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.
10-03-2024, 08:03 PM( This post was last modified: 10-03-2024, 08:38 PM by GreenGrolar )
(08-25-2024, 07:06 AM)peter Wrote:
(08-24-2024, 03:43 PM)GreenGrolar Wrote:
(10-16-2023, 07:13 PM)peter Wrote:
(10-16-2023, 09:03 AM)GreenGrolar Wrote: b - The height of the polar bear
In my previous post, I said large male polar and brown bears can reach a height of 9 feet when standing on their hind legs. I added a photograph of Ursula Böttcher and polar bear 'Alaska' taken in 1984. You said the photograph is deceptive, because Ursula was 5.1 only. Also meaning 'Alaska' wasn't 9 feet. Finally meaning I was wrong.
Let's assume Ursula, as you said, was 5.1. When she performed, however, she always wore boots. The heels (referring to the photograph I posted) could have been about 2 inches. Meaning she was about 5.3. Let's assume for now she was 160 cm.
I had a closer look at the photograph you posted and used a ruler to get to a guesstimate. Ursula has a height of 90 units. Let's say 1 unit equals x. If Ursula, wearing her boots, was 160 cm, it means x (160:90) is 1,777. Polar bear 'Alaska' has a height of (just over) 153 units. This means he was (153 x 1,777) 271,88 cm on his hind legs, perhaps a bit more. One feet = 12 inches (30,48 cm) and nine feet = 108 inches (274,32 cm). Alaska was 271,88 cm (a bit over 8.11). The difference between 274,32 and 271,88 = 2,44 cm (almost 1 inch). Meaning I was just about right.
Ursula, as you said, was a brave woman. All of those prepared to enter the ring with a full-grown predator have a lot of confidence. I interviewed quite a few trainers and read a number of books in which trainers feature. Most big cat trainers worked with bears before they started with cats. They agreed adult male polars bears can be very dangerous. If an adult male likes you, however, he is a true friend prepared to defend you no matter what. I posted a true story and heard of more stories I consider reliable. Brown bears, on the other hand, are different. Adult males in particular can be moody and unpredictable.
Hi @peter, sorry for quoting your post here as I am unable to post in Edge of extinction. Good insightful post and thanks for bringing out the name of the polar bear next to Ursula. Regarding the sentence which I underlined; it seems info in the source below will disagree with this:
*This image is copyright of its original author
It seems the polar bear is the most unpredictable of all bears. If you can show me a counter source, I would happily read it. Thanks :).
If you're interested in trainers, try to find 'Die hohe Schule der Raubtierdressur' (Hans-Jürgen and Rosemarie Tiede, Germany, 1997, 448 pp). It's in German. In their very informative book, the Tiedes discuss no less than 58 trainers. Some of them worked with both bears and big cats. Hans-Jürgen, by the way, was a trainer himself.
Those who worked with them agree polar bears, true carnivores and larger than brown and black bears, are dangerous. One of the trainers interviewed said they most probably killed more trainers than all others predators combined. Some adult males, however, were on very good terms with their trainer. Iwan Dimitri had the largest group ever (22 polar bears). He said male 'Kenny' (285 cm on his hindlegs and over 500 kg) was his best friend. He saved his life when Dimitri was attacked by an even larger male.
Most trainers said large carnivores are not that different from humans. They like good relations, good food, routines and nice clothes, but also know about competition, preference and outright jaleousy. And when they feel threatened, they're as dangerous as anyone.
Nice clothes? No doubt about that one. Read the chapter about Eugen and Barbara Poludniak. Seems to be quite typical in bears. Same for jaleousy. The Poludniaks knew all there is to know about bears, and polar bears in particular. They were very dangerous, but 'Royal', the boss of the group, liked Eugen. When he suffered from tooth problems, he threw him all over the place to show his anger. But he never hurt him. They were the best of friends.
When reading the book, I noticed some trainers went from one mauling to another, whereas others never experienced any problems. A result of the animals or the trainer? After a polar bear had killed a trainer, a young man without much experience took over. Fredy Gafner was the ultimate stand-in and never experienced problems. He thought polar and brown bears are very similar. Both are playful when young, both like to embrace their opponent whenever possible and both become more moody when they get older. The polar bear is more dangerous, not only because of his size, but also because he's a true carnivore and much more sensible.
Fredy took over the mixed bear act from Erich 'Klant' Hagenbeck, when Hagenbeck died in a hospital in the Netherlands at age 77 in January 1990. I wrote 'Klant' a letter in 1989. He responded (I still have the letter) and called me to get together. We set a date, but the 'Grim Reaper' was also interested. A great pity, as 'Klant' was a nice man loaded with knowledge about captive and wild big cats and bears. Wild? Yes. In his day, trainers at times bought wild animals. Most were quite young, but Klant said adults were bought as well. It took most of them quite a bit of time to settle in, but they were more reliable than big cats born and bred in captivity. That is to say, those who adapted to captivity. Some never did, but some of their captive relatives were no different. Most trainers I interviewed had a lion or, more often, a tiger not interested in work. The jaguar trainer I contacted cancelled the interview when I arrived, because he was exhausted. I saw why. The big black jaguar told him in no uncertain way a deal was out of the question. He was experienced (lions and tigers), but wasn't able to get along with jaguars. A species-related problem? I don't think so. Some trainers are not wanted and they're told before work starts. Most accept the verdict.
Tony Hughes knew all about big cats, trainers and problems. When I met him, he was assisting a woman working with lions. She wasn't interested in an interview. Same reason as the jaguar trainer? Could be. The male lions didn't like her one bit and Tony was hired to prevent problems. Reputation. Some years earlier, he entered the cage when one of the Chipperfields was mauled by a lion. He no doubt saved his life and was noticed. The interview with Tony was one of the most interesting. He too didn't distinguish between species and gender. Tony distinguished between individuals. Characters. In his experience, just about anything was possible.
The Tiedes, by the way, are very different from your average poster. Like Tony, they talk straight and don't distinguish between big and small, young and old and cat or bear. Every trainer is an individual. Same for the animals they work with. All trainers I interviewed confirmed there's no such thing as a species-related treat. At least, not in the departments of interaction and behaviour. Same for fights and the outcome of serious encounters. If anything, they thought smaller big cats were much underestimated. By the general public, not trainers. Trainers know male jaguars are very powerful and leopards are as dangerous as their larger relatives, if not more so. Cougars are different from jaguars and leopards, but trainers prefer the smaller subspecies. There's a reason, of course. You just never know in big cats and bears.
*This image is copyright of its original author
"When accidents happen, when strange animals are placed together and a fight starts, always try to protect the weaker animal, regardless of his species. You will hear it said that a tiger can kill a lion, or vice versa. In my experience i have seen all theories exploded. Tigers have killed lions, lions have killed polar bears, a small leopard has killed a large tiger. usually a polar bear can kill any of the big cats, but i have seen a lion kill a polar bear", Louis Roth, forty years with jungle killers, page 204-205.
Some trainers seem to believe that lions are superior to tigers. I believe both cats are about equal with both the Bengal tiger and Siberian tiger being larger and stronger. Lions do corporate better in gangs and seem to defend their territory a bit more. There seems to be just as much accounts of lions killing tigers as much as there are accounts of tigers killing lions.
I am interested in what you think about this trainer and book, Peter as I believe you said in the Edge of Extinction that some trainers can generalize.
Note: I am not trying to turn this section into a tiger vs lion debate since it is to mainly post info on polar bears. Only posted this account here as it mentions polar bears, captive ones.
Hi Grolar,
Nice contributions about polar bears! As to the question about Roth's book: I never read it. I read about it, but never found it. I asked trainers about the book, but not one of them, apart from a few who had read Clyde Beatty's first book, had read a book written by a trainer. The reason, I think, is it had taken them many years to become a trainer. What they knew, was self taught and very personal. It fitted them, but they also knew every trainer has his own 'truth'. Seen in that light, 'truth', at least for trainers, doesn't have a general load and meaning. Same for knowledge. Strange as it may seen, is a very personal thing in the end.
Most biologists would disagree, but they do not work with big predators every day all day for years. They're, foremost, observers. Keen and motivated observers, but observers. For them, knowledge has a universal load and meaning. Decisions based on this knowledge, however, can have different effects. It depends on the (local) circumstances. Some decisions can have unfavourable consequences, but they're never personal. For a trainer working with animals able to disable or kill him in an instant, knowledge isn't about observations largely correct at an aggregated level of observation. For a trainer, knowledge is a very specific and personal thing. It's correct and it works. For him. In the specific circumstances he faces. The knowledge biologists have also is correct. In the regions or reserves where they work, the number of tigers has increased.
In a way, one could say a trainer is a writer. A good one. Good writers often have a lot of general knowledge. They know about human psychology, history and specific conditions and, for this reason, are able to write a book about a topic or individual they're interested in. A book so good it, in the eyes of the reader, is a near perfect picture of 'real life'. It is (many movies are based on books), and then it isn't. In a book, the main character, as a result of his abilities and knowledge, always is able to come out on top of just about every situation. There will be a second book, that is. Good for the writer and good for the readers. In real life, however, a very experienced, able and knowledgeable man can slip over a banana. The only one he didn't see. He can be betrayed by someone he never ever suspected or he can be crippled for life by a bullet from a rifle that was accidentally fired by the 11-year old son of a war hero.
All of us know people deeply involved in habits known to have terrible effects in the long run. Not seldom, they also enjoy taking chances whenever possible. They in particular are the ones swimming in shark infested waters. At night. Not a few of them perish well before their time, but there are just as many who reach 60 in very good health and decide to write a book. A book based on facts only and very true from start to finish. It's a book about a life with risks and it's very true. For the one who wrote the book. But we also know about people who never took a chance and lived their life in a way one can only admire. More often than not, they're the ones prepared to help others on top of that. Nice folks. People you only read about. They've a great life, until, well before their time, they draw a bad card. They in particular, so it often seems. I've played tennis for a long time. The club has many members involved in health, including very experienced experts in their field. I'm referring to specialists and surgeons. Ask them about the occurance and effects of coincidence when you have the opportunity. You'll be surprised. And then there's the stats based on long-term research. Sound research. Reliable research. The stats say habits really have an effect. What I'm saying is life is very complicated. There most definitely are general rules, but life has a lot of exceptions.
A real good trainer knows about these things (referring to coincidence and the countless exceptions to a 'general' rule), but never talks about it. When faced with a question he considers interesting, he'll take his time and always leaves room for the exceptions. More often than not, the one asking the questions will end up with more questions. One could say many trainers compare to scientists involved in teaching. Just before I graduated, I was examined by professors considered as experts. And they were. But most professors like to (hear themselves) talk, even when examining a student about to graduate. An experienced trainer doesn't invest a lot of time in talking and when he talks he prefers oneliners or essaylike answers leaving a lot of room for interpretations. A good trainer isn't talking to connect to the person he's talking to. He seems to talk to himself out loud and keeps asking questions. And when he's done, you always see a big smile.
I often was surprised by the way they reasoned. Not seldom, it seemed as if they were able to see and to connect to something others are not even aware of. Something that doesn't exist. But in some circumstances, it, as Corbett said, is very real. In this respect, some trainers seemed to compare to people like Einstein. In spite of the questions that kept popping up every day, they had a lot of knowledge. Intimate knowledge about the animals they worked with. They knew when one of them was affected by a problem or a disease and they also knew about their character. In some animals, the connection between the trainer and the animal was real and profound. In others, it wasn't. These animals would use every opportunity to take him out. The animal knew, the trainer knew and both knew the other knew. In order to get to a connection, insight and a personal relation, every trainer working with bears has to become a bear over time. A trainer working with lions becomes a lion over time. Same, albeit to a degree, with posters. The difference between trainers and posters is most posters are guided by preconceived ideas, if not outright preference, meaning they tend to idealize the species they prefer, whereas trainers are guided by experience and real knowledge. They know every adult is an individual. Big cats and bears also have knowledge. Very old knowledge, but it's very real knowledge, all trainers told me. I'm trying to find books about this topic. Books written by those who worked with big predators and those who hunted them. You need, I think, a personal connection to be able to get close. I prefer books written by hunters, because they're the only ones who really knew a few things about some of the animals they hunted. One of the things they noticed time and again is wild predators are true adults able to get to sound decisions. I'm referring, to be clear, to hunters who didn't shoot at everything that moved. Most of them were keen observers. People who not seldom didn't shoot the cat they were after when the opportunity presented itself. More often than not, the cat knew.
The trainers I interviewed told me all adult captive big cats and bears are capable animals. Not as intelligent as their wild relatives, but they were most certainly capable of observing, reasoning and deducting. Not always the case in humans, they sometimes added. They feared the future and they were right. A few decades ago, when it became clear the natural world is disappearing and the 'eco' and 'rewilding' hype developed, those deeply involved in these hypes went for 'exotic animals', circuses and animal trainers first. The reason is they were unable, or unwilling, to defend themselves. In this way, many circuses and trainers were destroyed. Also meaning not a few captive big cats were euthanized. Apart from all that, knowledge was lost. The trainers noticed the changes and avoided publicity. In the end, they also avoided interviews. The last interview I did was just before I joined the former AVA forum. Until it was destroyed as well. Not a result of yet another hype, but of something more personal. I'm referring to jealousy, revenge and all that. That's still apart from preference. You know what preference can do, because you're a member of a forum run by someone reinventing it just about every day.
In this respect, bears, more than big cats, compare to humans. Meaning they know about preference, jealousy and revenge as well. The reason, I think, is bears, in contrast to big cats, need a lot of energy to satisfy their needs in the food department. If a new 'provider', like a human, turns up, they can save a lot of time if they establish a 'food-productive' connection with their new 'friend'. Older males are different from females in that they often are more predatory. So much so, they actively hunt their own kind in some regions. Food is the keyword in bears. Polar bears, and males in particular, are different from other bear subspecies in that they're true carnivores able to provide for themselves. They seem to be more intelligent and able to connect to humans. Not every trainer, however, will agree. Bears in general, and polar bears in particular, have killed more trainers than big cats. In the circus, they are, make that were, much feared.
All cats are professional and very able carnivores. They rely on themselves at all times and, apart from lions, dislike groups. Adult captive big cats are independent individuals. They're more interested in a relation with, say, a trainer than small cats, but they too are, and will always remain, independent wild animals at heart. Preference and jealousy are not very uncommon in captive big cats. Jealousy can have consequences, but incidents inspired by jealousy are few.
As to fights in circuses. I posted extensively about the experience of Tony Hughes, but that doesn't mean he was the only one who thought the outcome of a fight between two well-matched individuals (of different species) is unpredictable. Tony was the only one who answered all questions in writing, enabling me to post some of his answers. There are differences between species (and subspecies) in the way they interact and fight, but in the end all trainers agreed it was about individualism, meaning character and determination. That and coincidence.
Those who read the book of Beatty I referred to above often tried to avoid a discussion. What they did say wasn't very different from what most posters said. If anything, they seemed to be surprised Beatty's outspoken opinions never backfired. All trainers told me big cats (and bears) are very aware of preference.
Hi Peter thanks for your reply. Very detailed and a lot to digest. I have one additional question here. How many trainers actually treat their animals well and without abuse? It seems that polar bears and cetaceans are the least adaptable to environment change. Now I do not approve of cruelty to any animals. Many circus trainers do cruel acts to bears and others by throwing fire crackers at them since they were cubs to make them learn tricks like bicycle riding etc. However, since this thread is dedicated to polar bears, here is a few examples below:
1) EXPOSED: Horrifying reality of polar bears forced to SING AND DANCE for circus audience.
POLAR bears are being used in a shocking circus act chained up and forced to sing in scenes which are likely to prompt outrage among animal lovers.
*This image is copyright of its original author
The polar bears were chained and forced to stand at a microphone
The Ivanovo circus in Russia featured polar bears, whose numbers have dwindled across the world, 'performing' during a show under the orders of circus trainers Yulia Denisenko and Yuriy Khokhlov.
In one scene, a bear is forced to roar into a microphone while standing on their hind legs - a posture which "is not instinctive" of the animals.
Other routines in the bizare performance see the polar bears dance, ice skate and even play football.
Animal tamers Denisenko and Khokhlov have become well-known in Russia and Eastern Europe for their travelling polar bear act.
*This image is copyright of its original author
The polar bear circus routine has been criticized by animal activists
The show featured the famous Bolshoi Circus in Moscow in 2014 and Mrs Denisenko even took her arctic animals to Sochi during the Olympic Games to perform the routine.
The experienced animal tamer discussed the often violent regime she implements to train the polar bears, including "breaking" the bears when they are young.
The polar bears have been taken all around Russia
She said: "First of all, these animals do not instinctively walk on their hind legs.
"And secondly, polar bears are not very gregarious. So it is difficult for them to stay together under artificial conditions.
"A predator is a predator and can cause a bad injury just with its paw even when playing.
"In nature these animals can easily kill a seal with one blow of their forepaws.
"Therefore, it is necessary to give back blow for blow immediately while they are young.
"Then, when they are older, they will give up this instinctive activity."
The act is billed as the world's only polar bear ice skate attraction and has already caused outrage among animal lovers.
One viewer on social posted: "Anyone who thinks this is OK needs to be locked up."
Another added: "This is NOT a pet, This is a wild animal that should not be used for people's entertainment."
She said: "First of all, these animals do not instinctively walk on their hind legs.
"And secondly, polar bears are not very gregarious. So it is difficult for them to stay together under artificial conditions.
"A predator is a predator and can cause a bad injury just with its paw even when playing.
"In nature these animals can easily kill a seal with one blow of their forepaws.
"Therefore, it is necessary to give back blow for blow immediately while they are young.
"Then, when they are older, they will give up this instinctive activity."
This is NOT a pet, This is a wild animal that should not be used for people's entertainment.
Social media user
The act is billed as the world's only polar bear ice skate attraction and has already caused outrage among animal lovers.
One viewer on social posted: "Anyone who thinks this is OK needs to be locked up."
Another added: "This is NOT a pet, This is a wild animal that should not be used for people's entertainment."
Animals rescued from starvation at the Khan Younis Zoo in Gaza
The RSPCA, which campaigns against using wild animals in circuses, said "on average, a polar bear's enclosure is about one-millionth of the area of its minumum range in the wild".
They added: "Even compared to zoos, circus cages and pens provide a very restricted amount of space."
PETA have previously said: "Polar bears belong in the wild, not in zoo cages nor circuses".
PETA’s Associate Director, Elisa Allen said: "Russia can't successfully cultivate a remotely progressive image as long as it still abuses bears, forcing these dignified wild animals to perform demeaning and stupid tricks in order to amuse the masses.
"We have spoken to trainers for Russian circuses who burn bears with cigarettes, strike them with metal bars and use other torture methods, in addition to forcing cubs to stand on their hind legs by chaining them to a wall so that they will strangle if they attempt to return to a natural all-fours stance.
"Many cubs die before the harsh training even begins because of the stress of capture, gruelling transportation conditions, food deprivation, dehydration and extremely rough handling.
"The survivors often have the tops of their muzzles pierced with hot needles and a rope threaded through the holes in their septum – they perform under the constant threat of punishment.
"These and other crude, archaic animal acts have no place in any civilised or advanced society – including the UK – where the government must finally bring forward legislation banning cruel wild-animal circuses."
Russia has a long-standing tradition of training bears to perform tricks such as riding motorcycles, ice skating, and even playing hockey.
Polar Bears - Data, Pictures and Videos
