ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

[peter]

(08-29-2018, 12:28 PM)paul cooper Wrote: @peter, on carnivora was going on a debate about gaur and buffaloes versus tigers. Do you know anything about this specific subject? What chance a tiger has a against a buffalo face to face?, and interactions between the two?

THE ADVANTAGE OF READING - 1

This thread ' ('On the edge of extinction - part a - the tiger') has a lot of information about interactions between tigers and large herbivores in India. The best way to find an answer to the question, therefore, is to read the thread.  

You can also decide to buy old books written by those who witnessed incidents often discussed by posters. Visit the site 'Tiger Hunting Books' and buy a few. Safari Press also has a few good books. 

Another option is the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society (JBNHS). It's a free ride, but it will take a lot of time. In his letters to this journal, R.C. Morris wrote about fights between tigers and gaurs in southwestern India. 

Kenneth Anderson is known for his hunts on man-eating leopards and tigers in southern India, but he also knew a lot about other animals. One of his stories is about a lengthy fight between a male tiger and and old male gaur. The tiger was killed.  

G.H. Knowles wrote about tigers and elephants in northern India. His book ('In the grip of the jungles', 1932) also has a story ('The lame ghost bull') about a male tiger luring (...) a very large buffalo by imitating a challenger. In spite of his great size, the tiger quickly killed the bull. Knowles witnessed the incident himself:

" ... but here, enacted in front of us, is a case of a tiger actually calling out a wild bull, resorting to every trick - even to the raising of the dust - to perfect his camouflage! I should never have believed it, had I not been an eye-witness to such a feat this afternoon ... " (pp. 319-320).

Here's the title page of the book (a Natraj reprint) again:

*This image is copyright of its original author

I also posted more than once about the book 'Tiger und Mensch', written by Bengt Berg and translated into Dutch. It was published in Amsterdam in 1943 (during the Second World War). The book has a number of great photographs of wild animals, which was quite something in that period. One of posts on that book has a photograph of a buffalo killed by a tiger:

*This image is copyright of its original author

      
 
In another book written by Bengt Berg, 'Meine Jagd nach dem Einhorn', published in Frankfurt am Main in 1933 (Germany), a very large tiger from Bhutan features. The quote below (in German) is from that book: 

" ... Warum seine Horner (referring to the wild water buffalo) der Schrecken des Tigers sind? Weil er die einzige im Dschungel ist, der die Courage hat, sich ohne Zaudern auf den Tiger zu sturzen, ihn uberall zu verfolgen, ..., und ihn zu blutigen fetzen zu zertrampeln. Wenn Jager einen Tiger angeschossen haben und nicht wagen ihm in den Dschungel nachzugehen, pflegen sie eine Herde schwarzer Buffel auf seine Spur zu treiben, auf das sie Den Tiger zu Tode hetzen. Und sie tun es. Das schliesst nich aus, das er Tiger gibt, die selbst einem so kapitalen Buffel wie diesem hier (referring to a great photograph of a very large wild male water buffalo in his book) uber sind, falls der Tiger nur dazu kommt, den Buffel im Nacken zu packen, ehe er selber das Horn in der Seite hat. Aber das vermag nur ein sehr starker Tiger, und die sind selten. Hier im Dschungel weiss ich von einem, der es fertig bringt. Aber er sieht gar nicht ein gewohnlicher Tiger aus. Er ist ein Ungeheuer ... " ('Meine Jagd auf die Einhorn', pp. 149-150). 

The tiger known as 'The killer of Men' from Bhutan was the only one able to kill large male water buffalos. It was an exceptional individual easily dwarfing the largest tiger Berg shot in Bengal. That male was 565 pounds. When Berg saw the Bhutan tiger, he was amazed:

" ... ich wusste sofort, das dies der grosste Tiger sei, den kennenzulernen ich je die Ehre gehabt hatte. Jedesmal, wenn er zum Vorschein kam, sich wie eine quergestreifte Schlange durch das Gras windend, schien es mir, als wollte sein Rucken kein Ende nehmen. Und als er dann endlich lauschend heraustrat und in einer Lichtung zwischen den Baumstammen stehen blieb, so dass man den ganzen Korper sehen konnte, war er doch nicht die Lange, die mir vor Staunen den Atem raubte, sondern die Breite, die Schwere, der Umfang dieses Nackens wie von einem Stier, dieser keinem anderen Wildtier gegebenen Schulter, dieses ganzen gewaltigen Rumpfes und endlich dieses unerhorten Kopfes mit den schwarzen Hieroglyphen um das sachte fauchende Maul ... " (pp. 179).

This tiger, of which a photograph has been posted, was a wild buffalo specialist. He didn't hunt calves or females, but bulls only. One day, Berg found a wild male buffalo bull:

" ... Es war ein sehr grosser Buffelstier, und er lag auf der Seite, den Kopf unter sich und die Horner im Boden. Der Tiger hatte ein Stuck der Lende gefressen. Sonst schien der Buffel unversehrt. Es sah aus, als hatte der Tiger ihm mit einem einzigen Griff den Stiernacken gebrochen und den schweren Korper gerumgeworfen. Ein Tiger, der so leicht einen Buffel von etwa tausend Kilo handhaben konnte, musste ungeheuere Krafte besitzen ... " (pp. 169).

In another paragraph, Berg describes how the tiger dragged another male water buffalo he had killed into dense cover. The distance he covered was about 100 yards. I'm not saying this bull also was 2 000 pounds, but he must have been close. According to Berg, who saw a number of bulls killed by this tiger, he only killed the largest and biggest bulls. Every bull was killed in the same way.  

Here's a photograph of a wild male buffalo from the book. Berg was proud of it. He was one of the first who took photographs of wild animals:

*This image is copyright of its original author

THE ADVANTAGE OF READING - 2

Over the years, I bought hundreds of books. In many of them, you'll find first-hand information about incidents that happened a long time ago. When you read one after the other and make notes, you'll learn a thing or two about those who make their home in the natural world (and those who saw them). Here's a few things I noticed.

2a - Destruction 

After fire-arms had become available for many, the great turkey-shoot began. In Asia, the destruction of the natural world started about halfway the 19th century (1840-1860). About fifty years later, hunters in British India thought severe regulation was needed fast. This although it still had a lot of forest in that period. Wiele, regarding the situation in 1900-1910, wrote he was able to walk for weeks without seeing a soul in southern India.   

In Manchuria and southeastern Russia, devastated by colonists, hunters and bandits, Dersu (in 'Dersu the trapper', written by V. K. Arseniev) thought it would all be gone in one or two decades. Here's the cover of the book (reprint):

*This image is copyright of its original author

And a close call it was. According to Kaplanov (1948), only 20-40 tigers were left in the thirties of the last century. Amur tigers most probably were saved by the Second World War, when the USSR closed its borders. Seen in this light, that war was a miracle. Although reserves and serious protection resulted in a come-back after the war had been ended, the effects of the unslaught are still visible. Not one of the wild male Amur tigers captured in the last 26 years even approached 500 pounds. Individual variation, typical for many wild tigers, also seems to have disappeared. 

Were tigers hunted a century ago really larger than those of today? Goodrich has serious doubts. I prepared a long post about the size of wild Amur tigers a century ago and today. Everything I found suggests there really was a difference between then and now.  

2b - Behaviour

Wild animals sharing a habitat maintain relations. A century ago, wild people living in the forest often knew about these relations and they informed others. Hunters in particular often showed interest. Kenneth Anderson was one. In his turn, he informed his readers. If you want to know about the way wild animals interact, therefore, you need to read books. I would recommend books written by hunters a long time ago. 

When you've read many books, a picture emerges. You start to see patterns, but also know about details. Based on what I read and heard, I'd say that adult will mammals all have well-developed characters. 

Those who lived in extended forests for a considerable period of time a long time ago, like forest officers or hunters, knew about the habits of species. They also knew about individuals, especially those who developed a dislike for humans. Large carnivores were considered dangerous, but forest officers and hunters knew that herbivores often compared in that respect. Some of the male buffalos and elephants they knew really hated tigers or humans.  

What I'm saying is that good info is important when you debate hypothetical confrontations between carnivores and herbivores. Same for overview. You can only get to overview if you invest time in reading. You also need to have a database.

Things always are a bit different than you think. Let's take elephants. In Africa, they attack and even kill rhinos and buffalos at times. They also kill quite a few humans. In India, on the other hand, elephants avoid rhinos, not to say they fear them. They also avoid bears. A question of courage? No. Bull elephants and tigers clashed two hundred years ago, they clashed in the days of the British Raj and they're still at it today. For elephants, tigers are way more dangerous than sloth bears. So what's going on here? 

When you read books, you have to remember that there is a difference between then and now in many respects. A century ago, hunters saw the remnants of a disappearing world. They focused on details. Biologists today are not interested in anecdotes. They go for general rules in order to help those involved in conservation and management. This is needed to save species walking the edge, like tigers. Completely different perspectives.

DEBATES ON HYPOTHETICAL CONFRONTATIONS

Adult male brown bears in the Russian Far East average about 260-270 kg. At that weight, protein is the best way to keep fit. Although they're faster and more agile than many think, it takes a lot of energy to hunt. A bear might get lucky and kill a large deer or wild boar, but hunting for a living consumes too much energy. The balance between investment and return isn't favourable. Not for adult male brown bears. Energybalancewise, cleptocracy is more interesting. The Russian Far East offers prospects, but there are limits. Big male bears could confiscate kills of adult male Amur tigers, but research says it doesn't happen often. Too risky. This means they have to do vegetables and the occasional tiger kill. In winter, when deep snow affects movement, most brown bears hibernate. Non-hibernating brown bears seldom survive winter:

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

The Russian Far East has few large herbivores. Adult male tigers average 390-430 pounds. They need to hunt a medium-sized animal about once every two weeks or so. Medium-sized prey animals are faster than large herbivores. Some, like wild boars and bears, also are well-armed. Not a great prospect, but they learned to survive doing it that way and their body adapted.

Amur tigers are large, but not as robust as in India. Males in particular, although large-skulled, seem very leg-orientated:

*This image is copyright of its original author

 
Just south of the Himalayas, tigers can hunt animals of all sizes. Energybalancewise, hunting large herbivores would be the most efficient method to keep fit. For this reason, male tigers in particular tigers will try to progress from small to large over time. Although many perish in fights with large animals, most do not. Food has an effect on size in brown bears. In tigers, it isn't different. Size often affects the outcome of fights. Big tigers, for this reason, breed more often than small tigers. Over time, this will result in higher averages. Himalayan tigers are the largest and heaviest wild big cats today.

This is a male from Banke (Nepal):

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

Hunting large and dangerous animals isn't easy. It takes skill. Skill is a result of practice and learning. In order to learn, hunters need to survive confrontations not going their way. This is why old tigers often are elusive and wary animals. Not seldom, they developed into specialists. Tigers hunting bears often are experienced males. Same for tigers hunting large herbivores.

Tigers hunting young elephants and rhinos have to be able to deal with adult females as well. Over time, chances are that some individuals could progress from youngsters to adult females. The info I found in books strongly suggest that nothing can be excluded. The 'Killer of Men' from Bhutan only hunted large wild male buffalos close to 2 000 pounds. I don't doubt that others specialize on gaur, elephant or wild boars.

All-out fights between tigers and large herbivores often are a result of a failed hunt. Fights between adult male tigers and adult male brown bears in the Russian Far East, on the other hand, seem to be a result of confrontations at kill sites. It isn't about food, but ownership. 

Biologists never found evidence of an adult male brown bear killed by a tiger. That, however, doesn't mean it never happens. Based on what I saw in captive animals, I'd say most Amur tigers would be willing to give it a try, especially if they dislike their opponent. Fueds seem to fit tigers and they can last for a long time. Seen in this perspective, one could say that fights are mere phases. 

Wild tigers do not seem different in this respect. Umarpani and the two males he later killed met many times. Umarpani didn't seem larger and he also didn't dominate the fights that were seen by some. In spite of that, he came out on top in the end. What I saw in captive tigers suggests the outcome could have been a result of character. Aggression didn't seem as decisive as grid and being able to get to the right decisions at the right time. A bit like in humans, so it seems. The difference is that tigers are heavily armed. One mistake could be fatal. Coincidence, therefore, is important.

Example. Tiger 'Corbett' twice killed a male tiger. Varty thought he was quite a fighter, but it is a fact he had been very lucky on two previous occasions and one of the tigers he killed was fast asleep when he arrived to say goodbye. Wild male tiger 'Uporny', a youngish adult, was killed by an unknown male. Those who saw him first said there were no traces of a fight. This means he was surprised and quickly executed.      

I wouldn't invest a lot of time in debating posters saying things are like this or that. There are no rules when life it at stake. The outcome of fights is unpredictable and there's no such thing as species-related ability. Every species prefers some methods over others, but I don't think methods are decisive. A serious fight always is personal.

Same for old male tigers hunting large herbivores: it can go both ways. It seems specialists often develop a species-related method. Reply