the most likely explanation for the animosity I saw time and again. Cougars lack the size to engage a bear, but tigers do not. They probably often are so enraged, that they, after a period of loss after loss, probably are prepared to risk life and limb in a fight with a larger kleptocrate. If they lack the power to win an open fight, they would try to get even in another way.
AMATEURS AND PRO'S
As both species have lived in close proximity for thousands of years in spite of the animosity, there has to be a balance. The only way bears would be able to get there is immunity of some animals, both male and female. These outsized animals, I think, are the ones who keep tigers in check. If they wouldn't be there, tigers would have made short work of them.
Not in Indonesia, south-east Asia and India, but Russia only. The reason is bears in Russia in particular often feed on tiger kills. At times, perhaps often, they maybe have no other option.
Apart from these exceptional bears, it would be very close in the other leagues. My guess is tigers could have their nose just in front (they are, after all, professionals and often choose the conditions). On the other hand. If they don't have to meet, they no doubt would use the oportunity. Males, I think, in particular. The reason is both would prefer to minimize the risk.
This is what we see in Indonesia, south-east Asia and India. The number of encounters is very limited and most animals involved in attacks are large male tigers. Sloth bears, although larger than their distant relatives in south-east Asia, could be targeted more often than other bear species. But 'targeted' would be too heavy to describe the intention of tigers regarding sloth bears.
Adult male Himalayan bears, larger than their relatives in north-east Asia, probably are never threatened. Males usually are larger than sloth bears and some males are not to be trifled with. The old boy I saw in the Zoologischer Garten in Berlin was just as large and robust as the one in my previous post.
The only real professionals in bears and tigers are Amur tigers and Amur brown bears. In some parts of Primorye, clashes between giants only seen by very few still happen every now and then. We can only imagine what they saw.
Good read. The interaction between the two, makes for an intriguing topic. You outlined scenarios of encounters based on various
sets of circumstances. Not being very informed in this category, I wasn't aware of such familiarity between the two.
A bit curious as to the size potential of these Russian browns. Are they basically grizzly bears, or more like The Alaskan Kodiak? You
remarked some of the larger bears are immune - equalizers? - in the overall equation, so I'm guessing they get quite large.
I'll be tuning in to this thread as it sparked interest. I ask you and other posters to "bear" with me, as I'm not nearly as informed as
others in this category. Thanks in advance
11-17-2014, 05:41 AM( This post was last modified: 06-07-2016, 04:02 AM by peter )
ONE-ON-ONE WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN (OUTDOORLIFE, 2011)
Before turning to tigers and bears, I decided to post parts of an interview with Vladimir Putin in OutdoorLife. The reason is Putin is one of the very few important political figures really involved in conservation. In 2009, the oldest non-governmental organisation in Russia, the Russian Geographical Society, suggested Putin should head its Tutorial Council. The RGS is currently responsible for implementing several programs. Putin personally is supervising one of them. He also headed the St. Petersburg Tiger Summit. More than enough reasons to post parts of the interview.
As the interview, published in 2011, is a long one, I selected parts of it. I decided against scanning the interview. Instead, I selected a number of questions and answers. As I intend to keep it readable, I decided to shorten the questions. The answers, also shortened, are quotes only. The article was written by Gayne C. Young.
1 - AT WHAT POINT IN YOUR LIFE DID YOU FIRST BECOME INTERESTED IN THE OUTDOORS?
" ... My fondness for the outdoors, ..., has its roots in my youth and, particularly, in the books I've read. I've always loved and avidly read the novels of Jack London, Jules Verne and Ernest Hemingway. The characters depicted in their books, ..., definitely shaped my inner self and nourished my love for the outdoors ... ".
" ... I had an interesting childhood strongly connected with sports. I also had very good teachers. I increasingly appreciate what I have achieved because of sports. In other words, a habit for a healthy lifestyle and an opportunity to be outdoors ... ".
" ... I would also like to add that recently my passion for adventures, journeys and outdoor activities has got a new dimension. In 2009, ..., the Russian Geographical Society (RGS), suggested I should head its Tutorial Council, and, of course, I agreed. The very mission of the RGS reaches out to my heart, namely to inspire people to inspire to love Russia. This phrase contains a desire to open up Russia's beauthy, diversity and identity to our society and to the whole world, to present its authentic image ... ".
2 - DO YOU THINK THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE ARE MORE OPEN-MINDED ABOUT SPORTS SUCH AS HUNTING AND FISHING, OR HAVE AMERICANS JUST BECOME HYPERSENSITIVE?
" ... I do not think it would be right to ascribe certain characteristics to representatives of one or another ethnic group ... ".
" ... It is certainly very important, particularly for the Head of State, to carry oneself in such a way as not to offend or humiliate people's feelings, in word or deed; ... ".
" ... We need to identify and maintain essential, basic things ... ".
" ... I come out strongly against uncontrolled mass killing of animals and irresponsible fishing ... ".
3 - YOU RECENTLY MET WITH OTHER GLOBAL LEADERS FOR A 'TIGER SUMMIT', WHERE YOU PLEDGED TO DOUBLE THE TIGER POPULATION IN ASIA. WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL BE THE MOST DIFFICULT HURDLE IN ACHIEVING THIS GOAL?
" ... Most difficult hurdles indeed exist - in those countries, for instance, where the tiger habitat is shrinking due to the intensification of economic activity... It is not always an easy task to decide what is more important ... Tigers ..., as well as all the wild animals, recognize no boundaries, and our Amur tigers move freely in the territory of China and enter the Korean peninsula. You should agree that in such a context, no measures taken in an individual country to protect them will be efficient ... ".
" ... This is why I consider the St. Petersburg Tiger Summit and its resulting documents a real breakthrough in international conservation. This was the first time in history that the conservation of a certain animal species was discussed on such a large scale and high level ... ".
" ... Under the adopted Global Program, the Tiger Range States made the commitment to ensure safe and comfortable existence of these animals. Thus, the predators' habitats will be under special control. The economic activity will be either severely restricted there or fully prohibited. This will allow us not only to preserve the forests and hundreds of other animals, but also to maintain the traditional way of life of local indigenous peoples ... ".
" ... I would like to add that the decisions adopted at the forum are fully consistent with the approved Russian plans to preserve tigers. Moreover, they are based on Russian methods that have been developed since the 1940s by our scientists. The first-ever prohibitions on tiger hunting and tiger cub trapping and the first State programs on protecting tigers were initiated by our country. Therefore, the unique sustainable population of tigers living in Russia number some 450 individuals. Considering the biological habitat capacity, ..., this number is optimal., though globally, in terms of species, it is not enough, which why we will further extend the strictly protected areas, and take measures to increase the number of hoofed animals required for the survival of tigers. IN recent years, the Amur tigers began to return ... to their historical habitats, for example the Amur oblast. We will do our best to make them comfortable there. We are currently responsable for several programs; I am personally supervising one of them, which is being implemented by the RGS ... ".
4 - SOME QUOTES
On 'new' and 'old' things (outdoorswise): " ... Perhaps I would phrase the question this way: What 'new things' does Russia have to offer in the future? Let us try to cover some of the 'old things' first ... ". And " ..., learn its true character ... ".
On the meaning of hunting: " ... I will tell you at once that I am not a hunter ... ".
On the concept of 'outdoors': " ... It seems to me that we have a slightly different understanding of the outdoors concept. For me, it is primarily about sports, and health and breaking bad habits. For you, it has to do with fishing, hunting and traveling. And the best proof of this is the writers you enjoy reading. Illustrious Jim Corbett, who shot man-eating tigers in India; or Peter Hathaway Capstick, a professional hunter and, I suppose, the most famous hunter biographer; or Robert Ruark, who focused most of his stories on African safaris. I would not be wrong, I believe, if I were to say that we have rather different views even on Hemingway. It seems to me that the book you enjoy most is Green Hills of Africa. As for me, it is A Farewell to Arms, For Whom the Bell Tolls and The Old Man and the Sea ... ".
On hunting in Russia: " ... His well-known A Sportsman Sketches (reffering to Ivan Turgenev) has been a favorite book of Russian hunting fans for more than a century, which reflect in general the philosophy of hunting in Russia, where the mere process, the fact that you are close to nature and communicate with people, matters - not the outcome ... ".
On what a hunter is: " ... I do not want to offend your feelings as a hunter, but, by its intensity, its dynamics, that (Putin was referring to an event in 2010, when he helped scientists to obtain skin samples from a whale off Russia's Pacific Coast by darting one with a crossbow) wa sa real hunt. But without killing the animal. And this was a special pleasure. This is not a melodramatic statement. That was the way it really was ... ".
It was really eye opening to read about the unlikely survival rate of Amurs in china.
Its great that Putin is doing what he can to help increase the tiger numbers in Siberia but it seems the real challenge will come fromt the chinease side. Until they offer the same protection its going to be very hard to increase their #'s. Like Putin said, Tigers don't acknowledge borders and why should they? Hopefully this is the begining of a mind set change that will impact china as well.
11-18-2014, 08:10 AM( This post was last modified: 06-07-2016, 04:07 AM by peter )
PANTHERA TIGRIS ALTAICA IN CHINA
a - THE ECONOMY
I think Putin, in the interview above, referred to countries like China when he said it isn't always easy to get to a decision on economic development and conservation.
The Russian Maritime Province, I think, also is an example. After the collapse of the Sowjet-Union, many lost their job. Poverty had become such a problem that many had no other option but to return to the forest in order to survive. There is no doubt that the forest and the animals suffered from the influx of desperate humans. There also is no doubt some of these saw opportunities quite unrelated to poverty:
*This image is copyright of its original author
b - CULTURE
The Chinese didn't need an economic collapse to use the forest and its inhabitants in a less than respectful way. Sheer numbers, poverty and, even more important, culture resulted in a tradition that could only have ended in one way. Apart from a few regions, forests are now all but gone. Same for many animals.
Marco Polo, about seven centuries ago, wrote large predators were everywhere in China, Mongolia and Tibet. There were so many, people were adviced not to travel at night. But the Chinese retaliated. Panthera leo was the first to pay, later followed by Panthera tigris virgata, Panthera tigris amoyensis and Panthera tigris altaica. And Ursus arctos and Panthera pardus? Well, some survived near the Himalayas and in north-east China, but they had to promise to refrain from humans in the future. Or else.
When Panthera tigris had been externimated, the demand couldn't be satisfied anymore. Not in China itself. This was the reason a tour was organized. Friends and neighbours were asked to help and the result was such, that tigers started disappearing very quickly from most parts of Asia. The Chinese now had to answer a number of questions regarding tigers. Although they were given and promises not to do it again were made, the number of wild tigers is still decreasing and new opportunities were discovered too. Yes, I was referring to Burma.
We could indulge in criticism, but we have to acknowledge it takes a long time to change a culture. The need to change quickly, however, is very clear and the Chinese know. In many cities, the air quality is so bad that outdoor events have become quite dangerous. Some of my friends returned because they couldn't participate in outdoor activities anymore. Suicidal, they said. This is without water pollution and using dubious methods to improve the production of fish and meat, of course.
c - FUTURE
Do tigers have a future in China? I don't think Panthera tigris amoyensis will return for lack of space and opportunity. Panthera tigris virgata also is too much of an ask, although China could perhaps profit from plans to reintroduce Panthera tigris altaica disguished as Panthera tigris virgata in some regions in Central-Asia. But a plan is very different from reality.
The only real chance is Panthera tigris altaica. Amur tigers have re-entered China and it is thought there could be 10-40 in the north-east. The Chinese are doing their best to make life comfortable for them, but there are many Chinese and not all would agree with the attempt to let them roam free if there also is a demand to satisfy.
d - TIGERFARMS AND SAFARI PARKS
Many of us have debated about Chinese tigerfarms and safari parks. Although I do not doubt the tigers will be used in some way, I do not agree with the outcome of the debate.
The reason is it takes a long time to change a culture, meaning the demand for tiger flesh and tiger bones will not change in the near future. It is about the demand. If it partly can be satisfied by using captive tigers from farms and safari parks, chances are the pressure on wild tigers will diminish. Even if it only satisfies a part of the demand, it could be the difference between life and death for hundreds of wild tigers. I, however, do no doubt many will disagree with this view.
In the meantime, China is doing what it can in the north-east. The forests needed are there, there is game, there is cattle, there are rangers, there are researchers and there is cooperation from local farmers. Maybe things are slowly changing.
e - PHOTOGRAPHS
1b - Traps and nooses collected in north-east China:
*This image is copyright of its original author
1c - Wild male Amur tiger eating a cow in Hunchun. He said he didn't do it, but there is this photograph:
*This image is copyright of its original author
1d - Male Amur tiger killed in China. Cause of death, as far as I know, unknown:
11-18-2014, 10:30 AM( This post was last modified: 06-07-2016, 04:10 AM by peter )
2 - PANTHERA TIGRIS ALTAICA IN RUSSIA
a - ARSENIEV AND KAPLANOV
Like in China, the Amur tiger was severely hunted in Russia. Arseniev, in 'Dersu, the Trapper', wrote tigers, like all other animals in Primorye, were already severely endangered at the turn of the century. A few decades later, Kaplanov found they were all but gone. Kaplanov was killed by a poacher, but his study became a classic and it had an effect. The Sowjet-Union, as Putin said, was the first country to ban tiger hunting completely.
Although the ban very probably saved the Amur tiger from extinction, genetic diversity was affected. It shows partly in the lack of variation in size in today's tigers. In this respect, they are decidedly different from other subspecies. Amur tigers, therefore, still walk the edge.
Today, there are about 350-450 individuals in Russia and 10-50 in China and North-Korea together. When they have recovered numberwise, they'll spread. When they have established themselves in all former regions, chances are they will start to produce the animal described by reliable observers a century ago. I wouldn't know about the average size back then, but there's enough evidence to state tigers, although similar in length to today's Amur tigers, were a bit heavier.
For example. Of the three tigers captured by the Morden-Graves expedition, one male about average in length was 550 pounds, whereas the tigress, at 368 pounds, was the heaviest I know of. The second male, at 480 pounds, also wasn't a small animal. For comparison. Not one of the adult males measured and weighed in the last two decades even approached 480 pounds and the heaviest tigress, at 287 pounds, also was well below the 368-pound tigress shot in 1930. A very pronounced difference, that is. If we add that today's tigers were compared to three individuals shot in the 1930s only, I would skip 'coincidence' right away. The first words that come to mind are genetics and food.
I wouldn't know about the numbers needed to make a full recovery, but 350-500 animals (cubs and immatures included) apparently isn't enough. Not even close, I think.
b - THE CAPTURE OF CUBS
Although tiger hunting was banned, cubs were captured until well in the sixties of the last century. Based on what I know from conversations with people who work for zoos in Europe, I think the seventies would be more accurate. Here's a few photographs of how it was done in 1939.
2a - Cubs were captured in winter, when they were chased with dogs. They quickly tired in the snow:
*This image is copyright of its original author
2b - The end of freedom:
*This image is copyright of its original author
2c - The photograph, although tragic, doesn't show people motivated by greed or anger. The hunters were skilled and they cared. Some of the cubs shipped to Europe and the US developed into serious giants. I saw two of them myself and heard about others in the US and Mexico. I haven't seen any of that size in the last two decades. Could it be the old hunters, who distinguished between normal tigers and giants, were right after all? Or was it just coincidence, with a few freaks every now and then? If so, why did they disappear?
*This image is copyright of its original author
c - POACHING
Although hunting tigers was strictly off limits for a long time, things changed when the Sowjet-Union collapsed. In the 1990s, many lost their job and some had no other option but to return to the old and trusted forest. Mushrooms, herbs and small animals most of the time in order to survive, but those who hunted deer and porc at times were confronted by the one who suffered most from their actions. The number of tigers also had increased considerably. Some hunters lost their nerve and thought they had to shoot, others really had no option but to defend themselves and still others acted deliberately right from the start.
Male Amur tigers in particular were not going to take it lying down. I've read more than one story about male tigers and humans. Many are true survivors who took their territory the hard way. They will, to quote Vailliant, yield for a greater force at times, like a large bear, but anyone who invades the territory of a male tiger has to be prepared for a war. And it isn't over when you shoot and wound a tiger, as one poacher now knows.
I'm not going to write on what poaching really is. Use your imagination or watch the photographs below.
2d - Male Amur tiger shot in May 1991. The photographs below were first posted by Warsaw on AVA. At first he wrote the tiger was poached, but later he said the tiger was a man-eater. Meaning we don't know. The answer, therefore, is in the photographs. In the way the tiger is transported, I mean. Watch them faces at the end.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
2e - Male tiger shot in the 1990s. Russia. I don't know the story, but I assume this tiger was a 'man-eater' too:
*This image is copyright of its original author
2f - This is the famous Sobolonye man-eater who featured in Vailliant's great book 'The Tiger'. The photograph was taken moments after the tiger, just before he got to one of his persuers, was shot. I agree it is a bad photograph, but the atmosphere is completely different when compared to the previous photographs. Different people and different tiger. When you can, buy the book. I read many, but this one is special.
11-18-2014, 11:07 AM( This post was last modified: 06-07-2016, 04:13 AM by peter )
3 - PANTHERA TIGRIS ALTAICA: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HUNTERS AND RANGERS
This is a bit off-topic, but I decided to give it a try anyhow. Over the years, I have collected many photographs. I noticed differences between tigers shot and tigers sedated. I also noticed differences between hunters on one hand and and researchers or rangers on the other. The differences I'm referring to are not easy to describe, but they, I think, show and breath from the pictures. Compare the photographs with with researchers and sedated tigers with those with dead tigers and hunters tell me what you see.
3a - Sedated male Amur tiger and researchers (WCS):
*This image is copyright of its original author
3b - The 'Professor' (204 kg.) and those who care about him (Russian team):
*This image is copyright of its original author
3c - Male Amur tiger, researcher, transporters and photographer:
*This image is copyright of its original author
3d - Putin, researchers, rangers and tigress 'Serga' (sedated):
*This image is copyright of its original author
3e - Real tiger men (from 'The Tiger'). Committed, experienced and 'in the know':
*This image is copyright of its original author
3f - And now for something completely different. Male Amur tiger shot in 1930:
11-18-2014, 06:46 PM( This post was last modified: 11-18-2014, 09:11 PM by chaos )
(11-18-2014, 11:07 AM)'peter' Wrote: 3 - PANTHERA TIGRIS ALTAICA: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HUNTERS AND RANGERS
This is a bit off-topic, but I decided to give it a try anyhow. Over the years, I have collected many photographs. I noticed differences between tigers shot and tigers sedated. I also noticed differences between hunters on one hand and and researchers or rangers on the other. The differences I'm referring to are not easy to describe, but they, I think, show and breath from the pictures. Compare the photographs with with researchers and sedated tigers with those with dead tigers and hunters tell me what you see.
3a - Sedated male Amur tiger and researchers (WCS):
*This image is copyright of its original author
3b - The 'Professor' (204 kg.) and those who care about him (Russian team):
*This image is copyright of its original author
3c - Male Amur tiger, researcher, transporters and photographer:
*This image is copyright of its original author
3d - Putin, researchers, rangers and tigress 'Serga' (sedated):
*This image is copyright of its original author
3e - Real tiger men (from 'The Tiger'). Committed, experienced and 'in the know':
*This image is copyright of its original author
3f - And now for something completely different. Male Amur tiger shot in 1930:
*This image is copyright of its original author
3g - Jankowski and his wild boars
*This image is copyright of its original author
The posture of the animals in the photos. The hunters "pose" their conquests for proper display with emphasis on size.
The researches generally appear to have concern.
11-19-2014, 02:55 PM( This post was last modified: 06-07-2016, 04:16 AM by peter )
TIGERS AND BEARS IN RUSSIA - V
Brotherbear, I'm going through the information I have. Might take some time, as I would need to scan quite a bit. In the meantime, you could read posts 94, 95 and 114. Post 95 has a lot of information on bears in south-east Russia, whereas post 114 has a few scans of a recent article (Tkachenko) on tigers and bears in a smallish reserve close to Chabarowsk. I added a summary which has a bit more on tigers and bears.
The Ussuri brown bear (also referred to as black grizzly or horse bear) is different from the Kamsjatka brown bear in that they have a relatively long skull, elongated nasal bones, narrower arches and much larger teeth. They lack the elevated brow typical for many coastal bears (also seen in many Kodiak bears). Compared to Yellowstone brown bears, they seem a bit larger. Females, according to recent information posted by Guate, are about 145 kg. (320 pounds) whereas males average 582-595 pounds (264-270 kg.). Sexual dimorphism, therefore, is well pronounced.
Many bear-posters underlined that 'average' is a tricky way to describe size in bears, especially large subspecies. The reason is the range in size often is pronounced, more so than in big cats. I have reliable information about females exceeding 600 pounds and one has to assume the range in males is even more outspoken. Furthermore, there is hibernation and seasonal variation. In adults, the difference between minimum (just after hibernation) and maximum weight (just before hibernation) can be as much as 25-35%.
There are some reports on clashes between male tigers and male brown bears. With the exception of one, all incidents happened in winter, meaning non-hibernating bears ('Schatuns') were involved. A bear unable to gain enough weight to last through hibernation usually is forced to find food in winter. These malnourished wanderers often are desperate animals. Many, as a result of a lack of weight, do not survive the winter. Below are a few photographs of Ussuri brown bears.
a - Linda Kerley weighing a brown bear:
*This image is copyright of its original author
b - Camera trap (WCS):
*This image is copyright of its original author
c - This 'Schatun' did not survive the Russian winter. First posted by Warsaw:
*This image is copyright of its original author
d - This male was killed in a fight with another bear. First posted by Warsaw:
Peter, you said: ~There are some reports on clashes between male tigers and male brown bears. With the exception of one, all incidents happened in winter, meaning non-hibernating bears ('Schatuns') were involved. Can you tell us what information is known of this single recorded incident with the healthy mature male brown bear and the tiger?
11-20-2014, 02:23 PM( This post was last modified: 06-07-2016, 03:52 AM by peter )
TIGERS AND BEARS IN RUSSIA TODAY - VI
The incident I referred to is in this book:
*This image is copyright of its original author
1 - DR. VRATISLAV MAZAK
Vratislav Mazak (1937-1987) was a Czech biologist specialized in paleoanthropology, mammalogy and taxonomy. He was a professor at the Charles University's Faculty of Science and a zoologist at the Prague National Museum.
Mazak's first edition of 'Der Tiger' was published in 1965. In the late eighties, but before the collapse of the Sowjet-Union, I bought the third edition of his book in Amsterdam. This edition, again in German, was published in 1983. It's one of the best books I read. The reason is Mazak offered an overview of every aspect of interest regarding the tiger. He invested a lot of time and it shows in every way.
Mazak was the one who proposed to distinguish between Indian tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) and tigers inhabiting other parts of south-east Asia (Panthera tigris corbetti). His proposal was adopted. Panthera tigris corbetti became an official subspecies in 1968.
Mazak was born in 1937 in Kutna Hora in what was then Czechoslovakia. In the last stage of the Second World War, Czechoslovakia was occupied by the Red Army. The occupation lasted until 1989, when the Sowjet-Union collapsed. Children born in Czechoslovakia before 1989 (as well as all other occupied countries in eastern Europa) often were able to understand, read or speak (a bit of) Russian, because it was teached at school (obligatory). Vratislav Mazak, for that reason, was able to understand Russian and to express himself in that language.
This was important, as it meant he was able to read Russian books and articles on (Amur and Caspian) tigers. He was one of the first who used these books for his book 'Der Tiger'. As his book was translated into German and sold in western Europe, it meant those interested in tigers in Europe, apart from biologists (who had access to Russian literature already), were able to take notice of the Russian literature for the first time.
2 - CONTACTS WITH TIGER EXPERTS IN RUSSIA
a - K.G. Abramov
In the sixties of the last century, Mazak contacted a number of tiger experts in Russia. One of these was K.G. Abramov, a young and talented biologist who, like many Russian biologists, had learned the trade the hard way.
In 1961, he wrote an article on Amur tigers. Maybe it wasn't an article, but a collection of unpublished notes. I don't know. Anyhow. Mazak wrote (pp. 217) the article was untitled. I assume it was never published. I don't know why that was, but Mazak wrote K.G. Abramov died well before his time. Mazak was contacted by his wife, Mrs. M.V. Abramova. In 1966, all notes of K.G. Abramov were placed at Mazak's disposal.
It must have been a treasure of information. In the unpublished notes, K.G. Abramov wrote about a clash between a large male brown bear and an old male tiger in the southern part of the Sichote-Alin Mountain Range. The incident happened in the 1958-1959 winter, which probably means the bear was a 'Schatun'. The bear was killed and partly eaten. Mazak, who wrote about the incident (pp. 79), referred to K.G. Abramov's 1961 unpublished notes. This was the untitled article he got from Mrs. M.V. Abramova, meaning he probably read about the incident in 1966.
I don't know what to make of it. It is a fact Mazak knew (or heard about) K.G. Abramov and it also is a fact he got his unpublished notes in 1966 from Mrs. M.V. Abramova. Finally, it is a fact he used the notes for his book. Mazak, therefore, considered the notes as genuine and authentic.
If the notes, on the other hand, were never published, which seems likely, it is impossible for his peers to read the notes themselves. This means they are not in a position to get to an opinion. It also means the information has to be rejected from a scientific point of view. It is, however, also a fact unpublished notes or observations are used every now and then in peer-reviewed documents.
What to do when you get authentic information of a biologist who, as a result of circumstances (like a premature death), never published? Should you follow the accepted rules of the scientific community and keep silent about it or should you write about it with the risk the information will be dismissed (for good reasons)? I think I would write about it, but I would also publish the information I used. Mazak apparently didn't and the result was the information K.G. Abramov collected was sidelined. A pity, as loss of information.
There is perhaps a way to find out a bit more. Assuming the information he got from M.V. Abramova in 1966 was in his archive and assuming Colin Groves got Mazak's archive, anyone interested in the incident Mazak referred to could contact Colin Groves. Let's assume the unpublished notes of K.G. Abramov are in Mazak's file. Let's also assume Colin Groves is willing to share the unpublished notes. The next problem then would be to find someone able to translate K.G. Abramov's notes. Not a bad idea, I think. I'll try to contact Dr. C. Groves.
b - W.J. Jankowski
In the sixties of the last century, Mazak also contacted, or was contacted by, W.J. Jankowski. He was one of the sons of the famous hunter and naturalist J.M. Jankowski. This was the man who featured in 'The Tiger's Claw'. J.M Jankowski, of Polish origin, was a passionate hunter. If there was one who knew about Amur tigers, it was Jankowski. A few years after the Russian Revolution, he fled Russia and settled in what is now North-Korea. It was there that Mary Taylor met with him. Jankowski talked to Taylor at times. The 'The Tiger's Claw' was based on what he said.
After the Manchurian tour of the Red Army in August 1945, the Jankowski's probably were noticed by the Sowjets. I wouldn't know if they acted themselves or had to be 'convinced', but they returned to the Sowjet-Union. My guess is they had some explaining to do, but I'm not sure. Anyhow.
In the late sixties, Mazak and W.J. Jankowski were talking Amur tigers in letters. Mazak (1983, pp. 185-186 and 189) wrote W.J. Jankowski had told him a lot about Amur tigers he didn't know about. He thought W.J. Jankowski was better informed and more reliable than N.A. Baikow, who was considered an authority back then.
After this introduction, we have arrived at the incident you mentioned.
3 - THE SUNGARI RIVER TIGER AND THE LARGE MALE BROWN BEAR
In his letter of May 8, 1970 (pp. 185), W.J. Jankowski wrote the largest Amur tiger he, his brothers and his father ever shot was a giant male killed in the Sungari River Basin at July 9, 1943 in Heilongjiang Province (Manchuria, China). This tiger was 11.6 (350,52 cm.) measured 'over curves' and Jankowski more than once wrote it was an exceptional animal, much larger than all the others tigers they had shot.
Here's the two pages from his book in German. It is about the part within the red lines, so at the bottom of page 185 and at the top of page 186:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
After an interlude, Mazak continues with the giant male tiger on page 189. The part on him is again within the thin red lines. It says:
" ... Regarding the giant Amur tiger shot by W.J. Jankowski and his team in the Sungari River Basin in 1943; the precise weight is unknown. Jankowski, however, estimated the tiger at about 300 kg. (660 pounds). He wrote (Mazak quoted from his letter, dated May 8, 1970):
'The tiger was so large, we had to get help in order to get the tiger out of the forest. When the assistents arrived, there were 9 strong man alltogether. We devided the tiger into pieces and each of us carried a load of 30-40 kg. I do not hesitate to say the tiger very probably wasn't below 300 kg.'
Mazak added:
To complete the information on this giant tiger, I should perhaps mention that Jankowski wrote that the tiger had killed and eaten a very large male brown bear a few days before he was shot, of which only a leg and the head, found by Jankowski, remained ...":
*This image is copyright of its original author
4 - CONCLUSIONS
So what to make of Mazak's information on the giant tiger and the very large male brown bear? Well, it isn't as straightforward as you think it is. There are big differences between researchers and posters and then there aren't. Jankowski's giant tiger and the bear he killed were discussed in different forums. The participants didn't succeed to get to a kind of agreement. Below is an attempt to get to a conclusion in spite of that.
a - Those opposing the authenticity of the information Mazak offered in his book say it isn't first-hand. This is correct. W.J. Jankowski was the one with first-hand information, not Mazak. He shot the tiger and made the photograph. Mazak quoted from his letter dated May 8, 1970. For this reason, Mazak should have added a copy of the letter, I think.
Does this mean the authenticity can be questioned? No. It means Mazak, for some reason, didn't do what he should have done. Does it mean the tiger never existed? No. The photograph says it did. The conclusion is no questions regarding authenticity, but bad marks for accuracy.
b - Was the tiger accepted by his peers? No. I don't know why, but I have an idea. We have to return to the first edition of Mazak's book (published in 1965). After publication, Mazak was faced with questions about the quality of the information on the alleged size of Amur tigers. His sources (Barclay and Baikov) didn't deliver a shred of evidence regarding their 13 feet tigers. Mazak didn't check what had to be checked and for this reason also misinformed the public, many biologists thought.
Their criticism was correct. Mazak acknowledged his mistake in the third edition of his book (1983, pp. 183). The information on the size of tigers in that edition is both unique and impeccable (I never saw anything even close), but the damage had been done in that his peers never completely trusted him again. Their attitude compared to those who indulge in things like 'Seen one tree, seen 'm all'.
So one mistake was all it took to be dismissed? Looks like it. This attitude, in my view, compares to a death sentence for ignoring a red light. Shall we sideline Miquelle because of his slops regarding Aldrich-snares? No, we shouldn't. His contribution to tiger ecology is beyond question, if not great. We all make mistakes and it is through mistakes we, most unfortunately, often learn most.
Back to Mazak. He made a mistake and paid. Now just imagine the one who reported on a large male bear killed by a freak Amur tiger, of all people, had to be him. Need a say more?
c - Was the information on the large male bear killed by the freak male Amur tiger accepted by his peers? Or anyone else, for that matter? Of course it wasn't. Like Mazak, the Jankowski's were not, ehhh, much respected. That's two reasons to not even give it a try.
For me, the information is both authentic and reliable. One of the two involved is a as experienced as they come regarding wild Amur tigers and the other as motivated as it gets in biologists. I might add that both had learned their trade the hard way, but I could just as well waste my energy on explaining why a one-legged duck would swim in circles.
d - So what about the second report on a large male brown bear killed by a large male Amur tiger (referring ot K.G. Abramov's unpublished notes)?
Well, K.G. Abramov died well before his time and the information he had was never published. If we add that the one who got hold of his notes wasn't respected by his peers, I think we can keep it real short. No publication is no proof is no dead bear. I could try to explain why the information stands for me, but that would compare to the story on the duck.
e - Anything else on male tigers and dead male brown bears? Yes. Rakov also reported on a large brown bear killed by a tiger, but he apparently forgot to provide information on the gender of the bear. His peers accepted a large brown bear was killed by a tiger, but the lack of information on the gender means that's about it.
f - More on male tigers and male brown bears in Russia? Yes, more than you think. Most unfortunately, the information available often is far from complete. For this reason, today's biologists in Russia concluded there is no reliable report on a male bear killed by a male Amur tiger. I could start a debate based on the information I have (not only the information discussed above), but I concluded it would compare to talking about duendes.
g - Anything else on Mazak? Yes, quite a bit. I have measured skulls in the former Zoological Museum of Amsterdam. I saw Mazak's notes in some of the skulls. He was there many years before I was. I copied the notes and went to see Dr. P. van Bree, who was then conservator of the Zoological Museum of Amsterdam.
Van Bree told me he and Mazak were good friends. He often talked about him. I could tell you stories. The only thing I want to say is Dr. P. van Bree thought Mazak was one of the best biologists he had known. And he knew a lot of them, including some of those who published on tigers in the last decades.
Did he, by the way, have a high opinion on them? Not quite. He was contacted by many and he provided the information they needed, but he was never mentioned in their books or articles. This is not done. Mazak, on the other hand, wrote about his good friend Van Bree in the third edition of his book (pp. 217). Mazak, Van Bree and Colin Groves wrote an article about the Bali tiger skulls they had measured. I'll post the article in some time.
h - Is there anything on male tigers killed by male bears? Yes. I found two reports on male tigers killed by male bears. One was a young adult (probably the one Sysoev referred to) killed in 1960 and the other was an average-sized male killed in 1972. In both cases, the male bear was described as 'large' or 'very large'. Details? No. Zilch. Accepted by researchers? Of course.
i - Mazak died in 1987. He had an impressive collection of books, articles and notes. What happened with his archive after he died? I asked Dr. P. van Bree. He told me most of it went to Dr. C. Groves in Australia. I was in Australia, but that was before I knew about Mazak's archive. I'll contact Dr. Colin Groves.
5 - THINGS THAT DIDN'T EXIST AND INCIDENTS THAT NEVER HAPPENED
a - This never happened and it never will:
*This image is copyright of its original author
b - Same for this:
*This image is copyright of its original author
c - This man never existed. Same for the book he wrote:
*This image is copyright of its original author
d - V. Jankowski also only was an illusion. The bear you see is a fata morgana:
*This image is copyright of its original author
e - This tiger then? As real as it gets, so it seems. I mean, a photograph, a letter of a man who was there and took the photograph himself and all that? No, not really. You're just dreaming:
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
