There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
10-24-2024, 07:19 PM( This post was last modified: 10-24-2024, 07:25 PM by Apex Titan )
(10-24-2024, 09:57 AM)peter Wrote: APEX
Yet another series of interesting posts! Much appreciated. As a result of circumstances, I was unable to respond directly after you posted. In this post, however, I'll make up for it. That is to say, to a degree. I'll start from the bottom up, meaning I'll discuss your last contribution first. Before I do, a few words about the best way to present a story or theory wouldn't be entirely out of place.
ABOUT PRESENTING A STORY
I saw the video you used in your last post some time ago. The decision to watch it, however, wasn't based on the presentation. I read the articles used for the video and concluded the one involved had done his homework. Meaning he was well-informed. The moment I started the video, however, it took quite an effort to get past the first ten seconds. The reason is the voice guiding you through the video. Artificial Intelligence no doubt will conquer the world soon, but there's still a lot to be desired meaning it's not a good idea to present an interesting story in this way. My guess is not a few of those potentially interested left well before the end, because they don't take a story presented by a voice created by artificial intelligence serious. They have a point, because there usually is a connection between a story and the way it's presented.
Same, to a degree, for not a few of your posts. I'm not referring to the info and the conclusions, but to the way you present a point. When you post, I quickly go over the complete post. It's an old habit enabling me to get to an opinion in a few seconds. If a book, article, story or post is interesting, it usually shows at the first page. I'm not saying I'm right all the time, but it's close.
Is this what you really want? The content says no. When reading your posts, an experienced reader will quickly conclude they almost compare to real interesting articles. Meaning you use many typical ingredients. I'm referring to way you construct the post, the number of references and, last but not least, the conclusions. Most unfortunately, however, the way you present your point also suggests you don't trust your readers one bit. The result is an overload of capitals, colours and repetitions. Meaning you're more or less destroying you post.
My advice is to start trusting those interested in your contributions. There are many. Every time you post, the number of views sharply increases. Only very few readers respond, but that's a result of the way this section is moderated. What I'm saying is most readers are way more capable than you think. They don't need repetitions, capitals and all the rest of it. They're interested in good info and that's exactly what you deliver time and again. This is the reason you got the opportunity to post in this thread. Use it and drop the distrust typical for most of your posts. When you write an article, there'll always be responses. Accept some will be encouraging and others will be negative and move on.
Continue as you did, but focus on good info only. Select a title that covers the post, start with an introduction, present your points in different paragraphs and finish with a conclusion. If you're up to it, add a paragraph in which you discuss your conclusions. In every decent article, the writer will try to reject or confirm his hypothesis. Give it a try and add a few tables or pictures when they really fit the content. Always remember it's up to the reader in the end.
ABOUT THOSE WHO WORK WITH CAPTIVE BIG CATS
In one of the first posts of your series, you, regarding interactions between captive big cats and bears, referred to a post in which I discussed the difference between the general public and those who know a few things about fysicalo confrontations between humans. You suggested there would be a difference between them and the general public and also assumed professionals would favour captive big cats over captive (brown) bears.
The answer is there is a difference between professionals and others. The reason is professionals had more tools to get to an opinion. With 'tools', I'm referring to knowledge and experience. They knew about the effect of speed, strength, flexibility and character in a fight. Although they were able to 'weigh' these factors, most of them didn't get to a clear conclusion. They did, however, agree 'strength' in general is a bit overestimated. According to most of those I talked to, the outcome of a fight is determined by the number of opportunities to get to a distinctive advantage. That and the ability to use these in the best way. Professional hunters, like big cats, are more experienced killers, whereas bears (not referring to polar bears) are not. Meaning they, for this reason, need more opportunities. A few examples.
Clyde Beatty, in one of his books, discussed an incident between his Russian brown bear 'Bill' and Amur tigress 'Lil'. The bear got a great opportunity to settle an affair when 'Lil' suddenly fell in front of him. He got hold of the neck and was able to kill 'Lil' in this way. Beatty was surprised, because bears often bite and let go. I've heard similar stories from other trainers and keepers. They confirmed bears are critters, not biters. They rely on their strength to win a fight. When they bite, they use it to deliver multiple bites in different parts of the body, whereas big cats often try to find a vulnarable spot and hold on. If the neck of a bear is too large, they move to another vulnarable spot. When a big cat bites, the result, more often than not, is significant (local) damage. Captive brown bears, according to those I interviewed, do not seem to have a consistent method to overcome their opponent. More often than not, they rely on their size. When they bite, they target different spots. When they found a suitable spot, they tend to shake their opponent. In this respect, they compare to canids and, to a degree, sharks.
I posted some parts of the interview with Tony Hughes in the days I was a member of the former AVA. Another trainer I interviewed was Gary Ambrose. Born in Malta, he wanted to be a trainer from day one. He worked with polar bears, Kodiak bears, brown bears, black bears, hyenas's (!), puma's, jaguars, leopards, lions and tigers. He knew about mixed acts, but preferred to work with tigers and, in particular, lions. When I interviewed him in the summer of 2001, he had a tiger act. The first day, we talked about his act and the tigers he used. On the second day, we focused on mixed acts and the exchanges he witnessed.
In his experience, brown bears are very intelligent. Polar bears are " ... sly, cunning and more dangerous than brown bears ... ". Jaguars do not quite compare in the department of intelligence, but they are dangerous. Lionesses are easygoing, but males are not, especially in the period females are in heat. Tigers are more intelligent and less dangerous. In the mixed acts he had, problems were not uncommon. Male brown bears " ... like the fight and go for the kill ... ". In spite of that, they not seldom ended second best. The reason was they overestimated their abilities. Male lions fight for position. Male tigers fight animals " ... they don't like ... ". Fights between male tigers often are 'ritualized'. Male lions immediately go for it with everything they have and often injure each other. Fights between male jaguars are short and intense. Same for male leopards. Ambrose thought male lions stood the best chance in any fight. The reason was energy, character and protection (mane).
Erich 'Klant' Hagenbeck, a very experienced director of a training facility, however, had a different opinion. Same for Daniel Rafo and Tony Hughes. When you read books written by trainers, you'll often conclude opinions differ quite a bit. The word I most often heard about male brown bears is 'tough', but they tend to overestimate their ability in a fight. In the end, as Tony Hughes stated, there's no such thing as species-related ability. It depends on the individual, the motivation, character and the presence of bananas (coincidence). My guess is most trainers I interviewed would have agreed.
All this, mind you, relates to captive bears and big cats. Their wild relatives are very different. This is especially true for solitary hunters like tigers. Adult male Amur tigers, as John Vaillant said in his great book, really are survivors. Amur tigers are the only tiger subspecies that face serious competition from (brown) bears. Every adult wild male Amur tiger learned to deal with bears one way or another.
Aramilev, in the video I recently posted, explained why Amur tigers have the best chance in a fight with a brown bear. My guess i most readers will struggle with his explanation, meaning they find it difficult to believe a 400-pound tiger would be able to overcome an adult wild male Ussuri brown bear twice that weight. I asked the 'professionals' (see above) in what way they would explain the difference between a big cat and a brown bear to the general public. Most of them thought it would be all but impossible to do so, because most people are unable to understand the effect of training and specialisation. It's much more easy to explain the difference between a professional bodybuilder and a non-athlete of similar length. The reason is the difference between them is easy to see. Meaning it's about what you see. This is something one has to accept.
Does all this mean an adult wild male Ussuri brown bear is at a disadvantage in a fight against an adult wild male Amur tiger? Anybody's guess. I do, however, agree with the 'professionals' in that it's likely an wild male Amur tiger in his prime, as a result of his speed and aggression, will get more opportunities to use his teeth first. If this is the case, his opponent has a problem for the reasons Aramilev explained in the video. Adult Amur tigers, no exceptions, know where and when to attack and how to use their weapons in the most efficient way. They're expert killers.
ABOUT 'OCHKARIK', 'RASHEL', 'CHLAMYDA' AND BATALOV
We could start yet another discussion or decide to call it a day. It's a fact the big bear male brown bear following and robbing tigress 'Rashel' for some months in 2017 suddenly disappeared after 'Rashel' and 'Ochkarik' had a sitdown. Three years later, a very experienced man who knew all participants in this story concluded the big bear was killed and eaten by male tiger 'Ochkarik'. Those who disagree have a point in that there was no body. Those who think Batalov's deductions were correct have no option but to underline his experience and status. They both did a good job (also referring to the video you posted) and that's about it.
One more remark to close the post. According to Batalov, male tiger 'Ochkarik' was 160-180 kg. Batalov knows about Ussuri brown bears, Himalayan black bears, Amur tigers and weights. To say he's experienced would be an understatement. Was he close?
The video I recently posted shows 'Ochkarik' and two hikers. It's very difficult to get an estimate, but it is clear 'Ochkarik' was tall and quite robust. I also saw the video of 'Ochkarik' in his prime climbing a tree. There's no question he was quite a beast back then.
I measured 3 adult (8-year old) captive Amur tigers in a Dutch facility in 1996. They ranged between 279-298 cm in total length measured in a straight line. Only one of them was weighed. Tiger 'Arames', the longest, was 184,5 kg, but he was quite slender. Also remember this was not long after the 7 tigers arrived. Important? Yes. The reason is they had been neglected for a long time (7-8 weeks) after their trainer had been killed by another tiger. Did the neglect have an effect? Most certainly. This is a photograph of tiger 'Arames' on the day the tigers arrived in the facility in the Netherlands:
*This image is copyright of its original author
The photograph didn't say it was 'Arames', but it was him. He had recovered to a degree when I measured him, but my guess was he would have been closer to 195 kg (430 pounds) when he would have been fit. One of the other males, 'Amur', weighed at Schiphol Airport a few years later, was 211 kg. That male, although shorter and not as tall, was more muscular (fore-arm circumference 56 cm). His brother 'Igor' more or less compared. Compared to many other captive Amur tigers I saw, they seemed a bit smaller.
How does 'Arames', photographed in a difficult period, compare to 'Ochkarik' in the two videos that were posted? I'll leave that one to our readers.
I get what you're saying about my last posts, however, I made it quite obvious that my posts were addressing the 'bear posters' in particular, especially the people who like to badly exaggerate the size of brown bears, and the people who like to arrogantly dismiss Alexander Batalov's conclusion and ridicule him.
Do I trust the 'bear posters' reading my posts? Absolutely not. You know, the same hypocrites who'd rather arrogantly dismiss, ridicule or insult highly reputable and experienced biologists/rangers when it doesn't suit their preconceived ideas and agenda, instead of accepting reality and facts.
I don't know why there are "strange spaces" between my sentences, I tried editing that, but it wouldn't allow me. I was also confused as to why that is. I don't like to write long paragraphs with too many sentences, it makes it more difficult for people to read. I like short paragraphs with some highlighted words, so it makes it easy and clear for everyone to read and understand my point.
As for Ochkarik. Although not a 'large' tiger (probably 180 kg), he was a very confident, powerful and formidable tiger who occupied and defended his territory for many years. In that entire area in the Durminskoye forest, Ochkarik reigned supreme. He was also a tiger that liked to hunt and eat bears. Like the male tiger "Odyr" (also a medium-sized male) Ochkarik proved that size doesn't mean everything. Both individuals are (and were, referring to Ochkarik who's dead now) very confident, bold, and dominant male tigers by nature. And both were able to kill and eat large (significantly bigger) male brown bears.
The vast majority of the general public (laymen) do not understand or know what it takes to win a serious fight, particularly a street fight. They think "size" or "weight" is the only important factor, which is ridiculous and far, far from reality. There are countless examples of people destroying and knocking out much larger and heavier opponents. The same goes for wild animals, especially predators fighting large individuals of different species. From what I've consistently seen, superior skills, weapons, speed, agility, power, reflexes, experience, killer instinct, precision & efficiency will certainly overcome your opponents size/weight advantage more often than not.
A very fast, powerful, agile and highly skilled fighter weighing, say, 135 - 150 lbs, can destroy a much larger and heavyweight opponent weighing 250 - 300 lbs, who is much slower, clumsier, less experienced, and much less skilled. I don't care how big you are, but the precision, efficiency, speed, and sheer fighting (or killing) skill will make a huge difference in a street fight where anything goes, or in a serious fight between a 400 lb tiger and a 800 lb brown bear. The experienced 'professionals' you talked to, understand this very well, and know the great importance and effects of training and specialization.
Hence why, there are multiple accounts of tigers killing larger / heavier brown bears, including large adult males.
Put it this way, is a tiger capable of killing a significantly larger/heavier bear in a head-on fight? Absolutely, more than capable and has done. Is a bear capable of killing a significantly larger/heavier tiger in a head-on fight? No. The bear would always get destroyed and eaten. And history, evidence, and countless accounts confirm this over and over again. This is the difference between tigers and bears.
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
