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.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---

  • 12 Vote(s) - 3.83 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

Netherlands peter Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 03-17-2020, 02:41 AM by peter )

(03-16-2020, 11:49 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: I don't know if this is the correct topic and I don't know if these news were already posted in other topic. But these are very sad news for me:

86 tigers rescued from Tiger Temple died in government custody - September 17, 2019


*This image is copyright of its original author


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/anima...cats-died/

Incredible, the tigers ended dead after its "rescue" from the monks. Crying

I agree it's very fishy. 

Better read post 2,439 in this thread. It's about a documentary ('Tiger - Hunting the traffickers') I recently saw on the BBC. In the documentary, those who know about traffickers were interviewed. According to them, there are at least 44 zoos and facilities in Thailand that have tigers. Meaning, tigerwise, something is going on. One of them was a 'wildlife detective'. He was sure some of the 44 zoos and facilities in Thailand were involved in trafficking. In one facility closed for the general public for some reason, the man 'hunting' traffickers, Aldo Kane, found tigers.  

The demand for tiger products is as strong as ever and those interested have money to spend. More than ever before. It's the flipside of China's economic rise. Organisations involved in the conservation of tigers have good information about the illegal trade in tigers in Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and China, but the Chinese lobby often prevents drastic measures. They are, however, needed, as the illegal trade in captive tigers has consequences for wild tigers as well. In the last decade, the number of wild tigers, again, decreased. In Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, tigers are gone. Experts think there are millions of snares in the forests of Southeast Asia. 

According to those who know (see the article below), pollution and the destruction of forests and wildlife have severe consequences for humanity. They think it is directly related to climate change and the outbreaks of diseases like Ebola and the Coronavirus. These diseases claim hundreds of thousands of lives every year and it's getting worse every year. 

The recent outbreak in particular has severe consequences. In order to prevent the virus from spreading, European countries were forced to take measures never seen before. It's the first time people in Europe and the US are directly affected by the outbreak of a disease that is (directly or indirectly) related to the destruction of the natural world. 

There's no doubt the measures taken will have a profound effect on economic growth everywhere. And everywhere includes China as well. As it is about big money this time, drastic changes are needed. My guess is the outbreak of the virus will result in profound measures. This time, China has no option but to act. I'm not only referring to pollution, but to the illegal trade in products of wild animals as well. 

All in all, one could conclude the survival of humanity is directly related to the survival of wild tigers and be close. Very close. The present crisis could be one of the last chances to implement fundamental changes. The system in use just has too many disadvantages to continue in the same way. If we fail again, we no doubt will reach the point of no-return. 

To finish the post, a link to a very recent article in the Hindustan Times was added. It was first posted PC (many thanks) in the new thread on the relation between the destruction of the natural world and the outbreak of diseases. Very interesting read with a very clear message:  

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/scientists-link-outbreaks-such-as-covid-19-to-biodiversity-loss/story-BJmeOJwYYRQkbK5r7cCwXP.html?fbclid=IwAR1WBCye65qb4dwuVF_8-iH4lVm35FDwYu1PCTu05K-u_ShMPRAdVQ3l0RI
3 users Like peter's post
Reply

Greatearth Offline
Regular Member
***
( This post was last modified: 03-17-2020, 06:40 PM by peter )

This is something what I found out from Chinese tigers.

I think South China tigers are normally referring to South China (Huánan, 华南). The South China tiger is calling 华南虎 (Huánanho) in Mandarin (not sure of Cantonese). So from what it sounds, I think South China tiger is tiger population or subspecies lived areas south of Yangtze River. There are many different tribes, people, langauge, and cultures in Southeast Asia even in one country. Just like tigers, clouded leopards, leopards, rhinos, and elephants, many of those people in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and others lived together with Chinese in that area before 2,000 years ago. Vietnam is notable nation that was forced out to south by Chinese. That's why Vietnam is the only country of the southeast Asia that has Chinese culture. Their languages are also sounds similar if you listen Cantonese and Vietnamese.

I guess that is why South China tiger is known as the second smallest tiger in mainland Asia, but there are descent male South China tigers that I know are more than 160 kg, and close to 3 m long. They also seemed different by each provinces. There is no doubt Chinese tigers were different in appearance and size just like Bengal tigers look different by different locations. I think today's South China tiger is the right tiger subspecies who lost their "giant" gene. Again, there are limited information, pictures, and other information of the South China tiger. I also don't know sizes of South China tiger in Chinese zoos. I can't be 100% sure about this.

I don't know about tigers lived north of the Yangtze river and around Huang he river. I don't really know how many Chinese tigers (I am only referring South China tiger) lived in China in the 1800s to early 1900s. I heard somewhere that India still had 40000 tigers after India gain its independence. I don't know how did China lost their tigers so easily even though mainiland China experienced more of war. I personally believe that China was actually "Land of Tigers," not India if time setting was before 1800s. They had the highest tiger subpseices in their country. What a pity that Chinese destroyed all of their nature treasures, not just tigers.

EDIT - One sentence was removed, whereas another was shortened. Another post was deleted. The reasons: forum rules were broken (referring to generalisations and insult). Think before you post, greatearth (Peter).
3 users Like Greatearth's post
Reply

Greatearth Offline
Regular Member
***

(03-12-2020, 06:33 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote:
(03-12-2020, 06:21 PM)sanjay Wrote:
(03-12-2020, 06:21 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: I'd like to ask about the issue of money and the poachers that kill wild animals like tigers for profits. Considering that the coronavirus has forced Chinese authorities to ban the consumption and trade of wild animals, and close down those cruel and unhygienic markets where wild and domestic animals alike were being traded and slaughtered (refer to what was being discussed in this thread for instance), besides increasing the risk of a global recession (partly by hitting the demand for oil, and leading to the current dispute between 2 major oil producers, which in itself has serious implications for the global economy), shouldn't poachers or their customers, who consume illegal animal products like tiger parts, themselves be in trouble now?

China is not only consumer of these things, Many south east country also have demands. Pandemic like coronavirus is temporary halt. Let it settle and it will emerge again. Sometime I think John Varty is doing better.

The pandemic may be temporary, but it has far-ranging consequences. Not only has tourism towards Southeast Asia, especially by Chinese tourists, taken a hit, but now there are serious worries for the global economy, namely the oil dispute, and an increased risk of recession, which at least theoretically means that customers of poachers or the wildlife trade will be in financial trouble, and therefore the poachers or wildlife traders themselves: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/m...o-reassurehttps://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new...583864.cms
Vietnam is worse as China. The main trouble of the Indochinese tiger and Malayan tiger are that disgusting Vietnamese poachers are illegally entering other Indochinese countries to poach tigers. I heard about they are using river to cross border. The most people don't even know what vietnam is doing because China is receiving every blame just like Asia is receiving all of blame even though Central/South America are worse as Asia. However, the main problems in Southeast Asia is poverty and people are setting snares for food/money.
2 users Like Greatearth's post
Reply

Netherlands peter Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 03-17-2020, 08:25 AM by peter )

(03-17-2020, 05:31 AM)Greatearth Wrote: This is something what I found out from Chinese tigers.

I think South China tigers are normally referring to South China (Huánan, 华南). The South China tiger is calling 华南虎 (Huánanho) in Mandarin (not sure of Cantonese). So from what it sounds, I think South China tiger is tiger population or subspecies lived areas south of Yangtze River. There are many different tribes, people, langauge, and cultures in Southeast Asia even in one country. Just like tigers, clouded leopards, leopards, rhinos, and elephants, many of those people in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and others lived together with Chinese in that area before 2,000 years ago. Vietnam is notable nation that was forced out to south by Chinese. That's why Vietnam is the only country of the southeast Asia that has Chinese culture. That's why they are well known infamous primitive and uncivilized people that is eating all of endangered animals from poaching along with Chinese. Their languages are also sounds similar if you listen Cantonese and Vietnamese.

I guess that is why South China tiger is known as the second smallest tiger in mainland Asia, but there are descent male South China tigers that I know are more than 160 kg, and close to 3 m long. They also seemed different by each provinces. There is no doubt Chinese tigers were different in appearance and size just like Bengal tigers look different by different locations. I think today's South China tiger is the right tiger subspecies who lost their "giant" gene. Again, there are limited information, pictures, and other information of the South China tiger. I also don't know sizes of South China tiger in Chinese zoos. I can't be 100% sure about this.

I don't know about tigers lived north of the Yangtze river and around Huang he river. I don't really know how many Chinese tigers (I am only referring South China tiger) lived in China in the 1800s to early 1900s. I heard somewhere that India still had 40000 tigers after India gain its independence. I don't know how did China lost their tigers so easily even though mainiland China experienced more of war and human activites along with Chinese's and Vietnamese's eating behaviors. I personally believe that China was actually "Land of Tigers," not India if time setting was before 1800s. They had the highest tiger subpseices in their country. What a pity that Chinese destroyed all of their nature treasures, not just tigers.

I did two series on tigers in China; one on tigers in the southeastern part and one on tigers in central parts of China. Tigers in southeast China are gone, but a man who visited the region twice about a decade ago was convinced there were 5-10 tigers in central parts of China in 2011. 

Before 1950 or thereabout, China still had thousands of tigers. Most of them were killed during the Great Leap Forward (between 1950-1970 roughly). They were considered as vermin by the authorities. 

The information I have strongly suggests tigers in central parts of China were different from tigers in the southeastern part of China. In general, they could have been a bit larger and more robust. Some districts were known for the size of their tigers. 

Here's a table I found on the former Animal Versus Animal forum. Most unfortunately, I wasn't able to find the source.  

The table has measurements of 14 tigers of 3 subspecies: P.t. amoyensis (n=3), P.t. corbetti (n=1) and P.t. altaica (n=9). The skull and body measurements strongly suggest no. 4, 5, 9, 10, 12 and 13 were immature. My guess is no. 1, 7, 8 and 14 were wild. I'm not sure about the status of the 9 Amur tigers.   

Tiger 1 was shot in the northern part of central China in the late sixties of the previous century. He was the longest and heaviest of all and has the widest skull (262,5 mm.), but the skull of tiger 6 is slightly longer: 


*This image is copyright of its original author


Here's a photograph of a tigress from China in the Tierpark Berlin (1972):


*This image is copyright of its original author
5 users Like peter's post
Reply

BorneanTiger Offline
Contributor
*****

(03-16-2020, 05:45 PM)peter Wrote: BORNEAN TIGER AND PC

The debate on the, possible, connection between the trade in wild animals and diseases is interesting. My proposal is to start a new thread and continue over there. This thread is about wild tigers. 

RISHI

Thanks for moving a copy of the post on the maximum size of animals hunted by tigers to this thread. Can you move the posts of Bornean Tiger and PC on the virus and the trade in wild animals to the new thread? It will be created today.

Has the new thread been made yet?
Reply

BorneanTiger Offline
Contributor
*****
( This post was last modified: 03-17-2020, 05:29 PM by Rishi )

@Greatearth Watch your language. Though it's true that poaching, or the consumption of body parts of animals like tigers, is a problem in Asia, there's also leaders in the West whose actions show that they're is more concerned about making money than the protecting the environment (such as when American govt. overhauled the Endangered Species Act of 1973 last year, to allow economic factors to be considered before protecting threatened species).
4 users Like BorneanTiger's post
Reply

Netherlands peter Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 03-17-2020, 05:15 PM by peter )

(03-17-2020, 11:21 AM)BorneanTiger Wrote:
(03-16-2020, 05:45 PM)peter Wrote: BORNEAN TIGER AND PC

The debate on the, possible, connection between the trade in wild animals and diseases is interesting. My proposal is to start a new thread and continue over there. This thread is about wild tigers. 

RISHI

Thanks for moving a copy of the post on the maximum size of animals hunted by tigers to this thread. Can you move the posts of Bornean Tiger and PC on the virus and the trade in wild animals to the new thread? It will be created today.

Has the new thread been made yet?

Yes. It's in 'Miscellaneous'.
Reply

Netherlands peter Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 03-17-2020, 06:05 PM by peter )

(03-17-2020, 01:23 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: @Greatearth Watch your language. Though it's true that poaching, or the consumption of body parts of animals like tigers, is a problem in Asia, there's also a man in the West whose actions show that he is more concerned about making money than the protecting the environment (such as when he overhauled the Endangered Species Act of 1973 last year, to allow economic factors to be considered before protecting threatened species), and has made a mockery of his country in front of the World by making statements like these (note his choice of words, which are similar to yours): https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...2093169664https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/11/polit...index.html

This forum is about the plight of those making their home in the natural world. They're struggling just about everywhere. The reason is destruction caused by humans. Although conservation has been on the political agenda for some time, the consequences of destruction (referring to climate change and the outbreak of infectuous diseases) have been underestimated by many. 

The outbreak of the coronavirus has resulted in a world-wide crisis. There's no doubt it will have a serious effect on economic growth. In order to prevent more calamities, choices will have to be made. One of the issues that has to be addressed as soon as possible is the illegal trade in wild animals. This time, those opposing measures have no option but to support far-reaching decisions.    

Our (referring to Wildfact) policy regarding the problems described above (and in post 2,447) is to refrain from generalisations and politics. One reason is a lack of specific and accurate information. Another is we want to prevent a bad climate. Wildfact has members from all over the globe and our guess is all of them oppose the destruction of the natural world. If there is a debate, the aim is to focus on issues and facts, not something else (like nationality).   

In other words: we agree with BorneanTiger. No more accusations and generalisations, that is. 

Those interested in a debate about the causes and consequences of destruction can post in the thread that was created yesterday. This thread is about wild tigers.
2 users Like peter's post
Reply

India Rishi Offline
Moderator
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 03-17-2020, 05:30 PM by Rishi )

(03-16-2020, 05:45 PM)peter Wrote: Can you move the posts of Bornean Tiger and PC on the virus and the trade in wild animals to the new thread? It will be created today.

I'll need all the exact post numbers. And do I copy or move said posts?

(03-17-2020, 01:23 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: @Greatearth Watch your language. Though it's true that poaching, or the consumption of body parts of animals like tigers, is a problem in Asia, there's also a man in the West whose actions show that he is more concerned about making money than the protecting the environment and has made a mockery of his country in front of the World by making statements like these (note his choice of words, which are similar to yours): https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...2093169664https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/11/polit...index.html

Edited, yours too.
In future just use the report button. All ...isms & politics will be deleted.
2 users Like Rishi's post
Reply

BorneanTiger Offline
Contributor
*****

(10-15-2019, 10:48 AM)BorneanTiger Wrote:
(08-27-2019, 04:29 PM)peter Wrote: WHY EUROPEAN ZOOS HAD NO REPRESENTATIVES OF CHINESE AND CASPIAN TIGERS

a - Colonization

In order to answer the question above, we need to start at the other end. Indonesian, Indian, Indochinese and Russian tigers were often seen in European zoos because they were caught and shipped to Europe and the Americas by professionals. In order to find, capture, sell and ship wild tigers, you first need to be there. You also need knowledge, organisation and motivation (money).

Russia and China were never occupied by European countries, but India, Indochina and Indonesia were. People in western Europe knew about tigers in these countries because they were hunted and, later, caught and shipped to Europe. European menageries and zoos were prepared to pay for them. Amur tigers were also seen because the Russians captured and sold young tigers.

This photograph was taken by Y. Saburo, a Japanese scientist. It shows a Russian trapper, his family and three tiger cubs:


*This image is copyright of its original author


Another one (with Saburo):


*This image is copyright of its original author


This photograph is from Sumatra. It shows two tigers shortly after they had been captured:


*This image is copyright of its original author


b - Conservation

Although many wild regions in southeastern Asia were cultivated, some regions in India in particular were protected to a degree. This is why tigers were able to survive for so long in most of southeastern Asia. 

Amur tigers survived because the region in which they lived was transferred from China to Russia in the second half of the 20th century. Although it was colonized to a degree, cultivation was far from easy. This is why hunting always was important in the Russian Far East. The Chinese in particular were involved and the effect, in spite of the efforts of the new rulers to fight destruction, was devastating. At the turn of the century, Arseniev and Dersu (see 'Dersu the Trapper') thought everything would be gone in one or two decades.

Here's Dersu Uzala. The photograph was taken by Arseniev:


*This image is copyright of its original author


The Second World War might have saved Amur tigers. The border was closed, most of the Chinese were expelled and people like Kaplanov got a chance. Not long after the war, measures were taken to protect tigers.

c - Destruction 

In order to cultivate the Caspian region, it was decided to remove tigers. Although reports about tigers still come in every now and then, they were exterminated in the forties, fifties and sixties of the previous century. Here's a captive Caspian tigress (Ognev, 1935):


*This image is copyright of its original author

In that period (just after World War Two), the Chinese also decided against tigers. The last tigers were shot in the mid-sixties. Although some survived in zoos and a few remote regions (see the series on Chinese tigers in this thread), Panthera tigris amoyensis was more or less hunted to extinction in less than two decades. This tiger was killed in 1956:


*This image is copyright of its original author


Although wild tigers were disappearing everywhere, the demand for tiger products didn't collapse. Far from it. As a result of the downfall of the tiger, prices skyrocketed. Poaching resulted in a crisis in both Russia and southeast Asia. The Russians were able to keep a few hundred Amur tigers alive, but in southeastern Asia tigers were quickly exterminated. They survived in some parts of Thailand and Malaysia, but that's about it. 

Bali tigers were exterminated in the forties and fifties of the last century. Javan tigers quickly followed. Sumatra still has tigers, but they lost most of their home (the forest) and are next on the list.   

d - Answers

Although wild animals were decimated in the period European countries occupied most of southeast Asia, tigers, albeit it only just, survived until the early fifties of the last century. In that period, wild tigers were captured and shipped to menageries and zoos in Europe and the Americas by professionals. This regarding Panthera tigris tigris, P.t. corbetti, P.t., P.t. balica, P.t. sondaica and P.t. sumatrae. 

P.t. virgata and P.t. amoyensis were hunted to extinction in the fifties and sixties of the previous century. The campaign was a result of the decision to cultivate the Caspian region and most of central and western China. Tigers in Indonesia disappeared for the same reason in the same period.

Amur tigers survived because the Russians acquired the region in which they lived in the second half of the 19th century (a). Furthermore, the new rulers opposed the destruction caused by settlers (b). Just before the Second World War, when tigers were close to the edge, the Chinese, heavily involved in hunting, were sent to China ©. After the war, as a result of Kaplanov's warning, measures were taken to protect tigers (d).  

After tigers in the Caspian region and in central parts of China had been exterminated, the demand for tiger products resulted in pressure on tigers in Russia and southeast Asia. The Russians, to a degree, were able to protect their tigers, but tigers were hunted to extinction in most of southeast Asia.

As far as I know, European zoos, apart from a few exceptions, never had Caspian and Chinese tigers. There was no information on the situation in the Caspian region and central parts of China in the fifties and sixties of the last century. The lack of information resulted in a quick end for P.t. virgata and P.t. amoyensis..   

Today, the situation in the department of awareness is different. Zoos know captive tigers can contribute to more (genetic) diversity. They also know tigers can be rewilded. More than before, zoos focus on preserving a specific (sub)species. 

This photograph from Tierpark Berlin has two Indochinese tigers: 


*This image is copyright of its original author


Although tigers still are close to the edge, the situation has improved in some parts of Asia. In the long run, however, tigers only seem to stand a chance in Russia, the Western Ghats and the Terai Arc.

Peter, I discovered something. Do you know Eram Zoo in Tehran, where Iranian authorities are housing a couple of Indian lions that were brought from Europe earlier this year, in a bid to repopulate their country with Asiatic lions, and from where in 2010 Iran gifted Russia with Persian leopards to repopulate the North Caucasus, in return for Amur tigers to replace their Caspian relatives? The zoo was founded in the 19th century by the Qajari Shah Naser Ad-Din, who had a collection of 3 Caspian tigers from Mazandaran, 4 male and female Persian lions from the Zagros Mountains near Shiraz, 3 Persian leopards and a cheetah from Jajrud, and 5 bears (I assume Syrian brown bears) from Damavand, judging by this Farsi website of Animal Rights Watch. And I'd like to mention that Naser Ad-Din was the predecessor of Mozaffar Ad-Din, during whose reign Britain's King Edward VII brought Shirea the Persian lioness to Dublin in 1902.

@Amnon242 has found a picture and information regarding a tiger in Prague Zoo called 'Assuri', which was said to be of Caspian origin, died in 2007, and had 11 cubs, but we have to find the source of that information: https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-the-cas...#pid110862
Reply

United States BloodyClaws Offline
New Member
*

Disputes of Taiga owners

Russian
Вопрос о том, кто сильнее: тигр или медведь, по праву, считается «детским». Впрочем, было бы удивительно, если бы вместо этого дети сразу начинали интересоваться экологией питания, размером индивидуальной территории самцов, особенностями репродуктивного поведения и прочими, весьма важными для профессиональных биологов, вопросами.

Однако интерес к природе, как правило, возникает с попыток найти ответы на «детские» вопросы. Справедливости ради стоит заметить, что вопросы взаимоотношений уссурийского тигра и бурого медведя все же привлекали внимание профессионалов. Тем не менее, достоверной информации о разрешении конфликтных ситуаций между двумя «хозяевами» тайги не так уж много. С.П. Кучеренко отмечает, что средний тигр всегда сильнее среднего медведя. Из 17, достоверно известных ему, случаев драк тигра с бурым медведем на Сихотэ-Алине в 1965-1976 гг. в 8 случаях звери разошлись, в 6 победил тигр, в 3 победил медведь. Помимо этого было зафиксировано 9 случаев нападения тигра на медведей в берлогах (тигр задавил и съел 7 взрослых зверей и 9 медвежат). Но внимательный анализ взаимоотношений этих хищников, приводит автора к выводу, что бурый медведь более агрессивен (особенно в голодное время). Тигр старается нападать на некрупных медведей. Тигрица, защищая тигрят, дерется с любым медведем и чаще гибнет [1]. По материалам зоолога В.Е. Костоглода, из 28 изученных им случаев драк этих двух хищников приоритет в нападении был на стороне бурого медведя. В.Е. Костоглодом было зафиксировано 7 нападений бурых медведей на тигров и 6 нападений тигров на медведей. Из уже упоминавшихся 28 схваток между тигром и медведем в 11 случаях победил тигр, в 9 случаях победил медведь, в 8 случаях звери разошлись. Среди 9 погибших тигров взрослых особей было 5, остальные – тигрята [2]. Данные В.Е. Костоглода о большей инициативе медведей в силовом разрешении конфликтов с тигром, позже были подтверждены тем же С.П. Кучеренко, который указывал, что из 44 достоверно зафиксированных случаев драк инициатива в нападении принадлежала медведю в 13, тигру – в девяти (в 22 случаях зачинщика определить не удалось). В ходе этих драк погибло 14 медведей и 8 тигров (в 22 случаях животные разошлись, получив достаточно тяжелые раны) [3]. В. Сысоев сообщает о 4-х битвах тигра с медведем (две закончились в пользу медведя, в одной победил тигр и еще в одной звери разошлись). Охотовед Г. Горохов указывал, что из 10 столкновений взрослых тигров с бурым медведем в 5 случаях хищники разошлись, в 3 победил тигр, в 2 медведь [5]. В.С. Храмцов в работе «О взаимоотношениях медведей и тигров в отрогах Заповедного хребта» писал, что за 1989-1990 гг. в Лазовском заповеднике установлено 8 случаев гибели белогрудых медведей от тигров и зафиксирован лишь один случай гибели бурого медведя от «хозяина джунглей». Фактов гибели тигров от медведей не отмечено [6]. А.Г. Юдаков и И.Г. Николаев за три сезона зимних стационарных наблюдений лишь дважды столкнулись с фактами поедания тиграми медведей. И то, речь шла о белогрудых медведях [7]. В то же время, по данным К.Н. Ткаченко, в исследуемых им экскрементах тигра на долю бурого медведя приходилось 18,5 %, тогда как на долю белогрудого медведя лишь 14,8 %. А вообще, в рационе тигра бурый медведь прочно удерживал почетное третье место, пропустив вперед лишь кабана (37 %) и изюбра (29,6%) [8]. Биолог Н.Н. Руковский для выяснения взаимоотношений между тигром и медведем опросил 42 охотника-сторожила Приморского края. Из них 7 человек ответили, что тигр специально охотится за медведем; 6 человек заявили, что медведь ходит по следам тигра, собирая остатки пищи; 14 – рассказали о драках тигра с медведем без трагического исхода; двое припомнили случаи, когда медведь задушил тигра; 11 утверждали, что тигр убил медведя. Сам Н. Руковский, также как и большинство других авторов, считает, что драки между хищниками возникают чаще всего в голодные (для медведя) годы, когда шатуны сталкиваются с тиграми возле убитых животных. И лишь в редких случаях жертвой может стать тигр (чаще всего молодой). Тигр же предпочитает охотиться не на бурых, а на гималайских медведей. Сам Н. Руковский по следам однажды определил, что бурый медведь убил тигра. Медведь был очень большой (это было видно по следам), а тигр молодой – около 4-х лет (это было видно по черепу). Само поле битвы (сломанные стволы пихт с руку толщиной, разбросанные клочья шерсти, кровь) свидетельствовало о длительной и жестокой борьбе [14].
Какие же выводы можно сделать из этой информации? Во-первых, очевидно, что ни один из хищников не имеет полного превосходства над другим, хотя тигр все же чаще выходит победителем из схваток. Во-вторых, медведь может быть и более агрессивным, чем тигр, но тигр явно не является для медведя объектом охоты (по-видимому, все же главное, что толкает медведя на битву с тигром это голод и желание отбить у тигра его добычу). Тогда как сам медведь, рассматривается тигром как объект охоты (в некоторых случаях косолапый может занимать даже почетное место в тигрином рационе). В-третьих, результатом поединков часто оказывается «ничья», т.е. ситуация, когда звери просто расходятся, либо один из противников спасается бегством, почувствовав бесперспективность дальнейшей борьбы. Но от чего же зависит исход сражения? Понятно, что ни о каком факторном анализе тут речи быть не может. Максимум, что возможно это лишь принять во внимание ряд возможных обстоятельств и учитывать их при изучении взаимоотношений этих двух хищников. 1) Большое значение имеет размер, пол, возраст и состояние здоровья животных. У 120-130 кг тигрицы [9] мало шансов выстоять в бою против медведя весом 350-400 кг. Точно также, и медведица вряд ли сможет противостоять взрослому тигру. Защищая детенышей, мать будет драться до конца, фактически лишая себя выбора такого варианта, как отступление. Говоря о возрасте необходимо учитывать, что молодые животные (пусть даже и взрослые) могут не иметь опыта борьбы с другим хищником, не вполне точно могут оценить степень опасности и физическое состояние противника. Если же речь идет о размерах, то стоит заметить, что уссурийский подвид бурого медведя один из самых крупных в мире (наряду с медведями Камчатки, Аляски и островов Кадьяк), и по размерам бурый медведь, конечно же, превосходит тигра. Нормальный вес взрослого самца уссурийского тигра 200-220 кг. Самки почти на 40 % легче самцов [1]. Для самцов же бурых медведей Приморья вес в три центнера это скорее норма, чем исключение. Наиболее крупные животные могут весить и до 500 кг [10]. Но тут необходимо сделать оговорку: речь идет о медведях, набравших вес перед спячкой в урожайный год. В отличие от тигров, вес медведей испытывает существенные сезонные колебания. Если по какой-либо причине медведь не залег в спячку, то зима для него превращается в очень тяжелое испытание. Испытание голодом. Медведь-шатун – это, как правило, зверь, страдающий от недостатка пищи, животное, которое стремительно теряет запасы жира. Данное утверждение справедливо даже в том случае, если медведь ведет жизнь «захребетника» тигров, и питается остатками их добычи. Ибо для крупного зверя этих остатков явно недостаточно, а низкие температуры еще больше увеличивают энергетические затраты. Именно голод делает медведя столь агрессивным и смелым, увеличивая тем самым его шансы на победу. Но тот же самый голод приводит к тому, что медведь-шатун способен утратить существенное превосходство в массе над своим соперником и лишается столь необходимо в драке защитного слоя жира. Это обстоятельство нам кажется особенно важным как раз потому, что встреча тигра с 500 кг медведем очень маловероятна. Тигр вряд ли решится испытывать судьбу, нападая на такого гиганта. Вряд ли это станет делать и медведь, т.к. сам вес животного указывает на то, что он не испытывает недостатка в пище, и следовательно, ему нет нужды рисковать своей шкурой. 2) Важно учитывать ситуацию при которой произошла схватка. Имеет ли место попытка отнять законную добычу у хозяина, или же речь идет о нападении с целью убийства самого хищника, степень голода и территорию, на которой произошла схватка (исследования этологов, показывают, что эти факторы имеют очень большое значение в поединках животных). У тигра, для которого медведь периодически выступает в качестве объекта охоты, заставшего своего соперника врасплох, больше шансов на победу. Равно как и у тигра, напавшего на медведя в берлоге, т.к. медведь в этом случае лишен необходимой подвижности и маневренности. 3) Большое значение имеет и время поединка. Тигр обладает меньшей выносливостью и быстрее устает. Для медведя затягивание схватки означает увеличение шансов на победу.
В заключение, несколько слов о телесериале «Звериные баталии», где якобы с научных позиций победа окончательно и бесповоротно присуждалась медведю. Данный проект наглядно демонстрирует, как телевидение способно угробить любую хорошую идею, и как с помощью «научных методов» можно пудрить мозги. Начнем с того, что авторы «Звериных баталий» не удосужились ознакомиться с литературой по данному вопросу. А ведь из научной литературы следует, что тигр не только не уступает медведю, но даже чаще выходит победителем. Далее, авторы проекта решили рассчитать силу укуса хищников. У них получилось, что сила укуса медведя больше, чем у тигра. Тогда как в действительности, все должно быть наоборот. Сила укуса зависит от ширины в клыках, от ширины в скулах и от массы щечно-височной мускулатуры. С. Кучеренко ширину в скулах для самцов бурого медведя Приморья указывает в интервале 182-270 мм (среднее значение по 22 экземплярам - 228 мм) [10]. Ф.Б. Чернявский и М.А. Кречмар среднюю ширину в скулах у данного подвида определяют в 223,5 мм (среднее значение по 17 экземплярам обоего пола), а размах вариации от 115,5 до 269 мм. Ширина в клыках данными исследователями определяется в 82,7 мм (от 73 до 93,2 мм) [11]. У уссурийского тигра ширина в клыках составляет 107,4 мм (среднее значение по 6 экземплярам взрослых самцов; размах вариации от 98,9 до 113 мм), а ширина в скулах 252, 2 мм (среднее значение по 6 экземплярам; размах вариации от 232,5 до 268 мм) [12]. Как видим, ширина в клыках у тигра больше, чем у медведя, а ширина в скулах у наиболее крупных животных почти совпадает. Что касается щечно-височной мускулатуры, то Н.К. Верещагин в своих работах, посвященных краниологическим характеристикам кошек и медведей, специально подчеркивает, что масса щечной и височной мускулатуры у тигра больше, чем у медведя [13]. А в специальных работах, посвященных определению силы укуса, отмечается, что соответствующий коэффициент у тигра много выше, чем у медведя (78 у бурого медведя и 127 у тигра) [15]. Так что, даже с поправкой на разницу в размерах в пользу медведя, никак нельзя сделать вывод о большей силе укуса этого хищника в сравнении с тигром. Скорее, можно предположить обратное. А уж про телевизионные эксперименты с катапультой и говорить не стоит. Спрашивается, неужели так трудно было посмотреть, как в действительности крупные кошки кусают своих жертв? Тигр сначала преследует жертву, затем валит ее, пытается обездвижить и уж потом только наносит укус. Тут нет никакой необходимости умножать массу на скорость и заниматься какими-то квазинаучными расчетами. С точки зрения биомеханики, это должно было выглядеть сущим бредом. Авторов проекта «Звериные баталии», видимо, нисколько не смущал тот факт, что при укусе хоть тигра, хоть медведя речь идет о силе, действующей в вертикальной плоскости, тогда как они разгоняли свои металлические черепа в горизонтальной плоскости. При анализе силы удара лапой и построении соответствующих механических моделей авторы проекта учитывали только форму когтей, скорость нанесения удара и массу животных. В принципе, тут все правильно, за исключением одного – авторы не учли, что когти кошек втяжные и сама биомеханика тут несколько иная, чем у медведя. Воссоздать же эту кошачью лапу так и не удалось. Получился, по сути, тот же медведь, но лишь с иной формой когтей. К тому же, совершенно неучтенной оказалась «избыточность» вооружения обоих хищников. Речь идет о том, что сила удара лапой как тигра (способного согнуть ствол ружья, сломать позвоночник оленю или, по словам дрессировщика Вальтера Запашного пробить сковородку), так и медведя, в принципе такова, что один сильный и точный (в область черепа) удар может решить исход поединка. Нанести его не так-то просто, поскольку животные активно защищаются. Но в любом случае, это обстоятельство до некоторой степени уравнивает шансы обоих хищников и заставляет больше внимания обратить на ловкость, быстроту реакции, подвижность животного. А здесь у тигра будет преимущество, которое по мере затягивания схватки может быстро растаять.
Таким образом, вопрос кто сильнее: тигр или медведь не такой уж простой и «детский» хотя бы потому, что ответ на него требует знаний в области экологии питания, этологии, биомеханики, морфометрии. Как и в случае с боксерами-профессионалами в абсолютной весовой категории, чьи силы примерно равны, предсказать заранее исход схватки между тигром и уссурийским бурым медведем невозможно.

Russian
question of who is stronger: a tiger or a bear, is rightly considered to be “childish”. However, it would be surprising if instead the children immediately began to be interested in the ecology of nutrition, the size of the individual territory of males, the features of reproductive behavior and other issues that are very important for professional biologists.



However, interest in nature, as a rule, arises from attempts to find answers to "children's" questions. In fairness, it is worth noting that the relationship between the Ussuri tiger and the brown bear still attracted the attention of professionals. Nevertheless, there is not so much reliable information on resolving conflict situations between the two “owners” of the taiga. S.P. Kucherenko notes that the average tiger is always stronger than the average bear. Of the 17, reliably known to him, cases of tiger fights with a brown bear in Sikhote Alin in 1965-1976. in 8 cases the animals dispersed, in 6 the tiger defeated, in 3 the bear defeated. In addition, 9 cases of tiger attacks on bears in dens were recorded (the tiger crushed and ate 7 adult animals and 9 cubs). But a careful analysis of the relationships of these predators leads the author to conclude that the brown bear is more aggressive (especially in hunger). The tiger tries to attack medium-sized bears. A tigress protecting tiger cubs fights with any bear and dies more often [1]. According to the materials of the zoologist V.E. Kostogloda, from 28 cases of fights of these two predators studied by him, priority in attack was on the side of a brown bear. V.E. Bone clodger recorded 7 attacks of brown bears on tigers and 6 attacks of tigers on bears. Of the 28 fights already mentioned between the tiger and the bear, the tiger won in 11 cases, the bear defeated in 9 cases, and the animals dispersed in 8 cases. Among 9 dead tigers, there were 5 adults, the rest were cubs [2]. The data of V.E. Kostogloda about the greater initiative of the bears in the power resolution of conflicts with the tiger, were later confirmed by the same S.P. Kucherenko, who pointed out that out of 44 authentically recorded cases of fights, the initiative in the attack belonged to the bear in 13, the tiger - in nine (in 22 cases the instigator could not be determined). In the course of these fights, 14 bears and 8 tigers died (in 22 cases, the animals dispersed, having received quite severe wounds) [3]. V. Sysoev reports about 4 tiger battles with a bear (two ended in favor of the bear, the tiger defeated in one and dispersed in another animal). The hunter G. Gorokhov pointed out that out of 10 collisions of adult tigers with a brown bear, in 5 cases the predators dispersed, in 3 the tiger defeated, in 2 the bear [5]. V.S. Khramtsov in the work "On the relationship of bears and tigers in the spurs of the Reserve Range" wrote that for 1989-1990. in the Lazovsky Reserve, 8 cases of death of white-breasted bears from tigers were found and only one case of death of a brown bear from the “master of the jungle” was recorded. There were no facts of the death of tigers from bears [6]. A.G. Yudakov and I.G. Nikolaev for three seasons of winter stationary observations only twice encountered the facts of eating tigers of bears. And then, it was about white-breasted bears [7]. At the same time, according to K.N. Tkachenko, the brown bear accounted for 18.5% of the tiger feces he studied, while the white-breasted bear accounted for only 14.8%. In general, in the diet of the tiger, the brown bear firmly held an honorable third place, letting go only wild boar (37%) and red deer (29.6%) [8]. Biologist N.N. Rukovsky asked 42 hunter-guards of the Primorsky Territory to clarify the relationship between a tiger and a bear. Of these, 7 people replied that the tiger specifically hunts for the bear; 6 people said that the bear walks in the footsteps of the tiger, collecting leftover food; 14 - talked about tiger fights with a bear without a tragic outcome; two recalled cases when a bear strangled a tiger; 11 claimed that the tiger killed the bear. N. Rukovsky himself, as well as most other authors, believes that fights between predators occur most often in the hungry (for a bear) years, when the rods collide with tigers near the killed animals. And only in rare cases can a tiger (most often a young one) become a victim. The tiger prefers to hunt not for brown, but for Himalayan bears. N. Rukovsky himself in the wake once determined that a brown bear killed a tiger. The bear was very large (it was visible in the tracks), and the young tiger was about 4 years old (it was visible in the skull). The battlefield itself (broken fir trunks with a thick arm, scattered shreds of wool, blood) testified to a long and fierce struggle [14]. two recalled cases when a bear strangled a tiger; 11 claimed that the tiger killed the bear. N. Rukovsky himself, as well as most other authors, believes that fights between predators occur most often in the hungry (for a bear) years, when the rods collide with tigers near the killed animals. And only in rare cases can a tiger (most often a young one) become a victim. The tiger prefers to hunt not for brown, but for Himalayan bears. N. Rukovsky himself in the wake once determined that a brown bear killed a tiger. The bear was very large (it was visible in the tracks), and the young tiger was about 4 years old (it was visible in the skull). The battlefield itself (broken fir trunks with a thick arm, scattered shreds of wool, blood) testified to a long and fierce struggle [14]. two recalled cases when a bear strangled a tiger; 11 claimed that the tiger killed the bear. N. Rukovsky himself, as well as most other authors, believes that fights between predators occur most often in the hungry (for a bear) years, when the rods collide with tigers near the killed animals. And only in rare cases can a tiger (most often a young one) become a victim. The tiger prefers to hunt not for brown, but for Himalayan bears. N. Rukovsky himself in the wake once determined that a brown bear killed a tiger. The bear was very large (it was visible in the tracks), and the young tiger was about 4 years old (it was visible in the skull). The battlefield itself (broken fir trunks with a thick arm, scattered shreds of wool, blood) testified to a long and fierce struggle [14]. N. Rukovsky himself, as well as most other authors, believes that fights between predators occur most often in the hungry (for a bear) years, when the rods collide with tigers near the killed animals. And only in rare cases can a tiger (most often a young one) become a victim. The tiger prefers to hunt not for brown, but for Himalayan bears. N. Rukovsky himself in the wake once determined that a brown bear killed a tiger. The bear was very large (it was visible in the tracks), and the young tiger was about 4 years old (it was visible in the skull). The battlefield itself (broken fir trunks with a thick arm, scattered shreds of wool, blood) testified to a long and fierce struggle [14]. N. Rukovsky himself, as well as most other authors, believes that fights between predators occur most often in the hungry (for a bear) years, when the rods collide with tigers near the killed animals. And only in rare cases can a tiger (most often a young one) become a victim. The tiger prefers to hunt not for brown, but for Himalayan bears. N. Rukovsky himself in the wake once determined that a brown bear killed a tiger. The bear was very large (it was visible in the tracks), and the young tiger was about 4 years old (it was visible in the skull). The battlefield itself (broken fir trunks with a thick arm, scattered shreds of wool, blood) testified to a long and fierce struggle [14]. when connecting rods collide with tigers near dead animals. And only in rare cases can a tiger (most often a young one) become a victim. The tiger prefers to hunt not for brown, but for Himalayan bears. N. Rukovsky himself in the wake once determined that a brown bear killed a tiger. The bear was very large (it was visible in the tracks), and the young tiger was about 4 years old (it was visible in the skull). The battlefield itself (broken fir trunks with a thick arm, scattered shreds of wool, blood) testified to a long and fierce struggle [14]. when connecting rods collide with tigers near dead animals. And only in rare cases can a tiger (most often a young one) become a victim. The tiger prefers to hunt not for brown, but for Himalayan bears. N. Rukovsky himself in the wake once determined that a brown bear killed a tiger. The bear was very large (it was visible in the tracks), and the young tiger was about 4 years old (it was visible in the skull). The battlefield itself (broken fir trunks with a thick arm, scattered shreds of wool, blood) testified to a long and fierce struggle [14]. and a young tiger - about 4 years old (this was visible on the skull). The battlefield itself (broken fir trunks with a thick arm, scattered shreds of wool, blood) testified to a long and fierce struggle [14]. and a young tiger - about 4 years old (this was visible on the skull). The battlefield itself (broken fir trunks with a thick arm, scattered shreds of wool, blood) testified to a long and fierce struggle [14].

What conclusions can be drawn from this information? Firstly, it is obvious that none of the predators has complete superiority over the other, although the tiger still more often emerges victorious from fights. Secondly, the bear may be more aggressive than the tiger, but the tiger is clearly not an object of hunting for the bear (apparently, the main thing that pushes the bear to battle with the tiger is hunger and the desire to recapture its prey from the tiger). Whereas the bear itself is regarded by the tiger as an object of hunting (in some cases, the clubfoot can even take pride of place in the tiger diet). Thirdly, the result of fights is often a “draw”, i.e. a situation where animals simply disperse, or one of the opponents flees, feeling the futility of further struggle. But what determines the outcome of the battle? Clear, that there can be no question of any factor analysis here. The maximum that it is possible only to take into account a number of possible circumstances and take them into account when studying the relationship of these two predators. 1) Of great importance is the size, gender, age and health of the animals. 120-130 kg of tigress [9] have little chance of surviving in battle against a bear weighing 350-400 kg. Likewise, the she-bear is unlikely to be able to withstand the adult tiger. Protecting the cubs, the mother will fight to the end, effectively depriving herself of the choice of such an option as retreat. Speaking about age, it is necessary to take into account that young animals (even adults) may not have the experience of fighting with another predator, they may not accurately assess the degree of danger and the physical condition of the enemy. If it comes to sizes, then it’s worth noting that the Ussuri subspecies of the brown bear is one of the largest in the world (along with the bears of Kamchatka, Alaska and the Kodiak Islands), and the size of the brown bear, of course, exceeds the tiger. The normal weight of an adult male Ussuri tiger is 200-220 kg. Females are almost 40% lighter than males [1]. For males of brown bears of Primorye, a weight of three centners is more likely the norm than the exception. The largest animals can weigh up to 500 kg [10]. But here it is necessary to make a reservation: we are talking about bears that gained weight before hibernation in a fruitful year. Unlike tigers, the weight of bears experiences significant seasonal fluctuations. If for some reason the bear did not fall asleep, then the winter for him turns into a very difficult test. The test of hunger. A connecting rod bear is usually an animal suffering from a lack of food, an animal, which is rapidly losing reserves of fat. This statement is true even if the bear leads the life of a tiger “riddler” and feeds on the remains of their prey. For for a large beast, these residues are clearly not enough, and low temperatures increase energy costs even more. It is hunger that makes the bear so aggressive and courageous, thereby increasing its chances of victory. But the same hunger leads to the fact that the connecting rod bear is able to lose significant superiority in weight over its rival and is so deprived of the protective layer of fat so necessary in the fray. This fact seems to us especially important just because a tiger encounter with a 500 kg bear is very unlikely. The tiger is unlikely to dare to tempt fate by attacking such a giant. It is unlikely that the bear will do it either, because the weight of the animal itself indicates that he does not lack food, and therefore, he does not need to risk his skin. 2) It is important to consider the situation in which the fight occurred. Is there an attempt to take the legitimate prey from the owner, or is it an attack to kill the predator itself, the degree of hunger and the territory on which the fight took place (studies by ethologists show that these factors are very important in animal fights). The tiger, for which the bear periodically acts as an object of hunting, which took its rival by surprise, has more chances to win. As well as the tiger that attacked the bear in the den, because the bear in this case is deprived of the necessary mobility and maneuverability. 3) Of great importance is the time of the match. The tiger has less stamina and gets tired faster.

In conclusion, a few words about the television series "Animal battles", where, allegedly from a scientific point of view, the victory was finally and irrevocably awarded to the bear. This project clearly demonstrates how television can destroy any good idea, and how, using "scientific methods", you can powder your brain. To begin with, the authors of "Animal Fights" did not bother to familiarize themselves with the literature on this issue. But from the scientific literature it follows that the tiger is not only inferior to the bear, but even more often comes out the winner. Further, the authors of the project decided to calculate the strength of the bite of predators. They turned out that the strength of the bite of a bear is greater than that of a tiger. Whereas in reality, everything should be the other way around. The strength of the bite depends on the width in the fangs, on the width in the cheekbones and on the mass of the cheek-temporal muscles. FROM. Kucherenko the width in the cheekbones for males of the brown bear of Primorye indicates in the range of 182-270 mm (the average value for 22 specimens is 228 mm) [10]. F.B. Chernyavsky and M.A. Krechmar, the average width in the cheekbones of this subspecies is determined to be 223.5 mm (the average is 17 copies of both sexes), and the range of variation is from 115.5 to 269 mm. The width in the fangs by these researchers is determined to be 82.7 mm (from 73 to 93.2 mm) [11]. In the Ussuri tiger, the width in the fangs is 107.4 mm (average value for 6 specimens of adult males; range of variation is from 98.9 to 113 mm), and the width in the cheekbones is 252.2 mm (average value for 6 specimens; range of variation is from 232 , 5 to 268 mm) [12]. As you can see, the width in the fangs of the tiger is greater than that of the bear, and the width in the cheekbones of the largest animals is almost the same. As for the cheek-temporal muscles, N.K. Vereshchagin, in his work on the craniological characteristics of cats and bears, specifically emphasizes that the mass of the buccal and temporal muscles of the tiger is greater than that of the bear [13]. And in special works devoted to determining the strength of a bite, it is noted that the corresponding coefficient for a tiger is much higher than for a bear (78 for a brown bear and 127 for a tiger) [15]. So, even adjusted for the difference in size in favor of the bear, there is no way to draw a conclusion about the greater bite strength of this predator compared to the tiger. Rather, the opposite can be assumed. And it’s not worth talking about television experiments with a catapult. The question is, was it really so hard to see how big cats really bite their victims? The tiger first pursues the victim, then knocks it down, tries to immobilize it, and only then inflicts a bite. There is no need to multiply mass by speed and do some quasi-scientific calculations. From the point of view of biomechanics, this should have looked like complete nonsense. The authors of the project “Animal battles”, apparently, were not at all embarrassed by the fact that when they bite at least a tiger, even a bear, they are talking about the force acting in the vertical plane, while they dispersed their metal skulls in the horizontal plane. When analyzing the force of impact with a paw and building the corresponding mechanical models, the authors of the project took into account only the shape of the claws, the speed of the impact and the mass of animals. In principle, everything is correct here, except for one thing - the authors did not take into account that the cat’s claws are retractable and the biomechanics themselves are somewhat different from that of a bear. It was not possible to recreate this cat's paw. It turned out, in fact, the same bear, but only with a different shape of the claws. In addition, the “redundancy” of the weapons of both predators turned out to be completely unaccounted for. We are talking about the fact that the punching force of a tiger (capable of bending the barrel of a gun, breaking a spine to a deer, or, according to the trainer Walter Zapashny, breaking a frying pan), and of a bear, in principle, is such that one strong and accurate (to the skull area) blow can decide the outcome of the fight. To apply it is not so simple, because the animals are actively protected. But in any case, this circumstance to some extent equalizes the chances of both predators and forces more attention to be paid to dexterity, quick reaction, and animal mobility. And here the tiger will have an advantage, which can quickly melt as the fight drags on. that the force of the paw strike of both a tiger (capable of bending the barrel of a gun, breaking a spine to a deer, or, according to the trainer Walter Zapashny, breaking a frying pan), and a bear, in principle, is such that one strong and accurate (to the skull area) blow can decide the outcome of the fight. To apply it is not so simple, because the animals are actively protected. But in any case, this circumstance to some extent equalizes the chances of both predators and forces more attention to be paid to dexterity, quick reaction, and animal mobility. And here the tiger will have an advantage, which can quickly melt as the fight drags on. that the force of the paw strike of both a tiger (capable of bending the barrel of a gun, breaking a spine to a deer, or, according to the trainer Walter Zapashny, breaking a frying pan), and a bear, in principle, is such that one strong and accurate (to the skull area) blow can decide the outcome of the fight. To apply it is not so simple, because the animals are actively protected. But in any case, this circumstance to some extent equalizes the chances of both predators and forces more attention to be paid to dexterity, quick reaction, and animal mobility. And here the tiger will have an advantage, which can quickly melt as the fight drags on. To apply it is not so simple, because the animals are actively protected. But in any case, this circumstance to some extent equalizes the chances of both predators and forces more attention to be paid to dexterity, quick reaction, and animal mobility. And here the tiger will have an advantage, which can quickly melt as the fight drags on. To apply it is not so simple, because the animals are actively protected. But in any case, this circumstance to some extent equalizes the chances of both predators and forces more attention to be paid to dexterity, quick reaction, and animal mobility. And here the tiger will have an advantage, which can quickly melt as the fight drags on.
Thus, the question is who is stronger: a tiger or a bear is not so simple and “childish”, if only because the answer to it requires knowledge in the field of nutrition ecology, ethology, biomechanics, and morphometry. As in the case of professional boxers in the absolute weight category, whose forces are approximately equal, it is impossible to predict in advance the outcome of the battle between the tiger and the Ussuri brown bear.

https://shish02.livejournal.com/7269.html?page=2&cut_expand=1
5 users Like BloodyClaws's post
Reply

Netherlands peter Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 03-20-2020, 07:02 PM by peter )

CLAWS

The article you posted is well-known. It was discussed at the former AVA about a decade ago. As it hadn't been discussed at this forum, I had prepared a series on tigers and bears in the Russian Far East. I intended to use the article you posted, but you beat me to it.  

Anyhow. On my screen (PC), I see an ocean of words, a lot of repetitions and errors and paragraphs whatsoever, meaning the article is all but unreadable for most. In order to improve a few things, I intend to edit the article (referring to the English translation). Any objections?
1 user Likes peter's post
Reply

India sanjay Offline
Wildanimal Enthusiast
*****

Don't post the Russian version.. please English version.. you can link Russian version
Reply

Guatemala GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****

(03-17-2020, 05:31 AM)Greatearth Wrote: This is something what I found out from Chinese tigers.

I think South China tigers are normally referring to South China (Huánan, 华南). The South China tiger is calling 华南虎 (Huánanho) in Mandarin (not sure of Cantonese). So from what it sounds, I think South China tiger is tiger population or subspecies lived areas south of Yangtze River. There are many different tribes, people, langauge, and cultures in Southeast Asia even in one country. Just like tigers, clouded leopards, leopards, rhinos, and elephants, many of those people in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and others lived together with Chinese in that area before 2,000 years ago. Vietnam is notable nation that was forced out to south by Chinese. That's why Vietnam is the only country of the southeast Asia that has Chinese culture. Their languages are also sounds similar if you listen Cantonese and Vietnamese.

I guess that is why South China tiger is known as the second smallest tiger in mainland Asia, but there are descent male South China tigers that I know are more than 160 kg, and close to 3 m long. They also seemed different by each provinces. There is no doubt Chinese tigers were different in appearance and size just like Bengal tigers look different by different locations. I think today's South China tiger is the right tiger subspecies who lost their "giant" gene. Again, there are limited information, pictures, and other information of the South China tiger. I also don't know sizes of South China tiger in Chinese zoos. I can't be 100% sure about this.

There is very few information about the size/weight and skulls of the South China tiger. The figures of Mazák and those from me are based is less than 12 specimens from scatered places, which means that there is a huge are where the size is unknown. The only thing that we can see is that there was a cline in the size of the tigers in China, bigger in the north (up to 190 kg) and smaller close to the Amoy region and Hong Kong (as low as 108 kg). In fact, there is enough evidence to say that there was a continuos population trough the entire country with only clinal diferences, from the giant tigers of Manchuria to the medium sized tigers from Indochina. Also remember that some Bengal tigers lived in the southwest area, Indochinese tigers lived in the southeast, Caspian tigers in the northwest and Amur tigers in the northeast. So China had a lot of tigers subspecies/populations and they could bread between them (the nearest populations at least) with no problem; take in count that tigers can travel up to 1,000 km! The humans are the ones that created divisions in the populations and created these artificial "subspecies".
2 users Like GuateGojira's post
Reply

Netherlands peter Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 03-23-2020, 07:59 PM by peter )

FEROCE

a - About the Premier League 
 
The Premier League is a quality information section. The information posted in this section has to be solid, that is. In order to prevent misinformation, members need permission to post in this section. You had no permission. You could have known if you would have read the forum rules before you joined or contacted a mod before posting. 

b - About your contribution 

The information you posted was discussed in the former AVA Forum (Yuku) some years ago. Those involved in the debate concluded the information you reposted in this thread (referring to the first and last post) was unreliable. Your interpretation of the second post was incorrect. Meaning your contributions didn't meet the threshold.  

c - About your first post

The report about the 2 tigresses allegedly killed by bears is suspect. In order to find out more, visit the forum AVA Forum of Yuku (now Tapatalk). There's a thread titled 'Male brown bears are not out of the predatory reach of male tigers if of similar size'. That's the one you need to read. 

Some time after the debate, an article about Aldrich footsnares was posted on a Russian forum. It was written by 2 researchers involved in the Siberian Tiger Project (STP). The article, in English, was discussed at AVA. 

There is a connection between that article and the report about the 2 Amur tigresses found in the snow. At first sight, the connection seems to be indirect. When you read more, you'll conclude it isn't. My advice is to find the article. It has a lot of information. Most of it was never discussed.    

d - About your second post

It's about the sentence " ... the circumstances of their deaths varied: 3 tigers died from wounds received in fights, one each with a bear, another tiger and a wild boar ... " (quote from your second post). 

Translation. Three tigers died from wounds received in fights with a bear, a tiger and a wild boar. This means one tiger died of wounds received in a fight with a bear. Not three. As there's no information about the animals involved in the fights, we don't know if the tiger killed by a bear was a male or a female.  

Meaning your interpretation is incorrect. Furthermore, it's clear you connected a remark about the gender of 8 tigers (3 of which were females) to the sentence quoted above. The result is misinformation. 

e - About your third post 

Amur tiger 'Dale' hunted bears. With 'bears', I mean youngsters and adult females. The largest female brown bears he killed were estimated at 150-200 kg. Tiger 'Dale' was weighed 3 times. He ranged between 170-205 kg., meaning he killed adult female brown bears of almost his own weight. Also meaning he didn't hunt  " ... bears almost twice as heavy ... " (quote from your post) as he was. 

Meaning the information in the book you used was incorrect. You could have known if you would have tried to find out a bit more about this particular tiger.

f - Conclusions

It's clear you didn't read the forum rules. It's also clear you didn't contact a mod before posting in this thread. The result is you polluted a good thread. Your posts will be deleted. 

I don't want you to post in this thread again. As you also ignored forum rules, my advice is to join another forum.
2 users Like peter's post
Reply






Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB