|
Post by brobear on Jun 30, 2021 6:13:21 GMT -5
Where to find reliable sources of information. I'm winging this... 1- Biological studies. The best source is straight from the expert with no "middle man" involved. 2- Animal trainers. 3- Park rangers. 4- Historians. ___________________________________________________________________________________ 5- News reporters are interested in selling their "story" which should be an interesting read regardless of accuracy. 6- Sport hunters are out to "earn" fuel for their ego. The hunter learns enough about the animal to locate it and put it in his sights. He is very often gifted as a colorful story-teller. 7- Hikers, campers, etc. will often exaggerate size or events witnessed. Not necessarily lying, but the imagination will often override reality.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jun 30, 2021 15:31:47 GMT -5
Sport hunters also exggerate the weights of the animals they kill.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jun 30, 2021 15:51:46 GMT -5
Consider that a field biologist who does studies within the Russian taiga certainly knows how incredibly rare any interaction is between a tiger and a full-grown male brown bear. Therefore Batalov would have submitted a full scientific report had he any evidence whatsoever of the tiger Ochkarik killing the bear called Chlamid. The mere fact that no such report was ever submitted is proof that this old tale from 2017 is no more than a story being twisted in the retelling and hyped by juvenile tiger fanboys. As for the Jankowski event, he was a hunter. He told of the huge ( estimated ) 700 pound tiger that he shot; which at that time ( 1943 ) was possible. He stretched his tale by adding that this tiger had just killed a very large male brown bear; but that very little was left of the carcass after the tiger's feeding. Was there a brown bear? Maybe, but if so, probably a she-bear.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jun 30, 2021 17:14:56 GMT -5
Just curious: When did the Siberian tigers start shrinking in size and weight. And when did they start becoming rare.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2021 17:48:40 GMT -5
OldGreenGrolar How much Siberian tigers have shrank is somewhat controversial question. First thing to remember is, that all claims of huge tigers from past are unverified and can´t be backed up too good when looking at weights and sizes of tigers usually. Most likely "historical" Siberian tiger was approximately same size as Bengal tigers today. I don´t remember now too exactly, but I think that around 1940 there were just something like 30-40 individuals in wild. Year can be something else, but at lowest point there were only that number of wild Siberian tigers. So for sure they suffered greatly and some reduce in size. But most likely not as dramatic as some people think because there is no real evidence to back up claims for some big difference. But since there is kind of grey area leaving room for speculation, some people will always believe to gigantic tigers. I personally can´t, when I look at things so, that I push my emotions and hopes aside. When I was 15 years old, I believed to tigers weighing almost 400 kg, not anymore. Nowadays I think, that only carnivore, which can reach weights over 300 kg in wild is bear. One interesting and odd thing is, that some people like to say that Siberian tigers would have been in average 300 kg, while all sources, which can be taken in any way seriously say "up to" 300 kg, not in average. And that up to seems to be mostly hypothetical, because such tigers are more than extremely rare. But I think, that overall current Siberian tigers are very close to it, what they were in past too. Pettifoggers or is the right word nitpickers of course complain, when I say so, but I don´t see 10-20 kg difference in average weight as too big deal, when animal weight is around 200 kg. But maybe I´m too approximate in this matter.... anyway this is how I see it more or less.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jul 1, 2021 5:57:51 GMT -5
300 kilograms is equal to 661.39 pounds. This goes along pretty close to what I had figured, although I am lightyears away from being an expert on the big cats. I had it figured that 700 pounds is pretty much the normal limit for a tiger back during his best years, although I have no idea exactly when mankind changed things in a bad way for this biggest of the big cats. Today, probably ( IMO ) 500 pounds is perhaps his normal upper limit. I will add to this; its often rather comical how posters view these numbers. They don't stop to realize that a 400 pound lion or tiger is a huge cat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2021 7:02:25 GMT -5
300 kilograms is equal to 661.39 pounds. This goes along pretty close to what I had figured, although I am lightyears away from being an expert on the big cats. I had it figured that 700 pounds is pretty much the normal limit for a tiger back during his best years, although I have no idea exactly when mankind changed things in a bad way for this biggest of the big cats. Today, probably ( IMO ) 500 pounds is perhaps his normal upper limit. I will add to this; its often rather comical how posters view these numbers. They don't stop to realize that a 400 pound lion or tiger is a huge cat. I wrote how I see it, I can´t say, that 700 lbs would be impossible for some exceptionally big tiger. I´m just not sure if there are or have been that big tigers. Anyway difference between 660 and 700 lbs isn´t very big and who knows if such freak has been somewhere or not. Take a very big tiger which has gorged and it can be even there. My main point is, that when starting to look reliable weights, it´s very clear that even 660 lbs has always, not only in "modern times", been in the upper possible limit for wild tigers. When excluding old stories from hunters, it starts to be very difficult to find such tiger. It´s good to notice, that well documented tigers also from past have been closer to 440 lbs than 660 lbs, in weight range 400-550 lbs more or less. In captivity both tigers and lions can be time to time somewhere in between 550-620 lbs, when still in good condition, but in wild it´s more rare. This is btw one interesting thing, in captivity big lions and tigers are in same weights so it looks like that basically in good conditions they are pretty equals in size and weight indicating, that both have quite the same potential. Even though captive and wild animals live very different kind of lifestyle, it´s interesting to notice, that in captivity both species, when talking about males, start to show first signs of obesity when around 660 lbs, imo. But this is how I see things in big picture, there are other opinions too. I can say frankly, that I don´t buy old claims concerning "giant tigers". Difference to well documented tigers is too big for me to believe just like that.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jul 1, 2021 7:20:19 GMT -5
I read 'Tigers in the Snow' not so many years ago. If I'm remembering right, 500 pounds ( or not much above ) was the heaviest they found, and most far below that weight. My thoughts are, an Amur tiger has a huge territory and puts a lot of miles on those four paws. Lots of walking can take off some pounds. Perhaps the normal upper limit for a Bengal might be somewhere between 50 and 100 pounds heavier? Also, of course, there will be those individuals who achieve weights above the normal max. I agree with 660 pounds upper limit for a healthy tiger.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jul 3, 2021 1:40:23 GMT -5
When I read stories from such colorful historical celebrities as Frank Buck, Jim Corbett, or Clyde Beatty, to put it mildly, I read their stories as entertainment. I'm not saying that there is no truth in there stories. Maybe. But, these tales should not be regarded as historical facts. I consider the words of Clyde Beatty to be as believable as those of P.T. Barnum.
I will add to this, with our various wild animal blog sites, we have those posters which we consider the "elite" among the many. I feel that those that shine with knowledge, education, common sense, and ( most important of all - IMO ), strong ethics should be regarded with respect. However, even among these elite posters can sometimes be found a certain amount of bias towards a favorite animal. But then, I also regard this as "being human."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2021 15:10:31 GMT -5
I put here one article, which is one of many with similar kind of exposures. This kind of information is one reason, why I watch documentaries with critical eye and why I prefer footage, which is filmed by wildlife photographers and random tourists etc. who don´t have similar kind of pressure to give to audience what is needed as people making documentaries to big media houses have. www.independent.co.uk/voices/bbc-david-attenborough-nature-documentaries-fake-a8291961.htmlHere is headline of article: "It’s about time we recognised that nature documentary makers regularly deceive us – and we’re partly to blame"Some quotes: "We’ve known for years that the real animal kingdom does not operate in accordance with the demands of modern filmmakers, who have budgetary and time restrictions, as well as the rapacious demands of a global audience who want sex, gore, thrills and engrossing drama acted out by insects, sharks and snakes."
"Armchair travellers and amateur naturalists want heroes and villains, predators and victims, legitimised murder involving furry things with several legs or slithering reptiles. It’s not surprising that delivering these elements can involve some manipulation of reality.
In 1997, a sequence with a bear and her cubs was filmed in a zoo in Belgium, but viewers were not told this at the time.
There was a scandal in 2011 when the BBC was forced to admit that scenes featuring a polar bear and her cubs in Frozen Planet were actually filmed in a zoo in the Netherlands and not in an Arctic environment. The same year, the Human Planet series showed a young camel being killed by a wolf, but later it emerged that because the filmmakers couldn’t find a wild wolf, they used a semi-domesticated animal brought to the location on a lead."
"In 2013, Doug Allan, a distinguished wildlife cameraman who has worked on many of the BBC’s series, revealed that most sequences involving small mammals were filmed in controlled environments, and claimed the audience were “not bothered”."
"One camerman said: “After two days when you’ve got nothing and you’ve got 24 hours left and the money’s running out, you get kind of desperate”."
"Later this month, the BBC will show My Year With The Tribe, which returns to the Korowai tribe in Papua New Guinea, originally filmed for Human Planet in 2011. It emerges that the treehouses the tribe built high above the tropical rainforest back in 2011 were constructed especially for the cameras, and that the locals don’t bother with anything so ridiculous, preferring to live much closer to the ground. In other words, they built a camera-friendly treehouse (described in the commentary as “their new home”) for a sequence which won the BBC loads of awards for their fearless coverage of an exotic way of life."
"Now, the BBC has admitted that footage of mountains shown in their Earth’s Natural Wonders series last February was not Nepal, but footage of Italy’s Dolomites. If their mountains are transposed from one continent to another, what next?"I recommend to read that article and remember that there are a lot more of similar things exposed. A good reason to watch closely when watching some documentary and not taking it for granted that things are as they look like always. The more unnatural or uncommon things are presented, the more there is reason to be cautious and think twice before taking it as 100% real. Nowadays when there is more and more information available it´s more difficult to fool people, but as it can be seen, these things happen even as we speak, it can be only guessed how much during time. I can sound often hypercritical so I try to open up a bit why. Old documentaries have fooled me more than once and I try to avoid it nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 19, 2021 23:14:20 GMT -5
Quote: "It’s about time we recognised that nature documentary makers regularly deceive us – and we’re partly to blame" Remember "Walking with Dinosaurs"? They claimed the big "sea serpent" Liopleurodon to be 82 feet long. Reality check; they were roughly from 25 to 35 feet long.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2021 2:19:02 GMT -5
Quote: "It’s about time we recognised that nature documentary makers regularly deceive us – and we’re partly to blame" Remember "Walking with Dinosaurs"? They claimed the big "sea serpent" Liopleurodon to be 82 feet long. Reality check; they were roughly from 25 to 35 feet long. The more dramatic voice narrator has, the more there is reason to be skeptic and check things from scientific sources. When documentary has more interviews of well known experts, those parts are usually more informative. Then again some media houses have hired some biologists, who then are all the time soooo "amazed", no matter what they find or pretend to find and are screaming "WHOA" "UNBELIEVABLE"... for me it means often that time to watch something else, if I want to watch comedy or parody, there are many with way better actors. Naturally there are many good documentaries, which show real things too (even though voices are often added later to make things more dramatic, more roaring etc. In situations in which you can´t hear the same, when watching original footage from some tourist or wildlife photographer. And also with added voice some situation can be turned to look like something different than it is. Two animals fight, then adding there for instance sounds of distress of one species and viewer gets feeling that it´s more dramatic than it is. Then narrator telling something and so on. I take sound off time to time, when watching something old and concentrate to what I see, not what I´m wanted to hear, when I know that it´s added afterwards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2021 4:51:39 GMT -5
When talking about wolverines, this book without a doubt has it´s part in spreading misinformation. Like the claim of wolverine killing polar bear in the zoo.
Wolverine: A Look Into the Devils Eyes, published 2005 and author Marc Allardyce
I see that book as easy cashing in by sensationalist.
For instance that claim about wolverine killing polar bear. Allardyce doesn´t give any details, he just refers shortly to Krott 1959, Sheldon 1930 and White 1964.
I have checked books of Krott (Demon of the North) and Sheldon (Wilderness of Denali) and there are no mentions of such thing. I haven´t found out what is publication of White from 1964, but when those two first sources weren´t valid it´s pretty clear what is situation with the third one too. Especially when there is no available information about such thing from anywhere else. Just that one vague sentence in the book of Allardyce with nothing to back it up.
Already name of the book is a warning in this case, that to all claims in it should be considered carefully and checked if there are any credible sources giving similar information.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 20, 2021 4:56:43 GMT -5
There might be such a story, from those old newspapers which, as you say, profit from sensationalism. I have also read a story about a sloth bear killing a polar bear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2021 5:17:06 GMT -5
There might be such a story, from those old newspapers which, as you say, profit from sensationalism. I have also read a story about a sloth bear killing a polar bear. The thing is, that it´s not possible to find anywhere, not even from the sources that author gives. It´s only one short sentence with no details and then briefly mentioned "sources", which have no such information. If it would be more serious thing, I think that it´s called fraud in English. But then again when you write fictional book, there are more liberties for author and obviously Allardyce use it fully. If comparing informative value of his book, closest thing might be X-men comics/movies. When I read text of Krott, it was somewhat dramatized based on his own experiences, but this one sentence opened up it, that he has had a lot to learn, when writing his book, even though it has nothing to do with Allardyce I mention this since it made me laugh a bit: "The moose hunting season was in full swing now, and the forester who was in charge of the woods around Mosseberg was an almost daily visitor with his big, black Karelian bear hound, a powerful beast with a tremendous bark, but almost useless as a field dog." He means by Karelian bear hound naturally Karelian Bear Dog and he calls it almost useless.... That breed is one of the best dogs in the field and highly respected among people who know dogs and hunt. Of course I don´t know to what he has tried to use it or what he has seen, but that sentence is comical to read in that kind of book. If trying to catch a wolverine, that dog is one of the best choices there are. If owner has trained it well, of course. Bad owner can make even the best dog to perform poorly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2021 5:37:43 GMT -5
This is about Discovery Channel. For many well known issue, but I think that there are still people who don´t know about things they made and actually fooled many people. www.oregonlive.com/movies/2014/08/the_dark_side_of_shark_week_af.html¨ A screen-capture of the disclaimer that aired in the final seconds of Discovery Channel's fake documentary "Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives." The hoax angered Shark Week fans last year, but Discovery is set to unveil a new fake documentary as part of this year's lineup.
Last year, Discovery Channel kicked off Shark Week with a two-hour documentary called "Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives," about the rediscovery of a giant prehistoric predator thought to have been extinct for more than 35 million years.
But it was entirely bogus. The scientists in the documentary were all actors, and the photos that supposedly showed megalodon were clearly doctored. Confirming the lie was a too-fast-to-read disclaimer that ran across the screen in the program's final seconds." Then again this article is also interesting giving other kind of perspective to things. Even though time to time there is misinformation, is it still overall good when thinking of awareness of people what comes to conservation work... I personally can give credit for it, even though being quite careful what comes to informative things. www.deseret.com/entertainment/2020/8/8/21358134/shark-week-2021-discovery-channel-makes-shark-science-cool
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 20, 2021 5:46:02 GMT -5
Agreed. Discovery Channel and similar TV networks have grown to consider pseudo documentaries, passed off as factual, acceptable. Many of then are about UFO's, ghosts, and, of course, BigFoot. I watched one, where they showed "proof" of the existence of mermaids ( mer-people ). I quit watching Animal Planet after they devolved into a show that portrayed animals in a negative way; such as "When Animals Attack'...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2021 6:46:39 GMT -5
Agreed. Discovery Channel and similar TV networks have grown to consider pseudo documentaries, passed off as factual, acceptable. Many of then are about UFO's, ghosts, and, of course, BigFoot. I watched one, where they showed "proof" of the existence of mermaids ( mer-people ). I quit watching Animal Planet after they devolved into a show that portrayed animals in a negative way; such as "When Animals Attack'... Yeah, Animal face-off and other kind of pure rubbish are made just to lure viewers, not to give valid information, Animal planet is really low quality program, I stopped watching it too quickly. Only thing it gives is headache when seeing so much inaccurate things and vague claims. Such programs would have felt fantastic when age 8-15 maybe. But target group isn´t people who have real interest towards facts and valid information/hypotheses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2021 6:49:44 GMT -5
Here one example of documentary, which I respect.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 20, 2021 7:42:32 GMT -5
Yes; I agree. very informative video. Edit and add: I googled 'Inside Naure's Giants' on YouTube, and found plenty - but nothing on bears. ( they do have the big cats ).
|
|