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

[peter]

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 some time ago 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, 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 (very interesting), 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.  

What do I see when I quickly go over a post you wrote? The answer is it 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 of 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, 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've many ingredients typical for good articles. 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 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 trust 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 largely a result of the way this section is moderated. The number of views says most readers are way more capable than you think. They don't need repetitions and all the rest of it. They're interested in good info and that's exactly what you deliver. This is the reason you got the opportunity to post in this thread. Use it and accept every article will result in encouraging and negative responses 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 feel like it, add a paragraph in which you reject or confirm your hypothesis. 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 fysical 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 main reason is professionals have more tools to get to an opinion. With 'tools', I'm referring to knowledge and, in particular, experience. They know about the effect of speed, strength and character in a fight. Although they're 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 an advantage. That and the ability to use these in the most effective way. Professional hunters (big cats) are more experienced killers, whereas bears (not referring to polar bears) are not. Meaning they usually 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 her neck, held on and was able to kill her. 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 experienced biters. Big cats, on the other hand, try to find a vulnarable spot and hold on. If the neck of a bear is too big, they move to another spot. When a big cat bites, the result, more often than not, is significant 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 often shake their opponent. In this respect, they compare to canids.  

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, 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. Ambrose thought male lions stood the best chance in any fight.   

Erich 'Klant' Hagenbeck (a 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. The word I most often heard about male brown bears is 'tough', but Ambrose wasn't the only one who thought 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, character and 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. They need years to learn and develop. Also remember Amur tigers are the only tiger subspecies facing serious competition from (brown) bears. Every adult wild Amur tiger graduated in the bear department. This is not the case in other regions.   

Aramilev, in the video I recently posted, explained why Amur tigers have the best chance in a fight with a brown bear. My guess is most readers will struggle with his conclusions, because an average adult male Ussuri brown bear has a significant weight advantage. I asked the professionals I referred to above if they would be able to explain the difference between bears and big cats to the general public. Most of them thought it would be an uphill struggle, because most people are unable to understand the effect of training (experience) and specialisation. It's, on the other hand, easy to explain the difference between a bodybuilder and a non-athlete of similar length, because the difference between them is easy to see. Meaning it's about what you see for most.  

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? The answer is opinions differ. I'm not only referring to the professionals I mentioned above, but also to experienced Russian hunter-biologists. The professionals I referred to concluded it's likely an Amur tiger, as a result of training, will get more opportunities to use his teeth first. This means his opponent, for the reasons Aramilev explained in the video, has a problem.      

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 that robbed tigress 'Rashel' for some months in 2017 suddenly disappeared after the tigress and the father of her cubs met (referring to her 'complaint' and the video showing their meeting). Three years later, a very experienced man who knew the bear, the tigress and the tiger very well 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. 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 him climbing a tree some years ago. There's no question he was quite a beast back then. 

How get to an estimate of 'Ochkarik' in his prime?  

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 I measured and weighed him not long after the 7 tigers had arrived in the facility. Important? Yes. The reason is they had been neglected for a long time (7-8 weeks) after their trainer had been killed during a show. 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 in good shape. One of the other males, 'Amur', weighed at Schiphol Airport a few years later, was 211 kg. That male, although shorter, was more muscular (fore-arm circumference 56 cm). His brother 'Igor' compared. I've seen many captive Amur tigers. The three males I measured seemed a bit below average.     

How does 'Arames', photographed in a period the tigers had been severely neglected, compare to 'Ochkarik' in the two videos that were posted? I'll leave that one to our readers, but I can confirm visitors often underestimated the weight of tigers. In adult lions and bears, it often is the other way round. The reason is both bears and lions are relatively tall. They also have long heads and relatively short, compact, bodies. Add the mane and a bit of character and you found your answer. 

Last but not least is wild Amur tigers not seldom face challenging conditions and they do sem to have an effect. Example. In the days they were still captured, one well-known adult (referring to the male with a preference for bears) ranged between 350-452 pounds (actual weight). He was 350 pounds just after he had consumed a complete roedeer, meaning he would have been closer to 320-330 pounds (145-149 kg) on an empty stomach. A year later, he was 452 pounds (205 kg). Based on what I saw and read, my guess is most adult wild male Amur tigers, depending on the conditions, range between 140-220 kg (up to 270 in northeastern China). Russian tiger biologists know. This, I think, is why they often say an average healthy male is about 180 kg. All this, of course, is without the experienced biologist who said wild males average 220-240 kg. 

Posters often discuss size, but what I saw suggests big cats don't need a lot of mass to impress visitors. I watched tigers interact with other big cats and bears in different facilities not open to the public and heard a lot more from keepers, directors and vets. I can confirm tigers really are very capable and fearsome predators. The professionals I referred to above agreed. Reply