For example,I was watching Weird True and Freaky yesterday.A person had a pet Raccon.The person narrating said,he should be worried more about the Raccoons jaws.They have a bite force of 600 PSI.That is pretty ridiculous.A Grey Woof has a bite force around 406 PSI (I looked the bite force on wolves and this was the most popular answer).Okay so there saying an animal that is around 15-30 pounds has a higher bite force than a K9 around 80-160 pounds?The wolf also has a much bigger head and jaws so they should have a higher bite force.Animal Planet also said Tiger Sharks can get up to 25 feet?Okay a Great White is the largest preadatory shark and they rarely get th.at long.Animal Planet can be really be inaccurate at times
-
Well this was asked in Canada so maybe we can bash the Americans together !
Animal Planet is a reflection of American culture in general. Sensationalised, exaggerated and embellished to the point of sillyness, in some cases. One prime example of this is the animal face-off crap they aired.
Those bite forces do seem suspect, sounds like silly embellishment to me. The tiger shark length claim is something that in general peeves me. What I mean is the characterisation of a superlative measurement applied to the species as a whole. Even if there was a single specimen at 25 ft, that is not licence to state the size range of the species as 'up to 25 ft'. A size range should be based upon the commonly measured statistics, not those on the superlative fringes. Take polar bears; the supposed largest was a male at 2209 lbs. Does this mean we describe the weight range as being up to 2209 lbs ? NO. Such a weight falls way outside the norm (750 - 1500 lbs if you were wondering).
While I am talking about Animal Planet, the commentators and the general presentation of their programs I find annoying anyway.
Animal Planet is a reflection of American culture in general. Sensationalised, exaggerated and embellished to the point of sillyness, in some cases. One prime example of this is the animal face-off crap they aired.
Those bite forces do seem suspect, sounds like silly embellishment to me. The tiger shark length claim is something that in general peeves me. What I mean is the characterisation of a superlative measurement applied to the species as a whole. Even if there was a single specimen at 25 ft, that is not licence to state the size range of the species as 'up to 25 ft'. A size range should be based upon the commonly measured statistics, not those on the superlative fringes. Take polar bears; the supposed largest was a male at 2209 lbs. Does this mean we describe the weight range as being up to 2209 lbs ? NO. Such a weight falls way outside the norm (750 - 1500 lbs if you were wondering).
While I am talking about Animal Planet, the commentators and the general presentation of their programs I find annoying anyway.