Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project

[peter]

Size is not a criterium because of the amount of individual variation in all big cats. The only way to get to a reliable statement on size is large and reliable samples. The information we have says Gir lions are a bit smaller than African lions. The longest male, however, compared to the longest measured in Africa. As large populations usually produce more variation, it's likely some individuals in India exceeded 9.10 in total length measured in a straight line not so long ago.

I agree with Amnon regarding the general appearance of Gir lions. Those I saw were average in size and quite stocky. They also seemed more uniform. The main difference with African lions is in the skull in that the occiput, like in Javan tigers, often is constricted (narrower). Apart from that, the skull is a bit shorter.

Although the number of conflicts between wild Gir lions and humans is limited, captive Gir lions are considered as dangerous as African lions. Captive lions and humans often do not get along. 

Some years ago, there was a debate on why lions disappeared from central parts of India. The answer is humans.

In 1856, a book was published on tigers and tiger distribution. Although J.F. Brandt read just about everything available at the time, he never found a trace of conflict between both big cats. Remarkable, as lions and tigers lived in close proximity in quite many regions (Asia Minor, Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan and northwestern India). The most likely reason is both big cats use very different habitats. Tigers prefer elevated and forested regions, whereas lions prefer open plains. Tigers did breed in plains in some parts of the Caspian region (north and east of Lake Aral), but conditions in India were very different.

Although they had been hunted by Moguls and, later, local Indian rulers, lion numbers quickly dropped after the British had arrived. The reason is they had the means to hunt big game. Furthermore, many of them hunted. As often as possible, that is. Hunters like visibility. As lions are more visible than tigers, they were targeted first.

Based on what Brandt found, I'm not too sure about the argument often used (tigers) to keep lions in Gir today. Solitary big cats avoid confrontations with animals able to injure or kill them when possible, unless territory is involved. Or food. Experienced male Amur tigers hunt brown bears in Primorye, but they nearly always have a weight advantage and the intention isn't territory, but food. Even these specialists only very seldom extend to bears similar in size (350-450 pounds). In two incidents observed, the attack resulted in a 20-minute fight. Although both female bears were killed, both male tigers were injured. A female brown bear of, say, 160-170 kg. (353-387 pounds), however, is very different from an adult male Gir lion of similar weight. One is lions won't be considered as food and two is they live in prides. Furthermore, males are more aggressive than females.

All in all, I'd say an intentional confrontation about territory between an Indian lion and an Indian tiger is unlikely. Indirect proof can be found in the posts on Nepal tigers in the tiger-extinction thread. Smythies wrote a pair of lions (male and female) were released in Nepal in the thirties of the last century. Although the male, at just over 8 feet in total length 'over curves', was a small animal, especially when compared to an average male Nepal tiger, no proof was found of a confrontation with a tiger. The lions were on their own for about a month. Both were shot because they had turned to cattle. 

Meaning the reason to keep lions in Gir most probably isn't about tigers. My guess is pride and money could be involved in some way. Reply