There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
Grow up Copters.
[img]images/smilies/dodgy.gif[/img]
@amnon
Nobody is saying any weights. None of these claims are speaking about weights.
They are simply saying one tiger is the same size or larger than another. Something that is visible to the eye, usually. 2ndly, these are not just "photographers", lots work with the FD or the Location and provide the info you use.
So Vijay's opinion is meaningless because he is just a "photographer"?
Look at the contribution he has made in his short time, the great info provided on Ranthambhore tigers that we didnt know about.
A local with first hand expierence will always have more knowledge than somebody on the outside looking in. In terms of size.
You think you know how large a great white shark is because you see them on TV compared to somebody who swims with them?
So once again, nobody is talking about weights. Period!
We are talking about comparing sizes.
Whether exactly correct or slightly off, Munna is quoted by many qualified eye witnesses as being the same size, larger or smaller than Pattewala and Naak Kata.
That includes the Copters "friend" in which he quoted here.
So obviously there is nothing "overrated" about Munnas size.
He is large, plain and simple.
Overrated size of Munna aka Langda of Kanha National Park
