kodiak
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 71
|
Post by kodiak on Aug 27, 2019 20:30:39 GMT 5
|
|
kodiak
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 71
|
Post by kodiak on Aug 27, 2019 20:45:06 GMT 5
Now i have a question for you ML, why are the most smarter and fanatical TIGER FANS have said that brown bears would win of they have an 100+ lb weight advantage? Seems you are the only nerd that is still debating this, barely no one else. Paul Cooper, a way smartest tiger fan than you says brown bears are too big, why would he say that? Lmao. Now we will see PETER’S posts. Let these people judge who they believe, you (a fanboy) or Peter, the most respected and smarter tiger fan.
|
|
kodiak
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 71
|
Post by kodiak on Aug 27, 2019 21:13:48 GMT 5
HEY mountain Lord: lets see if you answer this question here: why would a TIGER FANATIC that argues day and night on behalf of tigers, that is very smart also, and was even trained by Paul Cooper, (Amurtiger), which IS IN YOUR OWN FORUM ALSO, Why would he say that bears with a weight advantage of 100 + lbs would beat a tiger 7/8 out of 10 times? Can you answer this? Lmfao.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 27, 2019 21:47:07 GMT 5
kodiakWho is this Paul Cooper? I have heard of them, but what's the big deal about it?
|
|
kodiak
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 71
|
Post by kodiak on Aug 27, 2019 21:48:15 GMT 5
Ok so lets continue: very important here:
Peter Broekhuijsen, from the forum Wildfact, is not just any normal poster, he is the most respected, knowledgeable, and smarter tiger fan known in forums since the days of AVA. he has read tons of books, and talked to hunters and biologists himself. He has even done research himself. here are his most important posts regarding the bear vs tiger debate.
Here is the most important phrase of this post: Peter stating that in average animals, (Ussuri brown bears 580 lbs, Amur tiger 420 lbs), the statistics favor the bear as well.
5 - What about the outcome of confrontations between wild male tigers and wild male Ussuri brown bears? My guess is extra-large brown bears are immune. In average animals, the statistics favour the bear as well. Finally, we have to add season, individuality and age (experience) as factors.
The full post here:
PETER
And the winner is Miss Venezuela.
I assumed it was quite clear by now that the problem with most assessments on size is very limited sample size and, as a result, doubtful conclusions at best, but apparently I was wrong. For this reason, I propose to go over the details one more time.
1 - Is there a table that offers an overview of wild big cats size? Length, weight, skull and other dimensions? One based on large samples? After a few hundred years of research only? No.
2 - Is there a table on wild male Amur tigers then? Yes. There is the table published in 2005 by, amongst others, Kerley. Males averaged 294 cm. in total length, 195 cm. in head and body and 176 kg. Reliable? Yes regarding methods used and accuracy and no regarding sample size and selection. Meaning the table has 3-year old males and malnourished tigers. And no big male tigers. The reason is some of these apparently are able to destroy the Aldrich footsnare.
Anything known on these 'big' male tigers escaping the Aldrich footsnares? Yes. They weighed and measured about a dozen male tigers after the table was published. Most of them were close to 200 kg. The heaviest, a young adult, was 212 kg. I don't doubt some males are heavier, but it isn't likely these large tigers will be captured with the Aldrich footsnare.
So what to say in the end? My guess is mature males would be 195-200 cm. in head and body in a straight line and about 190-200 kg. Anything known on skull size? No. Zilch. Based on the captive skulls I measured, my guess for now would be just over 14 inches, maybe a bit longer. Let's settle for 360,00-370,00 mm. for now.
3 - Is there a table on wild male Ussuri brown bears? Yes. We have Kucerenko's table. His 10 males averaged 196 cm. in head and body and 264 kg. Was length measured in a straight line? No. So what would be the length of an average adult male 'between pegs'? Judging from a Yellowstone male brown bear table I saw, my guess is 196 cm. 'over curves' equals 160-165 cm. 'between pegs'. What about the weight? According to Kucerenko, the average was 264 kg. But the range was 260-320 kg. (...). A bit strange, many agreed. I'm one of them. The table probably is flawed.
So what would be the real weight? Last year, three adult males were captured and weighed. They averaged 193,3 kg. in autumn (range 165-235 kg.). Quite a difference. What would be the correct average, 264 or 193? I don't know, but my guess is 193 is more reliable, because the researchers also collected info on the age of the bears. Furthermore, we know they were weighed in autumn, when bears are heavier than in other seasons. I don't think 2014 was a bad year for bears. Should we dismiss 264 then? No. Kucerenko also was a biologist. Maybe his table had large brown bears weighed in autumn. I don't know.
My proposal is to take the average of both for now. This would result in 193,3 + 264 = 457,3 : 2 = 228,65 kg. in autumn. Assuming an average male would lose 25% in hibernation, the average minimum would be 171,45 kg. in early spring. If we take 228,65 + 171,45, we get to 400,10 or about 200 kg. for a year-round average (range 170-230).
The problem is there's no such thing as an 'average' for bears. You now know why. If we add individual variation is significant (some males apparently reach 700 pounds and over in autumn), we get to to a big question mark. As we want to get to a kind of comparison with male tigers, I propose to take 160-165 cm. for head and body in a straight line and 170-230 kg. for weight, with 200 kg. as a year-round average for an average adult male.
But 200 is way lower than 264, isn't? Yes. But Kucerenko also said brown bear females averaged 189 kg., whereas a more recent table said 145 kg. is the correct answer. Maybe Kucerenko's table, as I proposed, had large individuals weighed in autumn.
Anything on skull length? Yes. There is Baryshnikov's table and it says 19 adult males averaged 407,00-408,00 mm. in greatest total length. Male bears also have 10-15% larger chests than male Amur tigers and the also are (relatively) taller.
4 - So what do we have for wild male Amur tigers and wild male Ussuri brown bears? Adult animals only (6 years and over). We have a 195-200 cm. big cat of 190-200 kg. and a 162,5 cm. male brown bear just over 200 kg. most of the year. Let's say the bear is about 210-220 kg. as a working hypothesis. If we add individual and seasonal variation is much more pronounced in bears, the conclusion is brown bears are much more robust. In any season. If we add brown bears have longer skulls, body robustness becomes even more pronounced. Finally, there is no question extra-large male bears are heavier than extra-large male tigers. They're also relatively more numerous.
5 - What about the outcome of confrontations between wild male tigers and wild male Ussuri brown bears? My guess is extra-large brown bears are immune. In average animals, the statistics favour the bear as well. Finally, we have to add season, individuality and age (experience) as factors.
The statistics, therefore, clearly point towards an advantage of male bears. But male tigers are faster and more athletic and, as experienced hunters, also have the edge in killing. That's apart from extra-large and thick canines. Bears can take a lot of damage, but I wouldn't be prepared to test the amount of it in a bout with a male tiger if I was a bear. I also wouldn't want to risk a serious limb injury. Tigers are quite experienced with hamstrings. My conclusion would be a few rounds of sparring in some cases, but no all-out's.
Any confirmation regarding this hypothesis? Yes. Male tigers do not hunt male bears and male bears do not rob male tigers. There will no doubt be exceptions, but my guess is the general rule would hold. In difficult times, however, all-out's have occured. The usual victims are the desperate, the angry and the incapacitated. I know of two male Schatuns killed in winter. My guess is they were emaciated and desperate. The large old male killed in July 1943 met the largest male tiger I know of. Of the two adult male tigers killed, one was described as average or a bit below. The two young adult male tigers killed fought a significantly larger male bear and it apparently took quite a bit of time.
6 - Although brown bears, compared to other subspecies, seem to be in a different league, my guess is the pattern described will hold for all bears anywhere. Himalayan black bears can be large, especially in northern India. I've yet to read a report about a male killed by a male tiger. Sun bears have been killed in southeast Asia and Sumatra, but there are not that many reliable reports and my guess is it would take an experienced tiger to do it without injuries. Same for peninsular India. Most sloth bears killed were killed by specialists.
Amur tigers are the only ones who hunt bears (Himalayan and Ussuri bears) on a more or less regular basis. As a result of the skill needed and the risks involved, specialists developed. Most of these are males. There's no question they improve statistics, resulting in a slightly biased impression.
7 - I once took my time to get to a kind of table on the outcome of bouts between Amur tigers and Ussuri brown bears. Predation wasn't included and there also was not enough on gender and age to get to conclusions. Tigers won most fights, but the downgrading of brown bears that followed (referring to debates on different forums) was a result of incorrect assumptions and a clever use of conclusions. One should always remember that a tiger not interested in a fight, because he's faster and more athletic, can leave a fight at any time, whereas a bear can't. If a fight goes all the way, it means the tiger thinks he has a decent chance. In spite of that advantage, bears got quite close in the classified results. What I measured, therefore, was the outcome of fights fancied by tigers. The tigers were right, but the margins were limited. This means brown bears are great critters.
I've seen both in captivity and think it would take quite a tiger to beat a healthy male bear of similar weight in a fair scrap. There's plenty of evidence saying that significantly bigger bears, ambush or no ambush, are out of the equasion, but there's also some evidence suggesting a tiger is able to surprise a larger bear at times. But 'larger', in adult animals, wouldn't exceed 100-150 pounds.
Same for remarks of bear fans about tigers. Most of it is close to crap. In the end, the outcome of a serious fight between a tiger and a bear of similar weight is just as inpredictable as the outcome of a fight between a lion and a tiger of similar weight. One could say one species is larger than the other, but that would be a superfluous remark as it was about the outcome of a bout in the similar weight division.
Want to discuss bouts between large animals? There's no debate. Wild male brown bears can be as heavy as a decent freight train and even at that weight they are anything but clumsy. Some Kamsjatka adult males, anything but smallish, habitually hunt 1-4 year old youngsters of their own kind. Their rates are not that bad.
If bears would be as clumsy as many propose, why is it the ultimate hunter able to dig the horns of a big male wild buffalo in the ground when he breaks their neck (referring to Berg's observations in northeast India) isn't prepared to take on a nice juicy big male brown bear in Wild Russia in lean times?
In order to get to a conclusion, I propose to just take the word of those in the know in Russia. They agree brown bears win 'on points'. But a point is different from life or death and tigers and bears know it would take a lot of desperation or rage to find out what a point really means. A great topic for a forum, wouldn't you say?
Post # 24
wildfact.com/forum/topic-question-for-peter?page=2
|
|
kodiak
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 71
|
Post by kodiak on Aug 27, 2019 21:57:04 GMT 5
kodiak Who is this Paul Cooper? I have heard of them, but what's the big deal about it? Paul Cooper is a tiger fanatic, but unlike ML, he is not a fanboy. Cooper is all over youtube, his own forum, and was in every forum known to man. I mention him because he even favors brown bears over tigers, at least with a weight advantage. (He thinks tigers would win at same weight which is debatible), but not with a weight advantage. As for ML, he thinks. 400 lb tiger would destroy a 1500 lb bear 10/10 times. See the difference? Hell, this guy even thinks 400 lb tigers destroy 9000 lb Asian elephants most times. I swear he thinks that. So you tell me, who is more believable? ML, or Peter and Paul cooper? |
|
kodiak
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 71
|
Post by kodiak on Aug 27, 2019 22:05:36 GMT 5
HERE IS PETER TALKING ABOUT THE ADULT MALES KILLED, 4 ADULT MALE TIGERS AND 4 ADULT MALE BROWN BEARS. DIFFERENCE IS THE BEARS WERE MOST LIKELY KILLED BY AMBUSH. ALSO, HE SAYS BASED ON RUSSIAN BIOLOGISTS, TIGERS DOMINATE THE DIVISIONS UP TO 200 KG WHILE BEARS DOMINATE THE HEAVYWEIGHT DIVISION.PETER Adult males clash at times (I know of 4 male tigers killed by male brown bears and 4 male bears killed by male tigers). Most victims were young adults (tigers) or emaciated Schatuns (bears). This is what one would expect. Healthy adult males seem to avoid serious problems. PETER Before the STP started, Russian biologists gave it a try. They concluded that tigers dominate the divisions up to 200 kg., whereas bears dominate the heavyweight division. Adult male bears are more robust and have extra layers of muscle and fat in the regions that matter. If we add the weight advantage (about 160 pounds at the level of averages), I'd say they have a point. PETER Some male brown bears are well over 800 pounds. It's very likely that bears of that size dominate most disputes with most male tigers. PETER The bear and the tiger in the museum. The photograph was first posted by Grahh (Shaggy God Forum). Sysoev had a say in it. He saw at least 4 fights between brown bears and tigers. One was a draw, one was won by a tiger and two were won by bears. Sysoev wrote a short story about a fight between male tiger and a male brown bear ('Amba'). Find it. What I'm saying is the picture is misleading. PETER Vaillant wrote " ... An Amur tiger's sense of superiority and dominance over his realm is absolute: because of his position in the forest hierarchy, the only force a male will typically submit to is a stronger tiger or, occasionally, a large brown bear. Nothing else ranks in the taiga ... " (pp . 139-140). It is about 'occasionally, a large brown bear'. page # 1696 wildfact.com/forum/topic-on-the-edge-of-extinction-a-the-tiger-panthera-tigris?page=114 |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 27, 2019 22:07:46 GMT 5
kodiak Who is this Paul Cooper? I have heard of them, but what's the big deal about it? Paul Cooper is a tiger fanatic, but unlike ML, he is not a fanboy. Cooper is all over youtube, his own forum, and was in every forum known to man. I mention him because he even favors brown bears over tigers, at least with a weight advantage. (He thinks tigers would win at same weight which is debatible), but not with a weight advantage. As for ML, he thinks. 400 lb tiger would destroy a 1500 lb bear 10/10 times. See the difference? Hell, this guy even thinks 400 lb tigers destroy 9000 lb Asian elephants most times. I swear he thinks that. So you tell me, who is more believable? ML, or Peter and Paul cooper? You may have a point there |
|
kodiak
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 71
|
Post by kodiak on Aug 27, 2019 22:12:14 GMT 5
Paul Cooper is a tiger fanatic, but unlike ML, he is not a fanboy. Cooper is all over youtube, his own forum, and was in every forum known to man. I mention him because he even favors brown bears over tigers, at least with a weight advantage. (He thinks tigers would win at same weight which is debatible), but not with a weight advantage. As for ML, he thinks. 400 lb tiger would destroy a 1500 lb bear 10/10 times. See the difference? Hell, this guy even thinks 400 lb tigers destroy 9000 lb Asian elephants most times. I swear he thinks that. So you tell me, who is more believable? ML, or Peter and Paul cooper? You may have a point there |
|
kodiak
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 71
|
Post by kodiak on Aug 27, 2019 22:17:08 GMT 5
ONE MORE AND I GO FOR NOW: Here Peter confirms, based on biologists information and his own personal experience, that even at same weight, bears have longer and heavier skulls than tigers. PETER I've seen skeletons of both species next to each other. There's no question that skeletons of brown bears, even if the big cat and the bear are similar in size, are more robust. In the skull department, it's a close call. Bears have a somewhat longer and heavier skull, but tiger skulls are close and they're wider at the arches. Tiger also have significantly longer canines. page 115, post # 1711. wildfact.com/forum/topic-on-the-edge-of-extinction-a-the-tiger-panthera-tigris?page=115 |
|
kodiak
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 71
|
Post by kodiak on Aug 27, 2019 22:19:57 GMT 5
PERFECT FRONT VIEW OF BOTH ANIMALS AT SIMILAR SIZE. THE BEAR IS JUST ALL AROUND MORE ROBUST AND THICKER. DONT MAKE US LAUGH ML.  |
|
mountainlord
Member
Tiger - The Legendary Killer of Brown bears
Posts: 309
|
Post by mountainlord on Aug 27, 2019 23:11:25 GMT 5
Kodiak - you are the biggest BLATANT LIAR thats ever been on a forum, bar none! - When on earth did I ever claim that a 400 lb tiger would destroy a 1500 lb Kodiak, 10/10 times?? You joke! - Thats a bold-faced LIE out of you're ass. Show me exactly where I said that?? Go on you LIAR?...Also, Paul cooper has repeatedly talked shit on you, and how he's exposed and debunked you for the lies that you spew! And he never said he favours the bear over the tiger. Even on Carnivora, he was debating with Warsaw, backing the tiger over the Brown bear. You're a LIAR!!You are the most INSECURE Bear fanatic on this earth. You desperately resort to posting random screen-shots from other posters opinions, without providing any shred of evidence. I post countless accounts from actual Russian authorities/experts, and all you do is spam Peter's opinions and posts like a desperate kid. Thats how sad it gets with you. You have ZERO evidence, period.By the way, I challenged Peter to debate me and he declined outright. He even admitted that Solo hunter showed him accounts of tigers killing bears that he's never seen before! Peter is FAR FROM AN EXPERT - he's just a forum poster.Now let me expose you're blatant lies with undeniable evidence!!Here's by far one of the best accounts regarding Amur tigers vs Brown bears, from John Vaillant:John Vaillant actually went to the Russian far east and interviewed many top authorities regarding tigers and bears, from renowned biologists (Dale Miquelle, J.Goodrich included) as well as other Russian biologists, hunters, natives, naturalists, locals, forest rangers etc..and they all told him that the tiger completely dominates the Brown bear and regularly attacks, kills and eats them. He was even told that tigers kill bears solely on principle, and will pick fights with Brown bears and tear them apart.Tigers attack, kill and eat both Brown bears and Black bears on a regular basis. Russian Brown bears can reach 1000lbs in weight, in spite of this, they've been known to flee at the sight of a tiger!
 Male tigers are vicious, vindictive and vengeful beasts, and will even kill bears solely on principle! ( Based on the observations of hunters and biologists ) books.google.co.uk/books?dq=lev+kaplanov+very+large+brown+bear&hl=en&id=WGvVohmSYXcC&lpg=PT142&ots=mHuKcoWv-l&pg=PT142&sa=X&sig=cy1vjRvW9TKntaVAOgKAUvmPp6A&source=bl&ved=0ahUKEwjd8dHA3qDbAhUMKsAKHSARDqAQ6AEIQjAI#v=onepage&q=lev%20kaplanov%20very%20large%20brown%20bear&f=falseCheck this out now...
Here's a video of John Vaillant talking about the tigers dominance over the Russian grizzly bear. - He's asked about tigers vs big Russian bears/Grizzly bears, and he states the following: "The tiger has a inborn sense of total dominance over its domain. Russian brown bears are the equivalent of our Grizzly, the tiger attacks, kills and eats them on regular basis."
Go to the 11:29 mark:
In the same interview, he states that he talked to people who have worked with tigers their whole life. So clearly, he was told that the tiger dominates the brown bear.
Everything Vaillant stated in his book, was based off first-hand authentic accounts and testimonies from all the TOP AUTHORITIES on this subject. He was also told by all these people, that the tiger is widely acknowledged and regarded as the undisputed Lord and Master of the taiga.
Native Russian people conceive of the tiger as a supreme being and know it to be a "Consummate hunter" (Perfect hunter) and the undisputed lord of the taiga:
prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/11023/2193/ucalgary_2015_emery_tempest.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
You see Kodiak, I consistently post actual EVIDENCE to back-up my claims, not random screen-shots from random forum posters like you do! LMFAO...
|
|
mountainlord
Member
Tiger - The Legendary Killer of Brown bears
Posts: 309
|
Post by mountainlord on Aug 27, 2019 23:19:20 GMT 5
Really? Thats funny, because I already posted all the fight statistics which CONFIRM that tigers DOMINATE Brown bears in fights! And even a video of a Russian biologist stating it too.
You blatantly ignored and keep refusing to address all those fight statistics that I posted which easily debunks and exposes everything you claim!
You blatantly LIE about other posters too. You post screen-shots from random people, like a little 6 year old desperate kid. How sad.
Peter NEVER, and I repeat NEVER posts any evidence to back-up his claims, period. Go on, show me Peter posting actual evidence about fight statistics like I did?
I guarantee you right now, you won't find nothing, ZILCH!
|
|
kodiak
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 71
|
Post by kodiak on Aug 27, 2019 23:25:46 GMT 5
See, the problem you have is the “interpretation” of things. When a biologists says that a tiger will win in the WILD, he does not mean in a face to face fight, he means that the tiger would AMBUSH HUNT the bear successfully. Thats all kid. No biologists has stated that a tiger would defeat a bear in a head on fight. This is the point where you MISREPRESENT biologist quotes.
and what random forum user? Peter? Lmfao kid, As i explained above, Peter is the most respected and smarter tiger fan on forum, he is basically an expert, (ask Cooper), so you are just mad that Peter has debunked basically all you post and say. No one will ever believe you more than Peter. More quotes coming up.
|
|
kodiak
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 71
|
Post by kodiak on Aug 27, 2019 23:32:45 GMT 5
Wrong. i already showed that when you add the captive accounts, bears win by a large margin. You dont like it? Your problem. But you like to post captive accounts yourself huh hypocrite boy? Lmao.
Here is probably the best post by Peter, this one basically closed the bear vs tiger debate. Notice that this is not even Peter’s own opinion, its what the AUTHORITIES ON BEARS AND TIGERS HAVE SAID.
PETER
AUTHORITIES ON BEARS AND TIGERS IN THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST-RECENT PAST (1900-2010).
2). “Tigers, of course, decided for cubs most of the time”
3) “If they took a largish bear, it was a result of an ambush”
“4). IN A ONE-ON-ONE ON NON-AMBUSH CONDITIONS, BEARS, IF OF SIMILAR SIZE, WOULD PREVAIL MORE OFTEN THEN NOT” (HE SAID SIMILAR SIZE)
08 - Based on 1-7, one can't, as some did, conclude that (brown) bears are 'too dangerous' to hunt. Tigers AVOID adult male brown bears, but adult females " ... up to the largest and healthiest individuals ... " (Kerley, 2011) are hunted more often than many apparently assume.
I know of two cases in which ADULT MALE tigers were killed by bears. The tiger killed in 1960 was a young adult male. That incident was described more than once. There's no info about the tiger killed in 1972.
Post # 2014
wildfact.com/forum/topic-on-the-edge-of-extinction-a-the-tiger-panthera-tigris?page=135
|
|
