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

[Pckts]

(12-06-2023, 08:31 PM)Apex Titan Wrote:

(12-01-2023, 12:18 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(11-30-2023, 06:56 PM)Apex Titan Wrote: For god's sake, no one is "deviating" from the topic or discussion. You just keep failing to understand what we're saying. Are you able to read between the lines?  Do you know what an 'analogy' or 'example' is?  Clearly you don't, otherwise you won't keep saying this nonsense. Where exactly in my post did I accuse YOU of dismissing the old data? Show me? Can you read and understand English properly?

I very clearly stated that I just want to "add to some of Peters comments" about 'peer-reviewed' documents! I never once mentioned or accused you of "dismissing old data, old reports, old books and those hunter stories", not once. So what the hell were you reading? Just like in the Amur tiger thread, you keep on twisting my words and making false accusations. It's very annoying!

Now please, read this carefully and try to understand:

The reason why Peter mentioned 'Tigers vs Bears' in his last post, was because he was giving an example on how STP biologists like Dale Miquelle (who you rate so highly) have made wrong assumptions in the past! Initially when he started out, Miquelle thought that Amur tigers don't 'regularly' hunt bears, he initially assumed the "risk of injury was too high". This was merely his assumption though. However, as he and Linda Kerley conducted further field research & studies over the years on the food habits and prey preferences of the Amur tiger, Miquelle and Kerley realized he was completely wrong. Their more recent studies showed that not only do tigers regularly hunt and eat bears, but that bears are a seasonally important prey item, especially in the summer and autumn months, when bears are not hibernating and are accessible for tigers to regularly hunt.

So what did further and more recent field research (after the Siberian Tiger Project ended) result in? The personal views, opinions and assumptions of biologists like Miquelle being wrong. So some biologists had to adjust their views. Get it?

Peter is basically saying that the same example / situation can apply to the data published by the Siberian Tiger Project on the average weight of modern Amur tigers. Why? because, for the millionth time now, STP biologists never captured, studied or weighed Amur tigers from the Khabarovsk region or northeast China! Yes, the Siberian Tiger Project presented very informative information and data, but whether you like it or not, the data was LIMITED and mostly outdated, many years have passed now since the project ended. 

Things have changed, the Amur tiger population has significantly (750 individuals) increased since then and more and more 'large' and 'huge' male tigers are being seen and traced in various regions by biologists. We're just keeping an open-mind and assuming the situation could be different now based on the information, pictures and videos we've seen of wild Amur tigers in recent years, especially from the Khabarovsk region and northeast China.

So once again, so you can understand properly, Peter was just giving an example of how STP biologists like Miquelle have falsely assumed other things about Amur tigers in the past and were later corrected by more recent field studies. Understand now? The problem is that you're simply incapable of reading between the lines or understanding analogies / examples properly. You think we're "deviating" from the topic when we're not. The 'Tiger predation on bear' topic was the perfect example to give because this is something that Dale Miquelle was (initially) clearly wrong about and later refuted on.

On a side note, just because Peter and I are interested in and post about tigers and bears, doesn't make us "fanatics". That's ridiculous! Inter-specific relations, especially between large predators is a fascinating and very interesting topic for many animal lovers and enthusiasts. There's a good reason why even John Goodrich published his recent article (Dance of Death) about 'tigers vs bears' because its a fascinating topic to many people. And by the way, Goodrich's article on tigers vs bears is one of the top 3 most viewed and popular blog posts on the panthera.org site. Why do you think that is?

Since I started posting about tigers and bears in this thread, the tiger extinction thread had more views than ever before. Why do you think that is? Why did my posts on tigers vs bears attract crowds and significantly more views on this thread than ever before? I'll tell you why, because in general, for the average animal enthusiast out there, inter-specific relations between large predators is far more interesting and exciting than topics about the weights, sizes and distributions of predators, which is boring for most people.

Even various biologists, even in recent years, have talked about tigers vs bears. Why? because its an interesting topic. I don't know why you're knocking me and Peter for being involved in and posting about this particular topic, its pathetic. If you're not interested in this topic, then fine, you do you. Everyone has their own personal interests and preferences. But don't knock other people for being interested in it or posting about it.

Also, the famous case of the Amur tiger killing the hunter Markov out of premeditated revenge is NOT a unique case. Vaillant, in his book, mentions several more confirmed cases of Amur tigers taking revenge on humans. Alexander Batalov also stated that tigers are clever with a capacity for premeditated revenge. Kesri Singh in his book also mentions an authentic case of a Bengal tiger killing a man out of revenge for interfering with its wild boar hunt. There was also a recent case of a Bengal tiger killing a poacher out of revenge for killing his partner (tigress). There are numerous cases and examples confirming the highly vengeful nature of tigers. So the tiger, by nature, is a very vindictive and vengeful predator capable of abstract thinking. This is a fact that's been observed and reported by various people & experts (biologists, forest rangers, naturalists, animal trainers, hunters etc).

We all agree that both quantitative information and qualitative information are equally reliable and factual. No one is disputing this.

And finally....no Guate, more like, what's the point of us (Peter and I) wasting time and spending effort explaining things to you, when you constantly fail to understand what we're saying, you keep twisting my words, make outright false accusations and are simply incapable of reading between the lines and understanding analogies and examples to make you understand our actual point of this discussion.

There is an important point here, just because something is more "popular" doesn't mean is more "important". So, if you think that "vrs" debates are more important and should be covered more than morphology and ecology, go ahead and continue with Peter doing what you are doing, but certainly will not participate on that, as my aproach is scientifical not sensacionalist. After all, the original idea of the forum was to provide and produce real scientific information, not became another Carnivora/AVA forum.

And of course you are deviating form the main point, nor you or Peter had showed ANY evidence about the main two points that I clearly mentioned, so this is going to be the game? Insulting me and the experts, and deviating from the main point? In that case, this debate is useless. And by the way, the "tiger vs bear" is not just an "example" as you say, as I am fully aware of your "fights" in other forums about this same silly topic, but it seems that this time, this part of the forum is dominated under "feelings" and no logic at all.

Again, I am not againts the idea that modern Amur tigers are bigger, I have showed information and evidence of this long before you started participating in this forum, what I am agains is to get conclutions based in ONE SINGLE HEEL PRINT and PICTURES WITH NO REFERENCE OF SIZE! That is simple what I said, but it seems that you are the one that do not understand English, or that do not understand simple grammar, or simple because you don't want to understand anything.

No, this is really intersting: "Since I started posting about tigers and bears in this thread, the tiger extinction thread had more views than ever before."
 
So, according to you, none of the posts of all the posters in this forum as as important as yours, correct? Well, in that case you can stay in the forum and continue doing what you do, attracting silly posters while the good ones are continue been banned. Perfect, be happy with you new playground, but remember that a vain man falls faster than a lame man.

And by the way, I have the book of Valliant and I am aware of the cases of tigers but those are, again, specific cases, there is no real information to say that tigers overall are "vengatives" at species level. Other people say the contrary about tigers behaviour and we also do not know if this behaviour is the same in the other great cats. We need qualitative information over good samples to get to this conclution, however I highly doubth that you can understand what this means.

So, this is the thing, I see that both of you are doing dirty posts trying to create havoc instead of focusing in what Peter proposed at the begining. So, if your next post is not focused in providing EVIDENCE of your claims, I will simple ignore it, plain and simple. After all, at the end of the day I have a REAL LIFE with real obligations and my time is to short to be expended in this stupid "games".

@peter, as you know, I was thinking in the idea of living the forum for lack of time, and this type of situations, plus the complains of several other posters, some of them even banned with no reason, posters that actually contributed with information and not only "vrs" issues (at least here) made me think that is time to stop this. So, depending of your next post, I will take a decision, because I can't waste more time with posters like ApexTitan, which are only trolls that just  because they can found "popular" data, they believe that they are important, just like Bold Champ, Asad, Warsaw and other disturbing people that I hade the bad look to know.

No Guate, you're the one who clearly can't understand English, and that's why you wrote: "especulate" in one of your posts, which is not even a word! The correct word is - "speculate". Once again, as always, you have failed to understand what I was saying and AGAIN TWISTED MY WORDS. 

When did I ever say or even imply that my posts are "more important" than all the other posters posts in this forum?? What the hell are you reading? You are clearly failing to understand simple English!  All I said was inter-specific relations between large wild predators is far more exciting and interesting than posts on the morphology and ecology of wild predators, which is, in fact, more BORING for the average wild animal enthusiast out there. 

And that's why my posts on tiger-bear relations resulted in the tiger extinction thread having more views than ever before. Why? because many people are intrigued and interested in this topic, that's all. I never once, I repeat....NOT ONCE stated or implied that topics like 'tiger vs bear' are "more important" than topics on the morphology and ecology of tigers. You are blatantly twisting my words! This is ridiculous. You have a very bad habit of doing this.

And you don't even know what "ecology" means. Inter-specific relations between Amur tigers and bears HAS got to do with tiger ecology. What is 'animal ecology'? Ecology is the study of organisms and how they live and interact in the environment they inhabit. In order for a biologist or ecologist to learn about tiger ecology, they have to also study the relationship between tigers and other animals (co-predators, competitors & prey animals) living in the same environment. And that's exactly why the Siberian Tiger Project biologists, as well as various other Russian biologists scientifically studied the relationship between Amur tigers and bears for many years. So you're wrong and clearly don't know the actual meaning of "ecology".

You also don't know what the word: "deviating" means, clearly. And you can't understand examples or read between the lines. And that's why this debate will go nowhere.

Do you really think making false accusations, outright lies and constantly twisting peoples words makes you win a debate? And you have absolutely NO right to say that we're "insulting" you. You got some nerve and audacity. You're the one who started all the animosity, ridiculing and insults in the Amur tiger thread and then in this thread, when I initially started this discussion in a civil manner and with respect. You're the one who lost his mind and got all triggered, and for what? Just because I have a different opinion about the weights of Amur tigers? Seriously?

Topics on tiger-bear relations & interactions IS SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION. If not, then why did the Siberian Tiger Project study the inter-specific relations between tigers and bears for a prolonged period of time? If it's not "scientific information" then what the hell is this? A scientific publication / study? Fictional book? Silly stories? ....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10afDwfy...mmvOz/view

If not "scientific info" then how come various biologists and scientific researchers have studied and published information about tiger-bear fights & interactions?  Are all these biologists and experts also "silly" people ?? Is Sergey Aramilev and the Amur Tiger Center also "silly" people for posting a recent video on tiger vs bear fights?

Yes, ITS NO SECRET that I've debated tigers vs bears in other forums, so? Peter has already mentioned this fact in several of his posts in the last 2 years. 

Why do you keep saying "one single heel print", when you've already been told, more than once, that Gotvansky has (also seen) found and measured tracks of several other very large male tigers in the Anyuisky National Park?

For the thousandth time now, "The Beast" was not the only giant tiger seen or traced in the Anyuisky National Park! There are also several other huge males living there.

Here's the report mentioning 3 enormous male tigers from the Anyuisky forest: (These are some of the huge tigers Peter was referring to in his post)

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://ria.ru/20210528/tigr-1734533409.html

https://transsibinfo.com/news/2021-05-28...he-1245913

So that's at least 4 giant male tigers that are from the Anyuisky National Park, and none of these gigantic tigers have been captured or weighed.

Here's more on the correlation between heel widths and the size of tigers by another seasoned and highly experienced biologist:

Scientific article by Alexander Batalov - "Secrets of the Amur tiger tracks."

"The larger the male becomes, the larger his heel. The largest male, with a heel size of 13 cm, recorded by us, lived until 2013 in the area named after Lazo, in the basins of Obor, Durmin and Kiya rivers, and on the right bank of the Khor River, in its middle part. Many foresters and hunters saw the size of his tracks and admired them."

http://programmes.putin.kremlin.ru/tiger/news/25452

The Khabarovsk region, like northeast China, clearly produces some massive male tigers, this is simply undeniable. And this is exactly mine and Peter's point all along!!  The weight data published by the STP biologists is limited and inconclusive for reasons I've repeatedly mentioned before.

The average weight of modern Amur tigers is NOT clear-cut, it's more complex than you think and is not conclusive. And you keep failing to understand such a simple clear fact.

Your opinion and argument is also based on SPECULATION, because you DON'T KNOW the average weight of Amur tigers from the Khabarovsk region or northeast China. Posting data and information about tigers from the Primorsky region is not refuting my arguments, period.

And lastly, our opinion and view is not just based on camera-trap pictures and a "single heel width", but based on several huge male tigers that have been seen, traced, and who's tracks have been measured by seasoned, experienced and highly trained biologists!

*This image is copyright of its original author

The largest width of a front "heel" was 12.8 cm, just about the same size as the one mentioned by you. Difference being this male was captured while I believe the male you mentioned was measured from a pug mark. A pugmark will exaggerate the size and thus this male mentioned in all actuality probably had a larger heel size. Reply