WildFact
›
Premier Section
›
Edge of Extinction
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
 (10-15-2023, 08:54 AM)peter Wrote: GUATE A quick response. a - Weight and heel width I think that I need to clarify you what is the meeting of a correlation of 0.5. In paper, that will be a "decent" indicator of size, but in real life it is not, it is barelly reliable. The problem is that is almoust like throw a coin and wait for the best. Check how many times people that capture tigers failed in they estimations of weight when they try to capture them? We are talking of experts that captured tigers before, not simple rookies. In other words, if a calculated figure based in this measurement suggest to you a figure of 250 kg, that also means that the standard deviation is still high, and that the weight could be as high as 280 kg or as low as 220 kg (this is just an example, as the deviation could be even larger with a low correlation). This image explain better may point:  *This image is copyright of its original author Statistic is a good tool but we need to learn how to use it. Normally only figures of over 0.75 are used as "reliable" and just over 0.90 are trustable. All depends of the investigator at least, but no one is going to use low positive correlation. About the health and the age, these factors will be important but you must also take incount that young specimens can be as large as adults in some cases. b - The height of the polar bear You don't see my point, let me clarify. The appreciation of the huge size of the bear was based in the size of the woman at its size, certainly the animal could be bigger or smaller than your appreciation and only because we know the size of the lady is that we actually can get an accurate idea of its height. But what about the cases when we don't know? Are we allways going to guess to estimate sizes? That is not size, that is just look, like you in this case that your estimation of size was accurate. I will like to make mine, when I have the time, and check if we get the same results. But again, my point is not to know if your estimation was correct or not, is to show that appreciation is important and to have a comparison point of view. With no point of reference, that bear could be of about 2 meters or about 4 meters. c - The Köln zoo tiger I know the case, I read it in its moment, even then please pay attention to the information of the case, it is a young male of no more than 4 years old and you believe that will measured 240 cm in straight line? Let's see this comparision:  *This image is copyright of its original author This is the Ngandong tiger with a head-body of 230 cm straight and is the biggest tiger ever known. Do you realy believe that a young male will measure the same. Still don't believe me, well this image is a Ngandong tiger but with a head-body of 240 cm.  *This image is copyright of its original author Do you still believe that a young male tiger will measure the same as the biggest tiger even known to science? Please let's use logic, not feelings. d - Amur tiger skull measurements They still don't published the measurements, however remember that they analisis are based in statistic not in regular appreciation. That is why they differ from Mazák. The point is that the massiviness of the Amur tiger is not related with its "exceptional" size (which never was) but with its diet and the meat that they consume. e - Anyuisky tigers} I will like to see the articles, pictures or books from where to got those measurements and claims. Do you have an idea of how big is a heel of 16 cm wide? No living cat had a paw like that, and I highly doubt those are heels measurements, those are certainly wide of paw, or they were incorrectly measured, one of the two options. With incorrect I am not saying that the expert measured incorrectly (which or course is a possibility) but I also refer with the type of soil, which even in dirt areas with no snow may suggest incorrect dimentions (again check the situation with the census in India). Please read what the Russian experts said about the print of the paws (specially the fragment that I showed to you). Again, the personal appreciations are missleiding, I am sure that if you ask to many Indian naturalists that constantly take pictures of tigers they will say that they tigers are the "biggest", but at the end, only a real measurement of the animal can show if that is correct or not. About the three pictures of the two Anyuisky tigers and the man, it is clear that the perspective affected the image, specially the male tiger with looks very disproportioned. I will make a comparative image of them to show this distortion. Big heads are possible, but there is a point where you can see if is a natural form or a ridiculous dissproportion. About this: "A report of 22 December 2017 not written by Gotvansky says males with a heel width of 10-13 cm range between 200-350 kg, whereas females with a heel width of 9-12 cm range between 150-250 kg (...). Do these prints and weights relate to Anuisky tigers? Have they been weighed? I don't know, but I don't think it's likely." Weights of up to 350 kg? Do you still believe in those reports? That looks more like a copy-paste of old figures that polute the internet since years ago. Like Dr Goodrich told me, this type of statements that penetrate even in "oficial" reports hence the myth that the Amur tiger was exceptional. The picture that you use for example is pure speculation, only because it had a large head people believe that is a "giant", but there is no evidence of that. May I ask: How big do you believe was this male:  *This image is copyright of its original author And this one:  *This image is copyright of its original author How much do not think they weighed? That is my question. 
A few days ago, the Amur Tiger Center posted some pictures on their VK page, showing the prey animals which are food for tigers.
In the Jewish Autonomous Region, brown bears are also hunted and eaten by tigers. The African swine fever plague decimated the wild boar populations in Far East Russia. In the Leninsky district of the Jewish Autonomous Region, there was at least 10 outbreaks of the ASF plague officially recorded, in 2019, there was a mass shooting of wild boars to further stop the spread of the ASF plague. The primary food source of Amur tigers has almost been wiped out in some areas and districts. However, other favourite prey items of the tigers, such as bears and deer, are there in those forests for the tigers to hunt and eat. In the JAO region, there are significantly more brown bears than Himalayan black bears, so in this particular region, its likely brown bears are killed and eaten by tigers more often than black bears. https://m.vk.com/wall-68726894_21174 https://m.vk.com/amurtigercenter?from=post Amur Tiger Center: "Illustrated tiger menu in the Jewish Autonomous Region. Unfortunately, wild boar in this area is still on the stop list." Brown bear:  *This image is copyright of its original author Red deer:  *This image is copyright of its original author
ABOUT THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN OUR MEMBERS GUATE AND APEX
1 - Introduction A few weeks ago, a discussion between our members 'GuateGorija' and 'Apex Titan' started in the thread 'Amur Tigers'. After it turned heated, I proposed to continue in this thread. The reason is this thread has more views, enabling those interested to take notice of the proceedings. Another reason is the character of this thread is more suited for discussions. The main aim of the threads about tiger subspecies is to collect good info. Both Apex and Guate decided to ignore the proposal. The result was the Amur tiger thread was polluted. A few days ago I again proposed to continue the discussion in this thread. I hope the proposal will be accepted this time. 2 - Wildfact Before turning to the discussion, it doesn't seem superfluous to underline Wildfact is a forum about those making their home in the natural world. We don't mind the occasional discussion, but our aim is to collect good information. In order to get there and to prevent problems, rules and mods were added. A brilliant new formula? Not really. It's an old recipe that was tested and tried. Well over 73 million views in a decade say our members and readers appreciate the way the forum is run. 3 - About the discussion I followed the proceedings. What did I see? Although it may seem different, it isn't about the issues discussed. In between and behind the sentences, I sensed something of a very different nature. Meaning egos took over. When they do, the result will be problems. 4 - About success, pride and prejudice I could start this paragraph with a nice overview of the merits of Guate and Apex, but I could also say both are very interested in wild tigers and invested a lot of time to develop in the department of knowledge. This is especially true for Guate, who's been here from the start. Apex started with a ban, but made a nice comeback and, as a result, was invited to post in the tiger exctinction thread about interactions between Amur tigers, Himalayan black and Ussuri brown bears. Guate's posts and tables often draw a crowd, but Apex isn't lacking in that department. Informationwise, both deliver. Success often results in confidence. Overconfidence, however, can result in problems. More often than, it will have an effect on the way those affected interact. Did it affect Guate and Apex? To a degree, albeit it for different reasons. Guate is a confident poster with a reputation, whereas Apex learned to defend his posts and his position the hard way. Meaning their exchange resulted in what some would have perceived as a rumble in the jungle. When that happens, the most likely outcome is a lot of noise, plenty of bruises and, worst of all, broken pride. What I'm saying is, Guate, it isn't about philosophy, but about action and reaction. When you decide for a frontal attack, your opponent isn't going to take it lying down. Not when he's made of the same wood. I know you're going to deny you delivered the first punch, but that's what happened and I wasn't the only one who noticed. 5 - About the effects of strong opinions When you join a public forum to interact, knowledge and drive will be appreciated. The passion needed to get there, however, also can result in strong convictions. When they enter a discussion, anything is possible. In this particular case, I thought I saw sloppy reading and quick responses. The result was the discussion derailed. Example. In my last post in the this thread, the heel width of some wild male Amur tigers in the Anyuisky National Park was discussed. The tiger known as 'The Beast' had a heel width of 13,5 cm and approached 3 meters in height standing on their his legs. I've no idea about the weight of the tiger, but it must have been an exceptional individual. Gotvansky added he saw prints with a heel width well exceeding 13,5 cm, meaning the tigers leaving these prints were even larger than 'The Beast'. I would like to know a bit more about them, but don't have the opportunity to talk to Gotvansky. As I'm in no postion to doubt the observation of a well-trained and experienced man, I've no option but to assume the esults of his measurements were accurate. Different from saying I'm sure. Same for the information about the young adult male Amur tiger of the Köln Zoo discussed in 'Two fatal tiger attacks in zoos' (Tantius et al., 2016). Those present at the autopsy of the tiger were professionals, meaning it's likely they followed the protocol when the tiger was measured. In Germany (referring to a conversation with Dr. D. Mörike, the former conservator of the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart), the protocol is to measure the length of a big cat in a straight line ('between pegs'). But " ... likely ... " is different from being sure. And that's about all there is to say about the Köln Zoo tiger and the one who measured the prints of wild Amur tigers of the Anyuisky National Park. Meaning you obviously missed what seemed to be obvious: a bit of doubt. The result was a superflous post. Apart from sloppy reading, there's assumptions, exceptions and double standards. Example. Your posts, to keep it short, say you accept information collected by tiger biologists and reject information that wasn't. This, implicitly, means you doubt the intentions and ability of just about every hunter before tiger biologists made their appearance. With 'just about', I mean you're prepared to accept some records. With 'some', I'm referring to those hunting tigers in what used to be British India in particular. And not Russia. Except for Baikov. That is to say, his 560-pound male shot near the Korean border in 1911. Most records of other tigers he shot, however, were rejected by those who had a closer look at historical records. The reason is the information didn't meet the threshold. The threshold defined by today's biologists. But thresholds apparently vary in size. Let's take the tiger with a head and body length of 7.5 recently discussed. You seem to accept the record, but what about other records of large tigers measured in that way? There are many. Anyhow. The decision to sideline information collected by hunters a century ago is debatable, if not questionable. In the seventies of the previous century, biologists entered the forest with scales that had a limited capacity. A result of circumstances or a result of doubts about reports from hunters about large tigers a century ago? I don't know, but I do know some biologists still have serious doubts about tigers exceeding 500 pounds, let alone 600. The doubt experessed by Kitchener and Yamaguchi ignited a discussion about the amount of food a wild tiger is able to consume. Today, the amount biologists agreed on is deducted when a wild tiger is captured. This means tiger biologists, apparently, assume any wild tiger they capture is loaded. Debatable, to put it mildly. And what about tigers unable to hunt because of an injury? They get 60 pounds extra? The new culture biologists embraced is solidified in 'peer-reviewed' documents (articles reviewed by those with a similar set of assumptions as the authors). Information weighed in this way is accepted by all. Information that wasn't, isn't. Over time, processing information in this way will result in a reliable framework. The problem is there are thresholds and they seem to favour some observations over others. They can result in premature conclusions. Example. When the Siberian Tiger Project started, it didn't take biologists long to conclude Amur tigers do not hunt bears. Too dangerous, they said. A decade later, however, they had to conclude tigers hunt bears more often than they assumed. Most bears hunted, on top of that, were larger than biologists assumed. Views were adjusted. They then said bears are mainly hunted by experienced old male tigers. Wrong again, they had to conclude some years further on. Tigresses also hunt bears. Same for young adults and immature tigers. When contacted by a poster a decade ago, Kerley said just about anything is possible when a tiger and a bear meet. Recent information, however, strongly suggest no tigers have been killed by bears in the period 1992-2023. There's, on the other hand, plenty of reliable information about bears killed by tigers. A few years ago, biologists concluded tigers hunt Himalayan black bears. Except for large males approaching or even exceeding 400 pounds. Not true, Kolchin said. Large males are also hunted. And brown bears? There are reliable reports about brown bears hunted by tigresses, but most brown bears seem to be hunted by experienced males. They, occasionally, hunt females up to about their own size, but adult male brown bears are avoided, biologists thought. I wrote 'thought', and not 'think', because they could have changed their mind after two incidents between male tigers and male brown bears made a few headlines. Meaning assumptions had an effect. Another example. In a recent document about tiger skulls, it was concluded the exceptional sagittal crest of adult wild male Amur tigers is a result of eating frozen meat in the cold season. But skulls of captive adult male Amur tigers also often have a crest of remarkable size. And why is it adult wild Amur tigresses also eating frozen meat in the long Russian winter lack the exceptional crest seen in male skulls? As to Apex. After reading peer-reviewed documents in which interactions between tigers and bears were discussed (referring to the period in which most biologists assumed tigers avoided bears), Apex decided for a different approach. Following his nose, he found reports of Ussuri brown bears killed by Amur tigers in Russian newspapers, magazins and (old) books. He also found a few interviews in which a well-known Russian biologist (A. Batalov) talked about a large male brown bear that followed an adult tigress with cubs for a prolonged period of time. The bear suddenly vanished. A few years later, Batalov said he was sure the big male was killed by tiger 'Ochkarik', the father of the cubs. Apex also found interviews with Russian tiger biologists saying male Amur tigers prevail in most interactions with even large bears. As their opinion isn't based on peer-reviewed documents, one has to assume it's based on observations of those they consider as reliable (hunters, rangers and peers). Peer-reviewed documents are extended and reliable, but that doesn't mean they cover all of it. Furthermore, not every biologist is active in the document department. What I'm also saying is the quest of Apex produced something of interest. And you agreed. The same nose telling Apex there could be more to tigers and bears than many assumed, told him information about the size of today's wild Amur tigers could be incomplete. He referred to (indirect information about the size of) tigers in northeastern China and the northern districts of the Khabarovsky Krai in particular. The information from northeastern China (referring to the video in which Limin featured), to a degree (as still unconfirmed), suggests he could have a point, but there's no information about tigers in the Khabarovski Krai at all. Nothing except the photograph of the tiger known as 'The Beast' and his neighbour (a large old male brown bear) hugging the same tree. While it's, as you said, true the suggestion of Apex isn't supported by reliable information, it's also true tigers in that part of the Russian Far East have never been captured. This time, you went for Apex. The question is why. A result of what you perceived as an indirect 'attack' on today's biologists, or a result of something else? I remember a few posts about a man (with a degree) who had visited the Russian Far East. He said he saw a large tiger. You initially bought his story, but later contacted a researcher who told you the tiger was a male of average size. You didn't forget and decided to be more wary in the future. Years later, it resulted in a series of posts that quickly turned nasty when Apex started about the size of wild Amur tigers. He paid. Same for the one who, as you said, 'defended' him. Yes Guate, I did. And you now know why. One has to be careful with reports about large tigers, but that doesn't mean they're to be dismissed out of hand. You just never know in wild big cats. 6 - About peer-reviewed documents and alternative methods to get to good information Over the years, many books in which wild Amur tigers feature have been published. Some were written by explorers and naturalists, others by hunters and, later, biologists. Apart from Mazak ('Der Tiger', 1983), you can find an overview in 'Mammals of the Sowjet-Union' (Band III, Raubtiere, Heptner and Sludskij, German translation, 1980). Reading them enabled me to learn a few things about the ecology of Amur tigers. In 1992, the Siberian Tiger Project (STP) started. It resulted in a barrage of information. The great advantage of peer-reviewed documents is they're based on studies conducted over extended periods of time, enabling biologists to get to an extended framework of knowledge. Decisions based on this knowledge resulted in new reserves and national parks patrolled by well-trained rangers. The measures taken enabled ecossystems to recover to a degree. They also enabled wild animals, including apex predators, to survive in a human-dominated landscape. Today, there are about 650 wild Amur tigers in the Russian Far East and about 50 in northeastern China. Quite an achievement, considering the population bottleneck in the thirties of the previous century. In many respects, peer-reviewed documents really are a great leap forward. Reading them compares to watching a series of great documentaries that took many years to complete. They take you into a largely unknown world and tell you which habitats tigers prefer, how much room they need, which animals they hunt, at what age they breed, at what age young tigers disperse and which dangers they face before they reach adulthood. In the last decade in particular, articles about the way Amur tigers, Himalayan black bears and Ussuri brown bears interact have been published. That's still apart from countless interesting articles in which conflicts between tigers and humans and causes of mortality are described. Diseases and parasites have been identified. The Siberian Tiger Project was, and still is, a very productive project. One of the best of it's kind as far as I can see. Same, although not (yet) to the same degree, for the (Russian) Amur Tiger programme. As to the size of wild Amur tigers today. In the period 1992-2004, male tigers of 3 years and older captured in the Sichote-Alin Biosphere Reserve and its surroundings averaged 176,4 kg and 294 cm in total length measured 'over curves', whereas females averaged 117,9 kg and 275 cm in total length. I do not doubt the averages, but it is a fact most tigers have been captured in the Primorsky Krai, and in one district (a reserve) in particular. Apart from that, the table published in 2005 had a few young adult males. Important? I think so. The reason is there are significant differences between young adult and mature male tigers at the level of averages (referring to skull size, length and weight). Peer-reviewed documents are as reliable as it gets. If conclusions are based on information collected in one specific region or district in one period of time, however, one has to be careful. The Russian Far East is a very large place and it's quite likely there are significant differences between subregions (referring to landscape, elevation, forest cover, human density, conditions, climate and prey animals) and even districts. It's also likely these will have an effect on the way tigers develop. For (indirect) confirmation, we could move to India. In what used to be British India, local conditions seemed to have a pronounced effect on the average size of tigers. We know, because quite many hunters wrote books about their experiences. These books strongly suggest tigers shot just south of the Himalayas were larger than those shot in the Deccan and southeastern India. They also suggested hunting had an effect on the average size of tigers. I can hear you say there's a difference between experienced tiger hunters back then and today's poachers, but is there? Poachers are in it for the money and a large wild Amur tiger is a great trophy. Aramilev thinks 15-20 wild Amur tigers are poached every year, but a recent interview with someone qualified to get to an opinion suggests he could underestimate the number of tigers killed by poachers. What I'm saying is there are different ways that lead to Rome. There are peer-reviewed documents, documentaries, newspaper articles, interviews and, last but not least, books published (well) before the STP started. I'm not saying they, informationwise, compare, but then, in the end, they, in a way, do. The only thing missing is the Udeges. They've been there for a long period of time and no doubt know a lot more than we do. 7 - To conclude An issue can be discussed in two ways. The first, and most preferred, way is to present a view with flair and defend it at all costs. This method compares to a bout in the ring. You and your opponent get gloves and a furious crowd. Your opponent says there could be large tigers in remote regions in the Russian Far East (straight to the nose) and provides circumstantial evidence (left hook). You (liver) say most stories are a result of hearsay (end of round one). In round two, your opponent (body shot) goes straight for your weak spot (peer-reviewed documents), adds insult by quoting from 'The snare for tiger' (left hook) and finishes (stomach) with tigers leaving immense prints in a region never even visited by tiger biologists (below the belt). In round three, you question his mental ability (also below the belt), forcing the referee to intervene. He said you, and not someone else, decided for this method, and deducts a point for breaking a rule. He is then floored by a blow below the belt. Same for a ring-assistent, two members of the jury and the chairman of the International Boxing Federation. As a result of the animosity, the fight is cancelled. The question that started the bout, I mean discussion, wasn't answered. And all involved come up empty. The second method, loathed by just about everyone these days, is to start a real discussion. No gloves. This method offers all involved the opportunity to discuss and weigh arguments considered as interesting. In the end, it will produce a decision based on sound reasoning. This method also offers all involved the opportunity to disagree in a respectful way. On top of that, this method offers those interested the opportunity to continue in the near future. You opted for the first method, which resulted in animosity and a damaged nose. That's still apart from the one moderating the thread. He wants you to know it took him a lot of time to get to a conclusion. Time he wanted to invest in answering a question that started the discussion. The decision I got to is you overreacted. The result was a problem. How solve? By accepting a mistake was made and by acting accordingly. It wouldn't result in a loss of face, but quite the opposite. The reason is people see problems all the time every day everywhere. They know how difficult it is to admit the ego is a tough opponent at the best of times. Someone prepared to face the consequences and solve the problem is noticed without a shadow of doubt. People like those able to overcome their own shadow. As it takes two to tango, it would be appreciated if Apex could contribute in this department as well. 8 - Edits This post, as you might have noticed, was edited more than once. It no doubt resulted in confusion. My apologies. Although it may seem different, it took me quite a bit of time to read all posts. Same for getting to a conclusion. I wrote the post in one go and accepted it would take some time to get it right. I'm done now, meaning this was the last edit. 9 - The aim of this thread In spite of the intention to turn the tide, we're still losing natural forests and countless species at an alarming rate. Every year, the conclusion is similar to the conclusion of the previous year. The future looks gloomy. Is there something we can do? I think so. This forum is an attempt to get members of the general public interested in the natural world. Judging from the number of views, it's appreciated. My proposal is to continue in this way. Always remember this thread is about wild tigers, not us. In order to attract attention, we have to create something of interest. Not easy, but we don't need to perform miracles to get there. The reason is the natural world is quite something to behold. All we got to do is to show it. This thread is based on good information. Information that will keep readers interested. They might make a difference in the end. In order to achieve our goal, members need to cooperate. You're a good poster, Guate. But so is Apex. How about a bit of cooperation? To close the post, here's a few nice photographs. Watch the children in particular. 1 - Cover of Arseniev's great book:  *This image is copyright of its original author 2 - The real Arseniev and Dersu:  *This image is copyright of its original author 3 - Russian Far East in summer (photograph J. Goodrich):  *This image is copyright of its original author 4 - Award winning photograph of a tigress hugging a tree:  *This image is copyright of its original author 5 - Great book written by two dedicated biologists:  *This image is copyright of its original author 6 - One of those who made a difference (D. Pikunov):  *This image is copyright of its original author 7 - Another one (D. Miquelle):  *This image is copyright of its original author 8 - Same for L. Kerley:  *This image is copyright of its original author 9 - Tiger men (from Vaillant's great book). They protect tigers and bring in the occasional roque tiger for questioning. Hard work and hard men:  *This image is copyright of its original author 10 - Tiger men II:  *This image is copyright of its original author 11 - Tiger Day Vladivostok. How to celebrate the natural world and involve children:  *This image is copyright of its original author 12 - Their mother was poached. This photograph of 3 orphaned cubs had an impact:  *This image is copyright of its original author 13 - For all others involved in conservation in the Russian Far East:  *This image is copyright of its original author
(11-19-2023, 11:06 AM)peter Wrote: ABOUT THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN OUR MEMBERS GUATE AND APEX Long post, now a proper answer. 1 - The reason of the discussion: It could be obvious to anyone reading the posts between Apex and I, to see the original reasons of the discussion, however it seems that is not obvious for you (for some reason). The discussion was NOT about old records, the discussion was NOT about reliability of the people/experts, the discussion was NOT about personal experiences or reputation, NO. The reason of the discussion was simple: 1 - He insulted the Siberian Tiger Project, in order to misprize the size/weight figures that they recorded during they study time. 2 - He started and idea with no fundament, that tigers in Khabarovsk were giants but he never provided ANY real evidence. These were the reasons fo the discussion, so now I don't understand WHY you are mentioning things that are not even relevant to the discussion, specially because we NEVER discussed them in the debate. He twisted the debate about the methods of capture and the ethic of captures, which was NOT the point. So I allready answered clearly about this issue. Now you mention the realiability of the old hunting records and I even see an "indirect" acusation of bias against Russian records in favor of Indian/Brithis records, which is simple nonesense. I will answer that in this same post, but my point is the inability of both of you to stick to the real issue. Now, let me expand this issue. About the Siberian Tiger Project, he focused in the capture method like if that influenced in the figures. Sorry, but independently of the capture method, the tigers were not going to weight more or less, they weight what they weight, simple. So, the results of some captures are not relevant here. Of course, we can debate about the ethic of the captures, but that is NOT the point here. Apex do not care about the tigers, he cares about the WEIGTHS, he want to diminish the results like something old, obsolete, when actually is fundamental to understan that Amur tigers never had a "fix average" (if something like that did exist....), but they fluctuated during the last two centuries. Check how old records showed Amur tigers of the same size as Bengal tigers, but after 1970, the average drop to about 160 kg in males! Latter since 1992 and up to 2012 the average was about 190 kg and that is the figure that we know. Only one weight has been published in 2023 and was a male of about 207 kg, and now I have figures of over 230 kg for modern males and over 140 kg for modern females. And this is something that I have been preached since many years, that modern Amur tigers are probably heavier in these years as the weight has been increasing in a normal patern, and this is something that you or any poster can't deny, that I basicaly prophesied that this increase would happen, but I do it with EVIDENCE, based in a theoretical framework based in experts and they results. And this take us to the second point, the evidence. When the claim of the tiger known as "The Beast" was made by Apex, he did not presente ANYTHING except for a picture of him and a bear. And about the paw/heel wide, he did not presented the evidence. And the same goes to you Peter, you say that Gotvansky says that he saw (measured?) giant heels of over 13.5 cm, so my ONLY question is: WHY both of you do not present the images, links, pictures, screenshoots, emails or whatever you have to show this? Whe you only mention something but do not show anything, we can't just believe it for faith. In fact, Apex at least did showed one link about the heel size, but I needed to investigate more in order to make sure if the figure was a paw or a heel, which is fundamental. So, that is my complain too, why you don't show the images or documents to backup the claim. Check that in any of my posts I demanded a peer review document, no, I only asked at least an image saying that Gotvansky specifically said/measured/recorded that. I always put images of books, documents, emails or anything at my hand to backup a claim, why Apex and you don't do that? Latter, I showed that heel wide is more or less reliable to estimate a weight, but even then is not enough as there is correlation but the significance is still very low, practically is still like trowing a coin (thanks to the data of the Siberian Tiger Project, what a coincidence!). Also, I showed a part of a document (which you even showed the picture of the book in your post) where they explained how they use the paw prints and is to guess the sex of the animal and a partial idea of its size, but never to estimate a steady weights. However, all that paragraph was ignored for some reason. At the end, I acted because I can't just let the people to diminish the work of experts that had made more for tiger conservation than many other "naturallists" in the field. No one can deny that the work of the Siberian Tiger Project is the base for tiger conservation in the Russian Far East, and that the new Amur Tiger Project owes a lot from them, including the capture method that is still used by the Russian scientists. As a professional too, it is disturbing seen people insulting the work of professionals only because they don't fit they claims. And about the evidence, if someone is going to make a claim, better show something, and pictures and personal appreciations are NOT hard evidence, and I will love the see the sample of paw/heel prints used to claim that there are several giant tigers in the Khabarovsk region. These are still the two points of the discussion, why they are constantly ignored for secondary things? That is another question that I demant to be answered. And by the way, about the Köln Zoo tiger, I still found hard to believe that a male tiger of 3-4 years old had a head-body length in straight line bigger than the biggest tiger recorded by Mazák (220 cm), bigger than any wild tiger ever measured (227 cm) and as big as the giant Ngandong tiger (230-240 cm). Please check the image of this tiger again:  *This image is copyright of its original author I see this tiger and certainly do not look as big. May you please ask if the figure was actually 204 cm and not 240 cm? A length of slightly over 200 cm looks more reliable for an animal of the size of the tiger in the picture. 2 - Old records, is this for real??? This really disturbed me, and you know that when something disturbed my is not a good thing. Can you show me in what part of all the posts that I made in the debate with Apex I did mentioned, diminished or discarted the hunting records? In what part did I even mentioned them in a negative form? That is why I ask, WHY you mention this point in the debate? Hunting records is something that I always used, but like Mazák and Pocock, I used only those measured between pegs or at least those that we are sure that were measured "in the flesh" and not from skins. Check this old image from 2022:  *This image is copyright of its original author Can you see how many old hunting records were used? Hunting records are the only ones that we have for some subspecies! So, where do you got that I am against the huntig records? Second thing, why you "suggest" that there is a bias against Russian records and in favor of Indian/Brithis ones? You know very well why the giant figures of the Russian tigers are now discarted by serious scientists and biologists, even Mazák said that we need to take them like a grain of salt! So, in case you forgot it, let me explain again the reason why the old records were clasified: The 6th chapter of the Siberian Tiger Project monograph called "Who's king of the beasts? Historical and contemporary data on the body weight of wild and captive Amur tigers in comparison with other subspecies" from the sceintists Slaght, J. C.; Miquelle, D. G.; Nikolaev, I. G.; Goodrich, J. M.; Smirnov, E. N.; Traylor-Holzer, K.; Christie, S.; Arjanova, T.; Smith, J. L. D.; Karanth, K. U. In this chapter the scientists tried to check the real body mass of the Amur tigers, both historic and modern, and compare them with the figures of other tiger subspecies. They checked the weights of the Russian litterature and classified the weights based in four levels: 1) высоконадежные = Highly reliable - in the text there is a detailed description of the measurements of weight and other indicators, and the author was present taking the measurements. 2) средненадежные = Medium reliable - data of two types: explanations in the text indicate that the author was present but only weighing was carried out, or the source is secondary, but there is evidence that the animal was actually weighed (for example, other body measurements). 3) менее надежные = Less reliable - data are also of two types: if there is a message that the animal were weighed, but the source is secondary and there is little evidence to support the weighing, or the source is primary, but the reliability of the data is in doubt. (4) ненадежные = Unreliable - data meet one of the following conditions: there is evidence that the weight was assessed approximately (and not by direct weighing); weight taken from a secondary source of questionable reliability; presumably, the condition of the animal when weighed it was extremely poor; and if there is an obvious error in the data. The result was this:  *This image is copyright of its original author Many of the old records were not reliable because they were only mentioned in news papers and second/third hand sources. This includes the figure of 384 kg often quoted even by The Amur Tiger Programme, which is disapointing. However, some of the figures were discarded as "not reliable" because they were "evicerated" or because the carcasses were frozen. So I am also not entirely agree with some results and as any can see in my tables, I did included some of those specimens as "reliable" as they were actually measured and weighed, so if they were "evicerated" they still can represent an animal "empty belly" and although it can create a lower average figure, is still usefull. Here is my table of the old hunting records:  *This image is copyright of its original author I am tracking a new "old figure" of 225 kg that includes a picture of the male specimen, and I still have doubts about the male of 270 kg mentioned by Mazák, this last one is important because none of the figures investigated by Slaght et al. (2005) showed this specimen and I also found specimens in litterature that can be clasiffied as "средненадежные" that shows that the team of Dr Slaght do not found ALL the hunting records. However, I am also hesitating to use it as we know that Mazák included captive specimen, so I don't know if that male of 270 kg was a wild or a captive one. Even then, the final result of my table shows that the historic Amur tigers (both males and females) were bigger than the historic Bengal tigers, although the sample is far more smaller and we need to remember that many of the Bengal specimens were probably young aduls of less than 3 years old but because there were already as long/tall as full grow adults, they were probably included in the samples by the hunters and clasiffied as "adults". Also Peter, you mentioned the new Bengal tiger record of 227 cm in head-body "between pegs" like evidence that I am willing to accept Indian records but to reject Russian records, so I need to ask, show me a male Amur tiger tiger in hunting records that measured over 210 cm in head-body "in the flesh"? Appart from the male tiger reported by Jankownski, all the other males were of less than 210 cm, this last one measured by Zoologist Bromlei. So, the few, very few, body meausurements of old Amur tigers suggest that they are of the same size of the Bengal tigers, and this new giant from India is accepted because it met the requirements to be a record clasified as высоконадежные, although sadly there is no weight recorded. So, there is no bias, there is no favoritism, there is no double standard. I used all the figures available and clasified them using the methodology of Slaght et al. (2005), which at this moment is the only one that tried to make an honest clasification of the reliable and not-reliable figures. This is better than what Dr Yamaguchi do, which is to discard all the hunting records per se, or like it says in the book of 2010 "Tigers of the World", "relatively well-documented hunting records" which still try to cast doubth about the figures, even when many of them are as reliable as the modern records (i.e. Brander, Hewett and the Maharaha of Cooch Behar). In conclution, do not make assumptions about what "I think", read my post and see my work, then you will see what I believe and how I work. 3 - Modern records: There are a few other weights in modern litterature and websites at this moment, the most famous ones are the male of 270 kg that was, apparently, weighed by Dr Limin Feng, the other one a subadult of less than 3 years old that weighed 225 kg and two others over 220 kg that I am not going to discluse because I don't want. Some people may think that until now the Amur tigers are weighed more, but that is not correct. Since 2010 I was mentioning that Amur tigers were increasing in size, this table that I made shows the speciments captured by the Amur Tiger Project at 2012:  *This image is copyright of its original author Since then, we can see that the male tigers in these areas were bigger than those from the Sikhote-Alin and the average weight is of 203 kg for males and 125 kg for females. I have no doubth that current Amur tigers probaly weight more, specially with the new figures, but as none of them are published we need to be carefull. I got an average of close to 200 kg in males and about 125 kg in females, when I include the new 4 males and other females that I am aware, and using specimens from 1992 to 2023, with the heaviest been the male of 270 kg. Now, I sill don't include them as I need to corroborate them, to avoid what happened with the two males that suppoustly weighed 220 and 250 kg, when actually they weighed 200 and 185 kg respectively. I am cautions because the reputation came together with the accuracy. What would happen if I include these 4 males in my tables and at the end it results not been correct??? Now, one thing is to especulate that the tigers in one area are bigger than in other one using evidence of possible real weights, and other is to especulate using only one single paw/heel print and pictures. Sorry, but I don't care how many times you will defen Apex, but a single picture with no comparison point is not going to be evidence of anything. Also personal opinions are not reliable, as even if an "expert" says that a particular tigers is a "giant", his opinion will be valid if he actually compare it with all the other tigers in the region, or tigers from other countries. I side point: About Kitchener and Yamaguchi (2010), about the stomach content. It is correct that they claims are cause of debate, but we need to be honest in that this "debate" is not among experts, but among fans, specially the hard-core-lion fans that still swarm in drains like Carnivora forum or Wild Animal elite or pigsties like that. And I am fully agree that the conclutions, mainly from Yamaguchi, are incorrect as there is NO reliable record of a tiger or lion eating up to 43 kg (maximum are 35 and 33 kg respectively), as they suggest for the Sauraha male. In fact, they show that they knowledge on the Chitwan tigers is very few, because as we know the figure of 261 kg is not a weight but a calculation, the real weight is of 272 kg+, and even if they adjust the exagerated amount of 43 kg from that figure, the result will be 229 kg, bigger than the rubish 218 kg that they estimated. However, modern records do not adjust stomach content, all the modern lion records are not adjuted, none of them. And the modern tigers captured are no longer baited, but darted in the road or captured with snares, so the Rusian and Thailand tigers, they are normally "empty" when captured. 4 - Why the other animals? This is also another point, the fanatism that is very marked in the answers of Apex and even yours. Sorry, by I need to say it, but you are very involved in this issue of "Tiger vs Bear" and in fact half of your post you touch this point. The same with Apex and his fanatism with the Megalodon. Why you people deviate from the main topic and start touching this irrelevant points? I already expresed my opinion about Megalodon and its constants change of size, no disrespect to the Megalodon investigators, but the size of that animal always change depending of the methods and formulas. Now to increase is to 20 meters, next year maybe they will decrease it. So, I take those results with healthy excepticism as we need to remember that those sizes are estimations, mostly based in the great white shark, which is from another group of sharks and much derived but is normally used as surrogate as the better modern analog. Now, you can see in the posts of Apex the hate that he has agains the cetaceans, a group of animals that had done nothing against him and he even blame me of having a bias for them, when actually I never participated in a direct debate about Meg-vs-Livyatan, I just made some opinions about why the Livyatan is still not know by some people, but that was all. Attitudes like those from Apex remind me the old days of AVA and the commetaries fo the lion fans agains the tigers and how much they hated them. Is really disturbing. And now this thing of the bears. It is even relevant to the discussion? Obviously not, but as this is the only thing that Apex has done correctly, you needed to put it in the table. My answer to that is simple, leave him with that, as is the only thing that he actually presented evidence, but appart from that, I will not give a cent about his opinions, period. 5 - Conclution Well, as you can see Peter, I tried to focus in the points of the debate, a few personal remarks here and there, but most of my post is about the TWO points of the original discussion. If this thing is going to continue I sugguest to focus in the discussion, not other things (megalodons and bears included) and try to search more information. However, I showed all the information at this point, so Apex and you should now show information too, first of all I will like to see all the sources showing the claims of the big paw/heel prints, the sample of those prints, how many times they took it, where they record it, in few words, evidence please. If no evidence is presented and only words from X people are typed, I don't see any future for this debate. From my part, I will focus in confirm the weights of the modern Amur tigers from north China which are far more important that chasing paws and suffering from a Cinderella issue.
Before I respond to Guate's post (which I will do in this thread from now) I wanna add to some of Peter's comments about "peer-reviewed" documents compared to other sources, which are just as authentic and reliable.
Peer-reviewed documents/studies are great sources of reliable data/info, but its also a fact that peer-reviewed documents doesn't cover all of it. On top of that, the data and information can be limited for various reasons. If we were to solely rely on or accept 'peer-reviewed' documents for reliable information, that means we would have to arrogantly dismiss and reject all the stories & accounts that old naturalists and experienced hunters like Jim Corbett, F.C. Hicks, Sanderson, Kesri Singh etc, wrote in their books, despite the fact that these people had multiple decades of field experience tracking and observing tigers, leopards, bears, elephants, buffaloes, wild boars etc. Even wildlife biologists in their scientific literature / papers will reference old-time naturalists and hunters. Do we simply dismiss all the observations, information and accounts of the legendary Russian explorer Vladimir Arseniev, who wrote many books, including 60 works on the geography, wildlife and ethnography of all the regions he traveled, a man who explored and traveled (in several expeditions) the vast Ussuri taiga forests with his native guide Dersu Uzala? Was all his info reported in scientific "peer-reviewed" papers? No. But was Arseniev's books and information based on pure facts, authentic information and field observations? Yes. I'm not saying all hunter-stories are reliable, but those hunters with a reputable reputation that are respected by even modern biologists, stories are reliable. Was the famous incident of the male Amur tiger carrying out a brutal, premeditated revenge murder on the Russian hunter Vladimir Markov reported in a peer-reviewed document? No. Was this case an established fact? Yes. An undeniable fact documented in history and a case which was professionally investigated by specialists and expert tiger trackers like Yuri Trush - the head of the 'Inspection Tiger Unit.' Same goes for John Vaillant's great book, which was solely based on first-hand information and interviews with experts, biologists, rangers, naturalists, hunters, locals and natives. Aside from 'peer-reviewed' information & studies, I found an abundance of authentic and just as reliable information from various other sources too, such as articles, magazines, books, interviews, videos, and documentaries (Information from experienced biologists, rangers, naturalists, and hunters). Not everything has to be reported in a scientific "peer-reviewed" document to be considered authentic or confirmed, that's just ridiculous. The 'Siberian Tiger Project' biologists like Dale Miquelle, L. Kerley & Goodrich are no doubt authorities on wild Amur tigers, but they're far from being the best or most experienced. Miquelle has about 25 - 30 years of experience studying the ecology of wild Amur tigers in Primorye, whereas seasoned Russian biologists like Alexander Batalov and Yuri Dunishenko have over 50 years of field experience studying wild Amur tigers. Now where's the comparison? Mikhail Krechmar (Russian bear expert & hunting biologist) even called Batalov the largest bear specialist in the south of the Far East of Russia. Batalov is one of Russia's leading expert authorities on the ecology and biology of Amur tigers and bears. Its also a fact what Peter said, not all biologists are active in publishing 'peer-reviewed' documents. Why? because there are various other ways for biologists to convey their message and report factual information and data based on their own field observations, such as interviews with journalists, scientific journals, articles, books and documentaries. There's many old Russian biologists (like Batalov) & zoologists who have decades more field experience in studying wild Amur tigers than the STP biologists like Miquelle, Kerley, and Goodrich. But these old (far more experienced) Russian biologists are not active in publishing scientific peer-reviewed documents, so does that make their information and observations reported in articles, interviews with journalists, books, news reports etc, unreliable? Of course not. To say otherwise would be a joke. Another example: Yuri Kya and his team of experienced forest rangers found the partially-eaten carcass of a large male brown bear that was killed and eaten by a medium-sized tiger. On the spot, they found clear signs and traces of a prolonged furious fight, as well as tiger & large bear paw prints, resting place of the tiger near his kill, and a dead body. In spite of all the blatant evidence at the scene, some posters in pure denial (we know who) made pathetic excuses and said the kill-site wasn't "examined by experts", which is an absolute laughable statement to say. What is an "expert"? An expert is a specialist who's skilled and qualified at something. And that's exactly what Yuri Kya and his team are. Yuri Kya is a highly trained, experienced and seasoned forest inspector/ranger who's job is to protect the wild animals of the reserve. One of his particular skills and expertise is in judging, tracking and measuring the traces of wild animals in the forest. There's a good reason why even biologists rely on Yuri Kya and his team to conduct the census of wild animals in the Khekhtsir Reserve. Forest rangers spend far more time roaming and exploring the taiga than most, if not all, biologists do. They walk many miles in the forest daily and become very familiar with the animals and are able to accurately identify particular individual animals. In addition to the numerous news reports and media outlets reporting this account, we also have two emails. In the 1st email, Mikhail Milizhek confirms that the killed bear was an adult brown bear with a palm callus width of 18 cm. In the 2nd email, we have first-hand confirmation from Yuri Kya himself, that the killed bear was indeed an adult male brown bear with a paw width of 18 cm. Yuri Kya was not the only man who examined the kill-site, there were 2-3 other forest rangers with him, and all were able to conclusively determine that the large adult male brown bear was killed and eaten by a tiger they know very well. Now was all this information reported in a scientific 'peer-reviewed' document? No. Is it as reliable and authentic as a peer-reviewed account? Definitely yes. In a court of law, would the tiger 'Odyr' have been convicted of murder? 100% yes. There was more than enough evidence at the kill-site to prove he's clearly guilty of killing the large male brown bear. My point is, that solely relying on scientific 'peer-reviewed' documents for reliable information would severely limit a person's view and mind and make them ignorantly dismiss and reject plenty of other factual information from various other good sources. I've read many articles and (also watched) interviews with biologists with some great information about tiger ecology. There's a good reason why biologists, zoologists and field researchers write books, do interviews with journalists, publish journals and feature in documentaries. You can even find good information about animals from experts and biologists on their social media (Facebook, Instagram etc). (11-28-2023, 07:10 PM)Apex Titan Wrote: Before I respond to Guate's post (which I will do in this thread from now) I wanna add to some of Peter's comments about "peer-reviewed" documents compared to other sources, which are just as authentic and reliable. This type of posts are the evidence about what I said before, this people can't stick to the topic of the discussion and like a bad politician when lacks of fundament, they deviate the conversation to other topics. I ask again, WHEN we dismissed the old hunting records, the old reports and the old books? In what part do I mention anything negative against those histories and stories? I don't know why Apex is twisting this point and which are his objectives but certainly is nothing good. In any part NOBODY is dismissing the old data (except for some of the old weights reviewed by Dr Slaght and team, which I already explained in my previous post), for the contrary, for some tiger populations old hunting records and old reports are the only thing that we have. In this discussion which was originally about the reliability of the information of the Siberian Tiger Project and the lack of reliable information to claim that Khabarovsk tigers are big if not giants based in a single heel print and random pictures with no referenc points, now they are mixing things with no reason or no logic. Now, If Apex (and maybe Peter too) is having one of the stupid "vrs" debates with other people in other forums, that is not reason to mix this debate with his own debates. It is sick to see how many times they mention this "tiger vrs bear" issue in every single post! Are we talking of the same thing???? Other thing, why the comparison between experts? Why the need to indirectly "discredit" the experts from USA in favor of those from Russia, when also the Siberian Tiger Project had Russian scientists in they lines? Why this necesity of create competition between people that are making a good work in investigating the information about the ecology of a highly endangered species? That concerns me. However, is important to remember that there is a difference between "qualitative" information and "quantitative" information. Qualitative information is the one based in reports and observations taken during an specific time in the field. Is very useful for traking efforts and to know the status of a species in the short therm. People like Batalov are good examples. Even people like Valmik Thapar in India produce this type of information, but the problem is that in Science, if you make an experiment and got a result you need to reproduce the experiment in order to see if you get the same result and also publish the information in order to be review by pers and make it a fact. Here is when the Quantitative information enter. The Quantitative information is the one that is adquired via several scientific methods, when statistic calculations are applied and its results are the most important one because can be used for long therm conservation. The study of the Siberian Tiger Project surpass all the previous observations of field Rusisan experts not because its information was "more reliable", but because they took all this information from the old Russian experts and test them with the modern scientific methods and they got reliable results, they "replied the experiment" tracking tigers and confirmed (or discarted) the old information and published the results that now are used to save the tigers. As we can see, the Qualitative information is good, reports like the book of Vaillant are very valuable for tigers study and general knowledge, but is just qualitative as is a single report of a single event. The interesting thing to understand is to see if the behaviour of this particular tiger is something that may happen with any other tiger, or is just a singular event for this particular specimen. Then, the results of that study will be quantitative and will produce reliable results about tiger behaviour in general and will generate action plans and policies to be take in count for actions in the future. Qualitative is important information that generate the base of the theoretical framework, but Quantitative data is science for future and the one that is usefull to take important decisions for conservation. So, both information types complement each other, and both are usefull. But at the end they are just steps in the same ladder to knowledge and both can be used depending of the situation. Valmik Thapar understood this very well, as he not only included his own personal qualitative observations, but he also used the quantitative data produced by scientists in the field. That is why his book "Tiger the Ultimate guide" is such a great book, as it shows the perfect balance. Based in what I read from the posts of Peter and particularly from ApexPredator, I see that they are not reading, not entirely, or ar not paying attention to what I write. They are constantly deviating from the main discussion and the two main original points. So, what's the point in spending so much effort explaining something, if the people that debate with you are not even paying attention? Maybe I'm throwing pearls before pigs, like the Bible say, I don't know at this point. But certainly I ask to the people that is reading all these posts to read all, to be self-taught and self-critical and to investigate and read both types of inormation, and then you will reach the same conclutions that I. (11-28-2023, 09:28 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(11-28-2023, 07:10 PM)Apex Titan Wrote: Before I respond to Guate's post (which I will do in this thread from now) I wanna add to some of Peter's comments about "peer-reviewed" documents compared to other sources, which are just as authentic and reliable. 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. (11-30-2023, 07:26 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? 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.
ABOUT THE SIZE OF WILD AMUR TIGERS TODAY - I
1 - Introduction When the discussion about the size of today's wild Amur tigers started, I decided to go over everything I have in order to get to a few tables. This will take a bit of time, as I have a lot of books, articles and papers that have information about the size of Amur tigers. The main problem is to find the information, as it's everywhere. Another problem is I want to distinguish between wild tigers, captive tigers caught in the Russian Far East at a young age and tigers born in captivity. The reason I decided for different categories is there could be differences at the level of averages. 2 - Guate In the weeks that followed (referring to the first paragraph), you posted more than once in this thread. As I was addressed in every post, I felt obliged to respond. Writing a post, at least for me, usually takes time. This is especially true if the post I respond to has suggestions of a dubious nature, incorrect conclusions and remarks with an insultive character. In order to give you an idea of what I mean, I decided for a few examples. All examples are from your last two posts. In the first of your last two posts, you suggested I could be participating in 'versus debates' with members of other forums. Not so. I only post at Wildfact. At the end of that post, you suggested I'm not properly reading your posts. This, again, is not the case. That's still apart from quite a few direct or indirect dismissive remarks about my interest in interactions between tigers and bears in the Russian Far East, and the decision to inform our members and readers about this topic. That's still without the numerous attempts to lecture those involved in what should have been a discussion about the size of wild Amur tigers. Lecture someone with a degree, Guate? In your last post, you say this thread is developing into a shady back alley where those present indulge in versus debates about " ... silly topics ... " (like interactions between Amur tigers and bears in the Russian Far East). You also suggest most, if not all, posts about this topic are not based on good information, sound reasoning and logic, meaning they have a " ... sensationalist ... " character. One that compares to the character of most 'versus debates' at other forums. Forums like, for instance, Carnivora. In between these suggestions and insultive remarks, no opportunity is wasted to severely criticise those involved in the discussion. As only two participate, the conclusion is these remarks are directed at Apex and yours truly. On top of that, you suggest these two cooperate in ordr to produce "... dirty ... '' posts to create " ... havoc ... " . Right at the end, on top of that, you suggest members have been " ... banned for no reason ... ". As you apparently expect a similar fate, you, depending on my response, suggested you'll most probably leave the forum in the near future. All in all, I can only conclude you got to a decision some time ago. You apparently also decided not to leave unnoticed. Meaning the conclusions I got to in the long post I wrote to improve the climate were close and also meaning the attempt to get to cooperation failed. A pity, but I have no option but to accept the outcome. 3 - The Anyuysky National Park In December last year (2022), I tried to find a bit more about the Anyuysky National Park. The main reason was quite a few sites about conservation in the Russian Far East had disappeared in 2022. Same for a number of videos. It took me a lot of time to find the site of the organisation that manages the Anyuysky National Park. I'm referring to 'The Federal State Butgetary Institution Reserved Amur Region'. The site had a news archive with quite a few reports that had interesting information about the 8 national parks and reserves managed by this organisation. The news archive started in 2015 and, as far as I know, ended in December 2022. I read all reports. Most reports in which tigers feature were written by Alexey Gotvansky. They had a lot of information about the Anyuysky National Park in particular. The main reason was this national park had a relatively large population of tigers. In the Russian Federation, tigers have some status. The reason is the Amur tiger is an endangered (Red Data) animal. The tigers in the Anyuysky National Park, Gotvansky noted time and again, were thriving in the period 2015-2022. I made notes and visited the site more than once in that month (December 2022). When the discussion about the size of wild Amur tigers started almost a year later, I reread my notes and posted some of the information. I referred to the source, but didn't post scans of the reports I had read. The result was questions. Guate wasn't the only one who asked for 'proof'; Apex also asked me to post the reports. In order to deliver what was asked for, I revisited the site. As I had feared a year ago, it was gone. When I searched the net, however, I found 'New data on the distribution of sika deer (Cervus nippon, Temminck, 1838) in the Lower Amur Region'. It was published in the Amurian Zoological Journal, Volume 15, No. 1 (2023). The authors were Antonov (AL), Pronkevich (VV) and Gotvansky (AV). Gotvansky still was employed by the 'Federal State Butgetary Institution Joint Directory of State National Reserves and National Parks of the Khabarovsk Territory Reserved Amur Region, branch Anyuysky'. Armed with the new information, I again searched the net. Again, I came up empty. However. In December 2022, after reading all reports, I decided to print the reports with information about Amur tigers living in the Anyuysky National Park. They were printed in Dutch, because a young man wanted to use them for a speech at school (...). The speech was much appreciated and was I was happy because I had printed unique and valuable information. Early this year, my PC was replaced by a new one. When I, a few weeks ago, tried to scan prints of reports I considered interesting, I failed. The reason is the new PC uses a different system to scan images. As I didn't master it yet, I need help from a friend. Unfortunately, he's been floored by a disease. As it'll take him quite some time to recover, I'm unable to deliver the information I have at the moment. I hope the situation will be different in a few weeks from now. All in all, I printed 67 reports about tigers (and other topics I considered interesting). Not a few of them have information about the 'heel width' of tigers. The reason, I think, was Gotvansky often was amazed at the size of the prints he found. I don't think it's superfluous to underline once again he wasn't referring to the width of the print of the front paw, but to the width of the heel of the front paw. Gotvansky also wrote a few reports about the male tiger that attracted a lot of attention. This tiger, known as 'The Beast', is no more, but the reports I read have a few photographs of him. His heel width, at 13,5 cm, was quite exceptional. Gotvansky, for this reason, thought it was the largest tiger in the national park by a margin, but the prints he later saw suggest he wasn't. At least, not in the heel width department. 4 - Video I recently found a short video (Phoenix Fund) about the Anyuysky National Park. It was shot in the part that, a few years ago, had a number of males leaving exceptional prints: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N1S8Pvh5O0 5 - About the character of Amur tigers and a few observations made in the past In 2010, 'The tiger - A true story of vengeance and survival' was published. Not long after I had read it, I contacted Miquelle. One of the questions was about Vaillant's book. He said it was a great book based on good research, but didn't agree with all of Vaillant's observations (referring to the tiger's capacity to hold a grudge and act on it). Others, however, had a different opinion. Here's a few interesting quotes: " ... For more than fifteen years, both men (referring to Miquelle and Goodrich) have been living and working in Terney, on the east coast of Primorye, and, over the years, they have caught, sedated, examined, and collared dozens of tigers, some of them numerous times. Despite the fact that both of these men have spent years in these tigers' territories, there have been no cases of tiger vengeance. "As a biologist, I have a hard time believing it", explained Miquelle when asked about such behaviour, "but as a type of myth and local perspective on tigers I find it intriguing". "If tigers are vengeful", said Goodrich, "I should be dead" ... " ('The tiger', pp. 159). " ... Sergey Boyko, however, wasn't so surprised (referring to what happened to Markov), and this may be because he knows what it is to run afoul of a tiger. "Another hunter and me, we once took some of a tiger's kill", he began. "We didn't take it all because you can't take everything. It's a law in the taiga: you have to share. But when we came to check the next day, the tiger hadn't touched what we left for him. After that, we couldn't kill anything: the tiger destroyed our traps, and he scared off the animals that came to our bait. If any animal got close, he would roar and everyone would run away. We learned the hard way. That tiger wouldn't let us hunt for an entire year. I must tell you," Boyko added, "the tiger is such an unusual animal: very powerful, very smart, and very vengeful" ..." ('The tiger', pp. 158). Vaillant adds: " ... Boyko's experience is not unique. The Amur tiger's territoriality and capacity for sustained vengeance, for lack of a better word, are the stuff of both legend and fact. What is amazing - and also terrifying about tigers - is their capacity for what can only be described as abstract thinking. Very quickly, tiger can assimilate new information - evidence, if you will - ascribe it to a source, and even a motive, and react accordingly ... " ('The tiger', pp. 156). Here's a bit more from someone 'in the know': " ... Vladimir Schetinin, the former head of Inspection Tiger, and an expert on tiger attacks, has accumulated a number of stories ... over the past thirty years. "There are at least eight cases my team and I investigated", he said in March 2007. "And we all arrived at the same conclusion: if a hunter fired a shot at a tiger, that tiger would track him down, even if it took him two or three months. It is obvious that tigers will sit and wait specifically for the hunter who has fired shots at them" ... " ('The tiger', pp. 158). In the end, after talking to biologists, hunters, locals and those who know about attacks, Vaillant concluded: " ... It is not known if tigers are capable of distinguishing between humans who intentionally cause them pain and injury, and humans who trap them and manipulate them but release them into their home territory unharmed. Because of this, there is no tidy way to reconcile these different views, all of which are based on extensive firsthand experience. In the end, it may simply come down to context and character - of all concerned. This, and the fact that, as Miquelle puts it, " What tigers usually do, and what they can do, are very different things ... " ('The tiger', pp. 159). And what about captive tigers? Here's a bit more about the experience of a vet: " ... Chris Schneider, an American veterinarian based in Washington state, has had personal experience with the tiger's capacity for holding a grudge. Over the course of his career, Schneider has treated many circus animals, including tigers, sometimes giving them sedatives in the form of a painful shot in the rump. A year might go by before these tigers passed through town again, nonetheless, the moment he showed up, their eyes would lock on him. "I'd wear different hats; I'd try to disguise myself", Schneider explained, "but when I'd walk up into the room, the cat would just start following me, turning as I walked around them. It was uncanny". He described the impact of these tigers' gaze as "piercing". "They looked right through you: a very focused predator. I think most of these cats would have nailed me if they could have ... " ('The tiger', pp. 158-159). I don't think it's superfluous to add Miquelle and Goodrich were interviewed in 2007 or thereabout. In the period 1992-2007, no biologists had been attacked by tigers that had walked into a footsnare. A few years later, however, the situation changed. At least two biologists have been attacked by male tigers that had walked into an Aldrich footsnare. A few years later, a Russian biologist was attacked when he suddenly found himself between a tigress and her cub. They lived in different cages, meaning the tigress had to break out of the cage in order to get to the biologistn (..). I don't know if these incidents had an effect, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn opinions about tigers changed. If you want to know a bit more, my advice is to read 'The snare for tiger' (2012) or to contact Miquelle or Aramilev. Returning to the topic discussed. Here's a bit more from other regions. In 1856, 'Untersuchungen über die Verbreitung des Tigers Felis tigris und seine Beziehungen zur Menschheit' (Brandt, JF) was published. It was discussed in this thread some years ago. Brandt studied old writings and found a lot of information about the character and behaviour of wild tigers. In old Chinese encyplopedia, it was stated tigers were considered as courageous and able to turn the tables on hunters, either outsmarting or ambushing them. Many centuries later, Umanz (1846) wrote hunters following a tiger were often wounded or killed when they failed to kill the object of their desire. In Greek writings, Brandt found information about tigers living near the Indus river. Philostratus, for example, wrote tigers living in reed beds close to the river were often robbed of their young. Tigresses not seldom tried to recover them in neighbouring villages. When they didn't succeed, they roared at the shore of the Erythraic lakes and sometimes even died. In Roman times, Sotinus wrote Hyrcanian tigers had firm characters and adored their young. All attempts to train them failed. In the southern part of Siberia, females with cubs often were harassed by Kirgisians. One tigress robbed of her cubs retaliated. She attacked a village of the Sadyr-Motai tribe, killed four and wounded many more before she was shot. Karelin took her skin to the Moscow Natural History Museum. Old writings more or less confirm what hunters experienced in the 19th and 20th century in different regions (not only referring to what used to be British India). Most of those also interested in local culture noticed tigers were considered as courageous, headstrong and dangerous animals not afraid to confront humans. Although man-eaters were uncommon in most regions, many hundreds of thousands of humans have been killed by tigers over the centuries. 6 - About the character of tigers in Java and Sumatra Although dangerous is different from vindictive, Brandt found strong evidence of tigers turning the tables on those who hunted or robbed them. The Caspian tiger (Panthera tigris virgata) in particular had a reputation in this respect, but you can find a lot more about tigers turning the tables on those who hunted or robbed them in 'Frontiers of fear' (Boomgaard, 2001) and 'Het verbond met de tijger' (Bakels, 2000). Remember the newspaper report about poachers treed by tigers in Atjeh, Sumatra some years ago? Really happened. A young tiger, quite by accident (according to the poachers), was trapped in a snare. Adult tigers found those responsible and started harassing them. In the end, the poachers had to climb a tree. Indonesia, as you may remember, was a Dutch colony. When it became independent, many Dutch (as well as Indonesians) were forced to leave. Some settled in Amsterdam. I got to know many of them quite well. In their homes, I not seldom saw photographs, skins, skulls and paintings and heard many stories from those who had lived in tiger country for most of their life. Stories some of us would dismiss as 'sensationalistic', but all of them, as far as I could see, were true. About fifteen years ago, I visited a man who lived in a small city close to the German border. At age 88, still in great shape, he talked about Javan and Sumatran tigers for many hours. Quality information. When I left, he offered me his book 'Wilde katten' (in Dutch only and published in the early sixties of the last century). In the years he was writing and doing research, he visited many biologists in the Netherlands, Germany and the Czech republic (back then still united with Slovakia). Not a few of them still have a reputation. Did they have information about the way tigers and humans interacted in Indonesia and other regions in southeast Asia? The answer is affirmative. Did they think adult wild tigers can be 'vindictive' when they're harassed, hunted, robbed or wounded? They most certainly did and added a grudge always is very specific (personal). 7 - About captive tigers Those involved in circuses offered me the opportunity to watch big cats for hours. They had a lot of specific knowledge about individuals, but also saw differences between species. A vet working for private facilities often invited me when he had a job. The tigers obviously knew about him (and acted accordingly), but they also distinguished between him and others. These facilities also were a hotspot for those who had been involved in training. I interviewed many and asked them if they thought tigers were capable of deductions and grudges. All trainers confirmed the conclusion Vaillant got to. Some of the trainers I interviewed introduced me to the director of what used to be a famous training facility in the Netherlands. I wrote him a letter and got answers to questions debated at many forums. Later, I was invited by vets working for zoos and private facilities. I heard about many incidents and concluded experienced cats, and tigers in particular, were involved in what I would describe as 'abstract thinking'. Meaning I agree with the conclusion of Vaillant (see above). 8 - About Dr. P. van Bree and a few others About a quarter of a century ago, I contacted Dr. P. van Bree, conservator of the former Zoological Museum of Amsterdam. In contrast to most of his collegues, van Bree was friendly. He told me how to measure skulls and presented interesting papers and articles every time I went to see him. Dr. van Bree was born and raised in Sumatra and heard many stories about tigers wounded by hunters and robbed by locals. Not seldom, tigers retaliated. Members of forest tribes, for this reason, kept their distance. Dr. van Bree also opened doors of natural history museums. One day, I was contacted by the conservator of a well-known museum. He wanted me to see a few skulls said to be from Bali and offered me the opportunity to measure all skulls he had. The labels I saw had a lot of interesting information about the former owner of the skull. Some tigers, to be more precise, were shot after they had harassed, wounded or killed locals. Not seldom, these attacks were a result of what Vaillant would describe as vengeance. After I had visited a number of natural history museums, I was contacted by people involved in official measurements, skull preparation and auctions. They wanted me to determine a number of skulls without labels. Some of them had been hunters themselves. They too confirmed wounded tigers not seldom followed and visited those responsible. When Wildfact was created, I was contacted by biologists who had studied wild big cats. I also talked to those involved in documentaries and conservations in little known regions just before tigers completely disappeared from these regions. That's without the very distinguished man who invited me for a drink during a visit to a natural history museum. That man, although close to a century (...), was one of the best-informed I met. I don't know how he knew about me, but I decided to use the opportunity to ask a few questions. Every question was met with a big smile. He said I would most probably never see the large skulls he saw (most are in private collections), but encouraged me to continue in spite of that. He confirmed what others told me about the character of adult wild tigers. Did I tell you about the biologists I visited? We talked for days about what we considered to be the essence of big cats. Every biologist had personal experience with big cats. Time and again, I noticed they had been very careful in the presence of tigers in particular. For good reasons, I found. 9 - About interacting and consequences One could say I did my best to learn a few things about tigers and be close. Like you, Guate, I trained my brain from day one. I use it at all times, but know there's a difference between this tool and what I consider to be the essence of an individual. My real 'brain' is instinct and the ability to see what is lurking behind words. A result of the way I was raised and experience. Over the years, I noticed the world is loaded with people who think they're quite knowledgeable. The better the education, the stronger the tendency to show their 'ability' is. One thing that sets those nursing this spoecific 'ability' apart is their urge to tell others how to live their life. I don't mind you using peer-reviewed documents as road maps during debates, but I do mind you telling me what topics have to be discussed in the thread I started. I also don't want you to 'inform' me about the 'best' methods to get to good information and which methods will yield the best results. Furthermore, I don't like you dismissing, ridiculing and insulting other members. Same for insinuations (referring to your remark about " ... dirty games ... " in your last post). As to your 'enemy' Apex. You know he's interested tigers and bears. I offered him the opportunity to inform those sharing his interest. My interest in the way tigers and bears interact isn't a result of what you described as a 'silly' drive to participate in 'versus debates', but of genuine interest. I want to know in what way large wild predators interact with competitors and humans and I also want to know why they act as they do. Are their decisions and actions a result of instinct or is there a bit more to it? I think Apex did a good job, but it seems I'm one of the few. The question is why those who have a different opinion act(ed) as they do (did). What I saw suggests it could have been a result of preference. A bit strange, as the information he posted was confirmed by many considered to be 'in the know'. Biologists today agree Amur tigers hunt bears up to the size of an adult female brown bear, especially in summer and autumn. Most of those interested in bears think an adult male tiger is no match for a large male brown bear, but recent information suggests this is not quite the case. That, however, doesn't mean the opposite is true. It means the outcome of a confrontation depends. On the individuals involved, the conditions and, perhaps, the season. In the end, one would expect a kind of balance between both species, as tigers and bears have been living in close proximity for a long time in the Russian Far East. Without humans, it's very likely they would still thrive. A 'silly' topic, Guate? I think observations about the way large predators and competitors (including humans) interact in natural conditions are far from silly. We know in what way lions and other predators interact on the African plains, but there isn't a lot of information about the way tigers and their competitors interact. The reason is tigers are elusive animals living in forested regions. Local people, hunters and biologists (referring to the Russian Far East in particular) often know a few things, but their knowledge never reached the general public. Heptner and Sludskij ('Die Säugetiere der Sowjet-Union', 1980) removed part of the veil covering the Russian Far East and so, to a degree, did Mazak ('Der Tiger', 1983), but the Siberian Tiger Project in particular resulted in a lot of good information. Not all questions, however, were answered. This is the reason interactions between tigers and bears were discussed at many forums for quite some time. Apex, as far as I know, didn't join these discussions, at least, not in the first years. His aim was to find information that hadn't reached those involved in articles and peer-reviewed documents. Like any good journalist, he invested time, added sources and tried to find confirmation of what he found. When he was ready, he reported for duty. Unfortunately, they didn't like him at Carnivora. They also don't like him over here. Time and again, those involved in preference tried to discredit him and every time they did I supported him. In the end, it resulted in a flow of what I consider to be interesting information and although not all members agreed, readers seemed to appreciate his contributions. Did the problems, as you suggested, result in bans? Negative. Those involved in the problems that erupted when Apex started often left themselves. I'm not only referring to some mods, but also to a few others. A pity, but that's life. 10 - Future As most questions in the department of interactions between tigers and bears in the Russian Far East, to a degree, have been answered, the time has arrived to move on. Before I do, my aim is to scan, and post, the reports from Gotvansky about tigers in the Anyuysky National Park I referred to earlier. Might take a bit of time, but it will happen. The main reason is not the width of the heel of some male tigers in the national park, but the observations of a man who knows the Anyuysky National Park and it's tigers inside out. 11 - Wildfact Over here, as you well know, we have rules. Most are about respect. Members ignoring rules and mods will be warned. No exceptions. After the barrage of incorrect conclusions, poisonous suggestions and, on top of that, personal insults, you most certainly earned one. With distinction, I may add. Also meaning I don't mind you trying your luck elsewhere. That, however, doesn't mean you'll be banned. You are a longtime member able to produce decent posts, meaning you earned a bit of credit. It's up to you, that is. But remember I don't want to respond to posts that result in animosity anymore. Every response takes a lot of time and not one of them is interesting for our members and readers. Informationwise, they're empty by nature. I take your posts serious, but it took me days to respond. My aim is to invest my time in something I consider interesting. 12 - About the size of wild Amur tigers I said I would contribute in this department and I will, but I need time to get there. There is good information about the size of wild Amur tigers, but it's everywhere. You know it took me a long time to produce the tables with information about the size of captive Amur tigers. I'm not saying I need as much time to get to tables with information about their wild relatives, but it will be a slow process. I did notice something of interest in your last post. I'm referring to recent information about tigers captured in the southern districts of Primorye. The information suggests they seem to be a bit heavier than their relatives captured in the Sichote-Alin Biosphere Reserve (and its surroundings) in the period 1992-2004. Remarkable if we consider the posts in which you strongly opposed those who suggested there could be regional differences in size (...). The question, of course, is if the difference is a result of coincidence, sample size or time. As to the last factor. The number of wild Amur tigers is still growing and it's likely a larger population will produce more outlyers if the conditions remain favourable. I wonder if genes and proximity to humans (and roads in particular) are factors to consider as well. The information I have suggests that tigers shot in Manchuria in the recent past could have been a bit larger than those shot in other regions. The two largest skulls Mazak measured belonged to tigers shot in Manchuria. Jankowski ('The tiger's claw') also suggested tigers in northern China were larger than elsewhere. Same, to a degree, for Baikov. Apart from one article in an American magazin in the fifties of the last century ('The opium tiger'), there's, as far as I know, no information about (the size of) tigers in the Khabarovsk Territory. Only few tigers were shot in that part of the Russian Far East. Some of those who had the opportunity to get to an opinion said the northwestern districts of the Khabarovsk Territory had the largest tigers, but not one male was ever captured and measured. Our former mod 'Wolverine' posted a photograph of a large male on a road and Gotvansky measured a number of prints he considered exceptional in the Anyuysky National Park, but that's about it. Meaning I don't think we'll be able to answer the question if tigers in the Khabarovsk Territory are different from those in Primorye and northeastern China. My guess is those involved in counting tigers could provide a bit of information, but I never found anything in the overviews I read. Chances are, however, remote districts have a relatively high number of (young adult) male tigers and it's possible the large number of prints left by males in these districts had an effect on the opinion of those involved in tiger counts. Alexey Gotvansky, by the way, also patrolled the famous Bolsjhekhtsirsky Reserve (close to Khabarovsk). The heel width of prints left by adult males ranged between 10-12 cm and in prints left by females it ranged between 8-10 cm. In prints left by young adult males, the heel width seldom exceeded 10 cm. Using heel width as an indicator, the differences between tigers living in the small reserve close to Khabarovsk and those living in the Anyuysky National Park were remarkable. All prints, to be sure, were measured by Alexey Gotvansky. In a report from February 2020, Gotvansky wrote he saw a print with a heel width of 15 cm. In July of that year, he found a print of what he described as a 'monster tiger' with a heel width of 16 cm. A few weeks later, he wrote he saw prints left by a female (heel width 9 cm) and a print left by the male he mentioned a few weeks earlier. It was this male who killed what must have been a large wild boar after a 20-minute fight close to Arsenyevo. In that year (2020), crews from different countries visited the Anyuysky National Park to film tigers. In a report of October 30 of that year, Gotvansky again wrote he again saw prints of the 'monster tiger' living near the Pikhtsa river. In a report of May 27, 2021, Gotvansky wrote about a new 'very large' male that settled near the Kiya river. Two other 'gigantic' males lived close to the Nilo Channel and the Tormasu river. In late April, he found the remains of a Himalayan black bear that had been killed by a 'large' male tiger near the Solomi river. In a report of July 22, 2021, one of the cameratraps produced photographs of 'The Beast' and the 'very large' old male brown bear hugging the same tree. It resulted in the famous photograph of both animals hugging the same tree. Gotvansky more than once emphasized the size of both animals. As he was familiar with both and knew the location of the tree, it's likely his estimate of both animals standing on their hind legs (about three meters) was quite accurate. The problem, of course, is it's not known if he referred to the height of the claw marks or the height of the head. After reading all reports again, I concluded Gotvansky thought the tiger known as 'The Beast' was the largest tiger in 2020 and 2021. He had a heel width of 13,5 cm. At least, that's what I read when I saw a photograph of him in the snow. The question, therefore, is if the prints with a heel width of 15 and 16 cm were left by other males or by 'The Beast'. I don't know, but I do know the Anyuysky National Park attracted a lot of tigers. Most newcomers were males, and some of them, according to Gotvansky, compared to 'The Beast'. I also know the prints were measured in spring and summer, meaning it's unlikely the prints were distorted by the conditions. Male tigers seem to be real wanderers. They're here, there and everywhere. Same for 'The Beast'. Gotvansky often lost track of him and one day in late December 2022, the tiger left, never to return. Combining the information Gotvansky offered, I think it's safe to say the enormous prints were not left by 'The Beast' but by one of the seasonal visitors. One more remark to finish the post. Gotvansky's reports strongly suggest tigers living in the Anyuysky National Park and it's surroundings are different from those in Primorye or neighbouring reserves and national parks. The Anyuysky National Park seems to be a hotspot for tigers, meaning the conditions are favourable. The video (see -4-) suggests many animals are not afraid of humans, which is quite remarkable these days. The national park is protected, meaning visitors need a permit to enter. Although poachers occasionally enter the park (Gotvansky found the remains of their camp) and one male was wounded by a poacher (the tiger made a full recovery), tigers thrived in the national park. Furthermore, it was often visited by male tigers. Most of them were quite old, suggesting tigers felt quite safe in the park. I'm not saying most tigers in the Anyuysky National Park die of old age, but it's quite likely some do. Is it possible the conditions have an effect on the average age, and size, of tigers? Maybe. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |