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

[peter]

INTERSPECIFIC RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE AMUR TIGER (P.t. altaica) AND THE BROWN (U. arctos) AND ASIATIC BLACK BEARS (U. thibetanus) - II

A - General remarks 

01 - The article of Seryodkin, Miquelle, Goodrich, Kostyria and Petrunenko is the first in which interspecific relationships between Amur tigers, brown bears and Himalayan black bears in a specific region in the Russian Far East are discussed at length.

02 - Although it has a review of literature, the article is largely based on original research in the period 1992-2013. 

03 - Research was carried out in the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve and the surrounding area, including the large Ussuri river basin.

04 - In order to determine the importance of bears in the diet of tigers, 763 kills were located and 430 tiger scat samples were collected and analyzed. Furthermore, 32 dens of Himalayan black bears and 12 dens of brown bears were measured " ... to define properties that might assist in protection from the threat of a tiger attack ... " (from the abstract). Also, 641 instances of tree marking by both tigers and bears were identified.

05 - To detect tiger kills and tiger scats, radio telemetry, satellite tracking and snow-tracking were used. In total, 36 Amur tigers (16♂, 20♀) 14 brown bears (7♂, 7♀) and 17 Himalayan black bears (13♂, 4♀) were tagged. All animals (67) "... were equipped with a radio collar system ..., as well as satellite collars ... " (from the first page).

06 - As a result of the length of the project and the methods used, the conclusions on interspecific relationships between Amur tigers, brown bears and Himalayan black bears in the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve and the surrounding area have to be regarded as well-founded and reliable. Reply

[brotherbear]

(10-31-2018, 03:46 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(10-31-2018, 03:36 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Very interesting read. I have read just a little from other resources about the seemingly unusual cases of bear and tiger feeding "side-by-side" on a carcass. I have seen grizzlies and wolves on documentaries do this.

That is mentioned in many other reports. Side by side is most probably not the case as it can be with bears and wolves if I have understood correctly. More like in turns, so tiger and bear know, that both are there and one eats when other one has eaten as much as it eats and goes to rest and digest the food. Wolves and bears can be there even at the same time on carcass. I´m not 100% sure and I think, that no-one has been there witnessing how it goes. But I have got this image from different reports etc. In some way it makes more sense than thinking these animals there one eating other end and one another end of carcass... Wolf and bear can do even that,  but for a bear and tiger I assume it to be impossible, too much mutual threat too close making it very difficult to eat calmly.

Yes, that makes good sense Shadow since tigers love bears like lions love hyenas. Reply

[peter]

INTERSPECIFIC RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE AMUR TIGER (P.t. altaica) AND THE BROWN (U.arctos) AND ASIATIC BLACK BEARS (U. thibetanus) - III

B - background information

07 - Research was done in the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve and the surrounding area, including the Ussuri river basin. This is the location of the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve:

*This image is copyright of its original author

  
 
08 - We now briefly jump to an article published in 2015. In that one, tigers and bears also featured. I posted 6 scans. The first aim of the scans is to show you that the Southwest Primorskii Krai in the article published in 2015 is the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve in the article published in December 2017 (third scan). The second aim is is to show you that tigers in the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve (the Southwest Primorskii Krai in the article published in 2015), compared to tigers in the Lazovsky State Nature Zapovednik (LZ) and in the Sichote-Alin State Biosphere Zapovednik (SABZ), were quite modest in the bear hunting department (fifth scan):      

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

09 - Another reason to jump to the article published in 2015 is to show that those interested in the importance of bears for tigers have to distinguish between kills, scats and biomass. 

The authors of the article published in 2017 say " ... Bears are an important part of tigers' diet, representing 2,2% of all kills found ... " (abstract). 

Readers not informed on tigers and bears might wonder about the remark on 'bears as an important part on tigers' diet' and the percentage (2,2% only), seemingly contradicting the first part of the sentence. The confusion no doubt grows when they read that " ... Bear remains were found in 8,4% of examined tiger scats ... " (abstract).

A few pages later, the authors add that " ... According to Kucerenko (1977), the Amur tiger produces on average three bears of two species per year and seizes around 3-4% of the populations of the autumn bears. He noted it is found that the weight fraction of bears in the composition of feed ... reaches 12% and is higher than their frequency occurence, since the average bear is superior in weight to other predator prey ... " (Discussion, fourth paragraph).

The last remark, however, contradicts  a statement of Khramtsov, also in the article published in 2017: " ... Often, the victims of the tiger are young bears (Khramtsov, 1993) ... " (Discussion, second paragraph on page 7).

In order to get things really complicated, the authors add that " ... Some tigers appear to be more likely than others bear, but it can only be adult males who are able to join in the confrontation with the bears. From the literature, only two cases are known when brown bears were extracted by female tigers (Kaplanov, 1948, Bromley, 1965) ... " (Discussion, first paragraph).

This, of course, is even without the remark on sudden (local) changes: " ... As can be seen from other studies (Table 1), the presence of bears in the tigers' diet varies widely depending on local conditions and applicable methods of appreciation and can reach in some cases 31,2% (Tkachenko, 2012). Even in one (region?), the share of bears in the tigers' diet from year to year can significantly change (Poddubnaya & Kovalev, 1993, Tkachenko, 2012) ... " (Discussion, third paragraph).

Did I, by the way, tell you about the effect of 'pseudoreplicates' in the article published in 2015? If not, read the scans I posted. Interesting.  

To conclude.

Things are quite complicated in tigers and bears in the Russian Far East. Based on the article published in 2017, however, we can get to three small results:  

a - Using the article published in 2017 only, it's quite safe to conclude that tigers hunting bears in the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve and the Bikin river basin do not select cubs and immature animals, but, regarding brown bears, adult females or, regarding Himalayan black bears, adults of both sexes. This runs counter to " ... previous assertions that the risk of injury was too high for tigers to regurlarly predate bears (Miquelle et al. 2010) ... " (Kerley et al. 2015, see the third scan).

b - The article, again, confirms that adult male brown bears are not hunted by Amur tigers. Not in the period 1992-2013 in the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve, that is.

c - The article also confirms that adult male brown bears do not displace adult male tigers. Not in the period 1992-2013 in the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve, that is.   

10 - To conclude this post (part III), I added a few photographs I found on the internet.

Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve - three photographs taken by John Goodrich:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

  

Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve - House of employees (Y. Smityuk):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve - male tiger (National Geographic):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve - male tiger:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve - male tiger (Jonathan Slaght):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sichote-Alin Nature reserve - brown bear:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Lazovsky Zavopednik - Himalayan black bear (Vladimir Medvedev):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Lazovsky Zapovednik - tigress:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[brotherbear]

Quote from above post #1885: 
 
a - Using the article published in 2017 only, it's quite safe to conclude that tigers hunting bears in the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve and the Bikin river basin do not select cubs and immature animals, but, regarding brown bears, adult females or, regarding Himalayan black bears, adults of both sexes. This runs counter to " ... previous assertions that the risk of injury was too high for tigers to regurlarly predate bears (Miquelle et al. 2010) ... " (Kerley et al. 2015, see the third scan). 
 
I believe that tigers hunt bears according to size, paying little to no attention to the sex or age of the bears they choose as potential prey.  Reply

[Shadow]

(11-02-2018, 05:41 AM)peter Wrote: INTERSPECIFIC RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE AMUR TIGER (P.t. altaica) AND THE BROWN (U.arctos) AND ASIATIC BLACK BEARS (U. thibetanus) - III

B - background information

07 - Research was done in the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve and the surrounding area, including the Ussuri river basin. This is the location of the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve:

*This image is copyright of its original author

  
 
08 - We now briefly jump to an article published in 2015. In that one, tigers and bears also featured. I posted 6 scans. The first aim of the scans is to show you that the Southwest Primorskii Krai in the article published in 2015 is the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve in the article published in December 2017 (third scan). The second aim is is to show you that tigers in the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve (the Southwest Primorskii Krai in the article published in 2015), compared to tigers in the Lazovsky State Nature Zapovednik (LZ) and in the Sichote-Alin State Biosphere Zapovednik (SABZ), were quite modest in the bear hunting department (fifth scan):      

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

09 - Another reason to jump to the article published in 2015 is to show that those interested in the importance of bears for tigers have to distinguish between kills, scats and biomass. 

The authors of the article published in 2017 say " ... Bears are an important part of tigers' diet, representing 2,2% of all kills found ... " (abstract). 

Readers not informed on tigers and bears might wonder about the remark on 'bears as an important part on tigers' diet' and the percentage (2,2% only), seemingly contradicting the first part of the sentence. The confusion no doubt grows when they read that " ... Bear remains were found in 8,4% of examined tiger scats ... " (abstract).

A few pages later, the authors add that " ... According to Kucerenko (1977), the Amur tiger produces on average three bears of two species per year and seizes around 3-4% of the populations of the autumn bears. He noted it is found that the weight fraction of bears in the composition of feed ... reaches 12% and is higher than their frequency occurence, since the average bear is superior in weight to other predator prey ... " (Discussion, fourth paragraph).

The last remark, however, contradicts  a statement of Khramtsov, also in the article published in 2017: " ... Often, the victims of the tiger are young bears (Khramtsov, 1993) ... " (Discussion, second paragraph on page 7).

In order to get things really complicated, the authors add that " ... Some tigers appear to be more likely than others bear, but it can only be adult males who are able to join in the confrontation with the bears. From the literature, only two cases are known when brown bears were extracted by female tigers (Kaplanov, 1948, Bromley, 1965) ... " (Discussion, first paragraph).

This, of course, is even without the remark on sudden (local) changes: " ... As can be seen from other studies (Table 1), the presence of bears in the tigers' diet varies widely depending on local conditions and applicable methods of appreciation and can reach in some cases 31,2% (Tkachenko, 2012). Even in one (region?), the share of bears in the tigers' diet from year to year can significantly change (Poddubnaya & Kovalev, 1993, Tkachenko, 2012) ... " (Discussion, third paragraph).

Did I, by the way, tell you about the effect of 'pseudoreplicates' in the article published in 2015? If not, read the scans I posted. Interesting.  

To conclude.

Things are quite complicated in tigers and bears in the Russian Far East. Based on the article published in 2017, however, we can get to three small results:  

a - Using the article published in 2017 only, it's quite safe to conclude that tigers hunting bears in the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve and the Bikin river basin do not select cubs and immature animals, but, regarding brown bears, adult females or, regarding Himalayan black bears, adults of both sexes. This runs counter to " ... previous assertions that the risk of injury was too high for tigers to regurlarly predate bears (Miquelle et al. 2010) ... " (Kerley et al. 2015, see the third scan).

b - The article, again, confirms that adult male brown bears are not hunted by Amur tigers. Not in the period 1992-2013 in the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve, that is.

c - The article also confirms that adult male brown bears do not displace adult male tigers. Not in the period 1992-2013 in the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve, that is.   

10 - To conclude this post (part III), I added a few photographs I found on the internet.

Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve - three photographs taken by John Goodrich:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

  

Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve - House of employees (Y. Smityuk):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve - male tiger (National Geographic):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve - male tiger:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve - male tiger (Jonathan Slaght):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sichote-Alin Nature reserve - brown bear:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Lazovsky Zavopednik - Himalayan black bear (Vladimir Medvedev):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Lazovsky Zapovednik - tigress:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Some things can look like confusing, but then again when looking closer, not so confusing after all. Just not enough information or then report is made from another point of view than many readers have.

I put this part here to explain what I mean:

"A few pages later, the authors add that " ... According to Kucerenko (1977), the Amur tiger produces on average three bears of two species per year and seizes around 3-4% of the populations of the autumn bears. He noted it is found that the weight fraction of bears in the composition of feed ... reaches 12% and is higher than their frequency occurence, since the average bear is superior in weight to other predator prey ... " (Discussion, fourth paragraph).


The last remark, however, contradicts  a statement of Khramtsov, also in the article published in 2017: " ... Often, the victims of the tiger are young bears (Khramtsov, 1993) ... " (Discussion, second paragraph on page 7)."

First here are two different researches. Then even young bear can be relatively big compared to other prey of tigers. If Khramtsov meant by young bears for instance up to 4-6 years, bear is young and far from full sized, but already reasonable sized and lot to eat if killed. Brown bear especially. It would be nice to know if Khramtsov was talking about brown bears or both, black bears and brown bears. Still it is logical, that tigers kill often younger ones, which are less experienced and easier to surprise even though when target is smaller black bear, tigers for sure can attack any individual when opportunity comes. It is hard to say if there is any real contradiction or just observations from so different kind of points of views, that Khramtsov didn´t see it so important to write so detailed information about things he thought to be less important.

When reading older and new information about bears and amur tigers, I think, that there isn´t any fundamental contradiction. Some hunters telling stories, probably 50-70% true. I mean hunters have this strange habit to kill always very big animals if there is no possibility to officially measure killed animal. In photos we see giants, especially when smallest person in group is in the photo with "gigantic animal" : Naturally these beasts have just killed some other monster and so hunter is in "reality" a hero saving half continent taking out that beast :)

Then we have more reliable woodsmen and researchers, who have good information and sometimes even measurements looking to be quite reliable. And then researches about different things giving parts of information from here and there.  Only lately there has been some real research about relationship between Amur tigers and bears. 

Still the big picture in all information is quite same actually. Black bears are easier prey for tigers and in that species no individual is "untouchable". With brown bears tigers are more cautious and attack only to "softer targets". And it is just logical. When hunting it matters how dangerous the prey is to hunt. What can confuse many readers when looking quickly some document is, that often there is written just "bears", not separated black and brown bears. Tigers do separate those animals though, because brown bear is way more dangerous for a tiger than a black bear. It is nice, that now also researchers have studied a little bit of this subject, because after all it is interesting for many, even though pretty meaningless when thinking conservation of these animals. Reply

[Shadow]

(11-03-2018, 10:48 AM)Vegeta San Wrote:

Shadow Wrote:Some things can look like confusing, but then again when looking closer, not so confusing after all. Just not enough information or then report is made from another point of view than many readers have.

What you gonna say? Most people had a false opinion on this topic. This is more debatable topic than "lion Vs tiger"! And the final conclusion is different than many people thought.

Shadow Wrote:I put this part here to explain what I mean:
"A few pages later, the authors add that " ... According to Kucerenko (1977), the Smurfs tiger produces on average three bears of two species per year and seizes around 3-4% of the populations of the autumn bears. He noted it is found that the weight fraction of bears in the composition of feed ... reaches 12% and is higher than their frequency occurence, since the average bear is superior in weight to other predator prey ... " (Discussion, fourth paragraph).
The last remark, however, contradicts  a statement of Khramtsov, also in the article published in 2017: " ... Often, the victims of the tiger are young bears (Khramtsov, 1993) ... " (Discussion, second paragraph on page 7)."
First here are two different researches. Then even young bear can be relatively big compared to other prey of tigers. If Khramtsov meant by young bears for instance up to 4-6 years, bear is young and far from full sized, but already reasonable sized and lot to eat if killed. Brown bear especially. It would be nice to know if Khramtsov was talking about brown bears or both, black bears and brown bears. Still it is logical, that tigers kill often younger ones, which are less experienced and easier to surprise even though when target is smaller black bear, tigers for sure can attack any individual when opportunity comes.

Well from the second paragraph...
" ... Often, the victims of the tiger are young bears (Khramtsov, 1993) ... " 
The khramtsov said they "often" be the victims. That is different from "regular"! I hope you understand the difference between them. 
And what aged young bear you mean is far larger than tiger's prey? Siberian tigers mostly prey on formidable russian wild boars and some dear species.
The boars reach 300kgs, and Siberian moose can reach 350kgs. No young ussuri Brown bear reach that size. 

Shadow Wrote:It is hard to say if there is any real contradiction or just observations from so different kind of points of views, that Khramtsov didn´t see it so important to write so detailed information about things he thought to be less important.
When reading older and new information about bears and amur tigers, I think, that there isn´t any fundamental contradiction. Some hunters telling stories, probably 50-70% true. I mean hunters have this strange habit to kill always very big animals if there is no possibility to officially measure killed animal. In photos we see giants, especially when smallest person in group is in the photo with "gigantic animal" : Naturally these beasts have just killed some other monster and so hunter is in "reality" a hero saving half continent taking out that beast :)

Well, I understand what are you talking about. That based on confirmation. The sungari river account was confirmed by biologist V. Mazak. So it still one of the most credible accounts. 

Shadow Wrote:Still the big picture in all information is quite same actually. Black bears are easier prey for tigers and in that species no individual is "untouchable". With brown bears tigers are more cautious and attack only to "softer targets". And it is just logical. When hunting it matters how dangerous the prey is to hunt. What can confuse many readers when looking quickly some document is, that often there is written just "bears", not separated black and brown bears. Tigers do separate those animals though, because brown bear is way more dangerous for a tiger than a black bear. It is nice, that now also researchers have studied a little bit of this subject, because after all it is interesting for many, even though pretty meaningless when thinking conservation of these animals.

We've already met before and discussed about this topic, right. It's nice to see you here JP.

I still didn't understand where did you get this "softer targets"? What you mean by that? 
It's already, officially documented that tigers prey on medume sized to large animals. As for bengals, adult males choose solitary bull gaurs. Because more meat without much risk from cattle. It just shows the Tiger's stragies for survival. I think the same goes for amur Tigers. They choose adult females more often than cubs or juveniles. Because of more meat.

Softer targets means, that attacking to individuals, which aren´t the strongest ones. I think, that it is quite universal way to say it. Reply

[Shadow]

(11-02-2018, 03:22 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(11-02-2018, 05:41 AM)peter Wrote: INTERSPECIFIC RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE AMUR TIGER (P.t. altaica) AND THE BROWN (U.arctos) AND ASIATIC BLACK BEARS (U. thibetanus) - III

B - background information

07 - Research was done in the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve and the surrounding area, including the Ussuri river basin. This is the location of the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve:

*This image is copyright of its original author

  
 
08 - We now briefly jump to an article published in 2015. In that one, tigers and bears also featured. I posted 6 scans. The first aim of the scans is to show you that the Southwest Primorskii Krai in the article published in 2015 is the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve in the article published in December 2017 (third scan). The second aim is is to show you that tigers in the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve (the Southwest Primorskii Krai in the article published in 2015), compared to tigers in the Lazovsky State Nature Zapovednik (LZ) and in the Sichote-Alin State Biosphere Zapovednik (SABZ), were quite modest in the bear hunting department (fifth scan):      

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

09 - Another reason to jump to the article published in 2015 is to show that those interested in the importance of bears for tigers have to distinguish between kills, scats and biomass. 

The authors of the article published in 2017 say " ... Bears are an important part of tigers' diet, representing 2,2% of all kills found ... " (abstract). 

Readers not informed on tigers and bears might wonder about the remark on 'bears as an important part on tigers' diet' and the percentage (2,2% only), seemingly contradicting the first part of the sentence. The confusion no doubt grows when they read that " ... Bear remains were found in 8,4% of examined tiger scats ... " (abstract).

A few pages later, the authors add that " ... According to Kucerenko (1977), the Amur tiger produces on average three bears of two species per year and seizes around 3-4% of the populations of the autumn bears. He noted it is found that the weight fraction of bears in the composition of feed ... reaches 12% and is higher than their frequency occurence, since the average bear is superior in weight to other predator prey ... " (Discussion, fourth paragraph).

The last remark, however, contradicts  a statement of Khramtsov, also in the article published in 2017: " ... Often, the victims of the tiger are young bears (Khramtsov, 1993) ... " (Discussion, second paragraph on page 7).

In order to get things really complicated, the authors add that " ... Some tigers appear to be more likely than others bear, but it can only be adult males who are able to join in the confrontation with the bears. From the literature, only two cases are known when brown bears were extracted by female tigers (Kaplanov, 1948, Bromley, 1965) ... " (Discussion, first paragraph).

This, of course, is even without the remark on sudden (local) changes: " ... As can be seen from other studies (Table 1), the presence of bears in the tigers' diet varies widely depending on local conditions and applicable methods of appreciation and can reach in some cases 31,2% (Tkachenko, 2012). Even in one (region?), the share of bears in the tigers' diet from year to year can significantly change (Poddubnaya & Kovalev, 1993, Tkachenko, 2012) ... " (Discussion, third paragraph).

Did I, by the way, tell you about the effect of 'pseudoreplicates' in the article published in 2015? If not, read the scans I posted. Interesting.  

To conclude.

Things are quite complicated in tigers and bears in the Russian Far East. Based on the article published in 2017, however, we can get to three small results:  

a - Using the article published in 2017 only, it's quite safe to conclude that tigers hunting bears in the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve and the Bikin river basin do not select cubs and immature animals, but, regarding brown bears, adult females or, regarding Himalayan black bears, adults of both sexes. This runs counter to " ... previous assertions that the risk of injury was too high for tigers to regurlarly predate bears (Miquelle et al. 2010) ... " (Kerley et al. 2015, see the third scan).

b - The article, again, confirms that adult male brown bears are not hunted by Amur tigers. Not in the period 1992-2013 in the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve, that is.

c - The article also confirms that adult male brown bears do not displace adult male tigers. Not in the period 1992-2013 in the Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve, that is.   

10 - To conclude this post (part III), I added a few photographs I found on the internet.

Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve - three photographs taken by John Goodrich:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

  

Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve - House of employees (Y. Smityuk):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve - male tiger (National Geographic):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve - male tiger:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sichote-Alin Nature Reserve - male tiger (Jonathan Slaght):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sichote-Alin Nature reserve - brown bear:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Lazovsky Zavopednik - Himalayan black bear (Vladimir Medvedev):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Lazovsky Zapovednik - tigress:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Some things can look like confusing, but then again when looking closer, not so confusing after all. Just not enough information or then report is made from another point of view than many readers have.

I put this part here to explain what I mean:

"A few pages later, the authors add that " ... According to Kucerenko (1977), the Amur tiger produces on average three bears of two species per year and seizes around 3-4% of the populations of the autumn bears. He noted it is found that the weight fraction of bears in the composition of feed ... reaches 12% and is higher than their frequency occurence, since the average bear is superior in weight to other predator prey ... " (Discussion, fourth paragraph).


The last remark, however, contradicts  a statement of Khramtsov, also in the article published in 2017: " ... Often, the victims of the tiger are young bears (Khramtsov, 1993) ... " (Discussion, second paragraph on page 7)."

First here are two different researches. Then even young bear can be relatively big compared to other prey of tigers. If Khramtsov meant by young bears for instance up to 4-6 years, bear is young and far from full sized, but already reasonable sized and lot to eat if killed. Brown bear especially. It would be nice to know if Khramtsov was talking about brown bears or both, black bears and brown bears. Still it is logical, that tigers kill often younger ones, which are less experienced and easier to surprise even though when target is smaller black bear, tigers for sure can attack any individual when opportunity comes. It is hard to say if there is any real contradiction or just observations from so different kind of points of views, that Khramtsov didn´t see it so important to write so detailed information about things he thought to be less important.

When reading older and new information about bears and amur tigers, I think, that there isn´t any fundamental contradiction. Some hunters telling stories, probably 50-70% true. I mean hunters have this strange habit to kill always very big animals if there is no possibility to officially measure killed animal. In photos we see giants, especially when smallest person in group is in the photo with "gigantic animal" : Naturally these beasts have just killed some other monster and so hunter is in "reality" a hero saving half continent taking out that beast :)

Then we have more reliable woodsmen and researchers, who have good information and sometimes even measurements looking to be quite reliable. And then researches about different things giving parts of information from here and there.  Only lately there has been some real research about relationship between Amur tigers and bears. 

Still the big picture in all information is quite same actually. Black bears are easier prey for tigers and in that species no individual is "untouchable". With brown bears tigers are more cautious and attack only to "softer targets". And it is just logical. When hunting it matters how dangerous the prey is to hunt. What can confuse many readers when looking quickly some document is, that often there is written just "bears", not separated black and brown bears. Tigers do separate those animals though, because brown bear is way more dangerous for a tiger than a black bear. It is nice, that now also researchers have studied a little bit of this subject, because after all it is interesting for many, even though pretty meaningless when thinking conservation of these animals.

To clarify a little bit. In my message above I was commenting, what Peter wrote and how I see that new report and older ones when looking overall picture. Then again I was all the time talking about bears. Not gaurs, or elephants or dinosaurs. Just about tigers and bears in Siberia and what kind of observations can be made there about hunting behavioral of tigers concerning bears. 

I see no point to argue endlessly about old information, which everyone know here and have their opinions. I have mine and it is just as I wrote. If some new information comes in future, then it is interesting to discuss of course. Peter used time and his posting was a good one, I think. My point of view is pretty much same, maybe some slight differences. But there was good reasoning and that kind of postings are always a pleasure to read. Reply

[brotherbear]

If I had the financial resources, I would have this done. I've posted this idea before. I would have some high-dollar camera's set in trees surrounding a carefully selected location. In the center of a small clearing in the taiga, a big dead cow ( or bull ). All of this would be set-up by highly skilled professionals in a location known to be the domain of both tigers and brown bears. Then wait....

Hopefully the money spent is not a complete waste of time. We just might see for the first-ever grizzly meets tiger caught on camera. If only...

The only way that such a meeting will ever be caught on camera is to arrange a meeting as in my idea. To just happen to stumble upon such a meeting is simply not going to happen - ever. Reply

[Shadow]

(11-05-2018, 11:03 PM)brotherbear Wrote: If I had the financial resources, I would have this done. I've posted this idea before. I would have some high-dollar camera's set in trees surrounding a carefully selected location. In the center of a small clearing in the taiga, a big dead cow ( or bull ). All of this would be set-up by highly skilled professionals in a location known to be the domain of both tigers and brown bears. Then wait....

Hopefully the money spent is not a complete waste of time. We just might see for the first-ever grizzly meets tiger caught on camera. If only...

The only way that such a meeting will ever be caught on camera is to arrange a meeting as in my idea. To just happen to stumble upon such a meeting is simply not going to happen - ever.

That would work most probably in time. But then again my opinion is, that because these animals are known to fight to even death time to times.... I would oppose such thing a lot, that would be in a way as circus, made just to give entertainment to people, not for the good of the animals. That is done in Finland as I have shown in other threads, but here we have bears, wolves and wolverines mainly visiting those carcasses and those animals don´t fight to death on carcasses, even though some minor conflicts. But pretty much never putting any of these animals in danger.

Tigers and bears are both so dominant, that when "wrong" individuals meeting on carcass.... Even though those confrontations happen in wildlife, it is nicer when it happens in.... natural way. It would be different thing if purpose to leave carcasses would be for instance a very harsh winter and for some reason starvation threatening tigers. Then again at such time no bears there. But anyway reason to leave carcasses should be only situation, where starvation threatening these animals for some reason at some time period. Not to get footage about confrontations. Reply

[brotherbear]

I understand your viewpoint, but as you said, this does happen in the wild and happens often. It would not be like the first time there was ever the dead body of a large ungulate on the forest floor. Also, I would be surprised if this were to result in a killing. Possible, but unlikely. Most likely, the bear would find it first, except for maybe crows or ravens, due to his sense of smell. It would be more interesting if a tiger found it before the bear though. But in any case, I believe that we might witness a meeting where one feeds and the other waits. If there is a fight, it would not be anything at all like an arranged pit-fight. Both animals would be within their natural environment acting in his ( or her ) on natural way. Reply

[Vegeta San]

Shadow Wrote:To clarify a little bit. In my message above I was commenting, what Peter wrote and how I see that new report and older ones when looking overall picture.

If this is a personal between you and peter. Then you might post it in PM's to him instead of posting here. 
This is a public forum, most of the people read the conversation. And the people who are looking for truth, will get in a wrong conclusion because of what you post. 
I'm just showing the mistakes in your post. 

Quote:Then again I was all the time talking about bears. Not gaurs, or elephants or dinosaurs. Just about tigers and bears in Siberia and what kind of observations can be made there about hunting behavioral of tigers concerning bears.

Well, I'm not even talked about "dinosaurs", neither "elephants". I'm just showing the preference of tiger in gaurs. You might not read what I posted above clearly. 

Quote:I see no point to argue endlessly about old information, which everyone know here and have their opinions. I have mine and it is just as I wrote. If some new information comes in future, then it is interesting to discuss of course. Peter used time and his posting was a good one, I think. My point of view is pretty much same, maybe some slight differences. But there was good reasoning and that kind of postings are always a pleasure to read.

"Opinions" without proves are cannot be taken as a conclusion. Of course opinions can be posted here, but if your opinions are wrong. People can correct them, especially when you posted in a forum. 

Your conclusion contains some mistakes which are corrected by me. Peter quotings are different than you, not in quoting style or something. But in reasoning and theory. Sorry, if I done anything wrong. But we're already met, and I'm still waiting for a one on one discussion with you in my site. Reply

[Shadow]

(11-05-2018, 11:25 PM)brotherbear Wrote: I understand your viewpoint, but as you said, this does happen in the wild and happens often. It would not be like the first time there was ever the dead body of a large ungulate on the forest floor. Also, I would be surprised if this were to result in a killing. Possible, but unlikely. Most likely, the bear would find it first, except for maybe crows or ravens, due to his sense of smell. It would be more interesting if a tiger found it before the bear though. But in any case, I believe that we might witness a meeting where one feeds and the other waits. If there is a fight, it would not be anything at all like an arranged pit-fight. Both animals would be within their natural environment acting in his ( or her ) on natural way.

Yes, I can understand why this idea is interesting and I have nothing against it if reason to leave a carcass is to give food to wild animals in some exceptional situation. If that situation happens it is more than acceptable to monitor what happens there. I just keep it important, that we all remember to respect wild animals and when doing something, then trying to do that for right reasons. Btw chinese have cameras in woods monitoring tigers in real time, who knows what kind of footage we can see one day in time. I don´t have better information, that in what kind of locations those cameras are now, but I posted a youtube link about it to Amur tigers thread. Reply

[Shadow]

Here is a glimpse about people who are there trying to prevent poaching of Amur tigers. Maybe this has been shared before, but it can be still interesting for someones, who haven´t seen it. It is good to know, that there really are at least some people doing this very important work. If poaching can´t  be restrained, all other work is pretty pointless with so little population, as Amur tigers have.

Poaching is very big problem for many animals in different areas. It is a known fact, but sometimes it feels like it would be still underestimated. Surprisingly little discussion about it and what is done to prevent it. 

Of course logging etc. are even worse problems in many places, but maybe not yet as big problem in Russia as in some other places.

But here this link:

Reply

[brotherbear]

You cannot play patty cakes with poachers. These guys will risk a month or two jail-time. They should face a death sentence when caught or killed when caught in the act. Just my harsh opinion. Reply

[Shadow]

Here one video about tigers and poaching. Not new but still interesting, for sure there are today many same problems, but hopefully some progress too. Of course main issue is always the same, funding, money.

Reply