+- WildFact (https://wildfact.com/forum)
+-- Forum: General Section (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-general-section)
+--- Forum: Debate and Discussion about Wild Animals (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-debate-and-discussion-about-wild-animals)
+--- Thread: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? (/topic-where-is-the-biggest-bengal-tigers)
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Apollo - 03-26-2017
IMO I think we've been underestimating the size of Bengal tigers all along.
I would say healthy male bengals should average around 245-250 Kgs. Anything less wouldnt workout.
Kanha males
Bheema exceeded 225kgs scale at 2.5 years subadult.
Konda exceeded 225Kgs scale as an adult.
Banda exceeded 225Kgs scale as an adult.
Laxmi male (male tiger killed by Konda) exceeded 225kgs scale when dead.
Poochkanta male exceeded 225kgs as a subadult.
You see even subadults were exceeding 225kgs mark. Bheema was never considered a huge tiger when he was 2.5 years. But males like Konda, Banda were said to be monsters.
Now imagine how much they couldve weighed with proper large scales.
Pench males
BMW's subadult son exceeded 225kgs scale at 2.5 years when dead.
T2 adult male exceeded 200kgs scale. But you should remember that T2 adult male was estimated in at 200-220Kg and was administered 3ml sedative, but it was not enough to bring the male down so they again sedated the male with another 1.2ml sedative, which is 40% more sedative than actually required for a (200-220Kg) male. So this means the adult male was possibly heavier than their estimated weight.
When BMW's son can exceed a 225kgs scale, Imagine the monsters like BMW, Raiyakassa, Samraat, Khursapur, Tarzan etc
Umredh males
Jai weighed in 238kgs (which I doubt highly).
Bittu and Srinivas weighed in 230kgs at 2 years and 8 months.
Jaichand (another subadult cub of Jai) is bigger than both Bittu and Srinivas.
Ranthambore males
T24 weighed 240kgs at 3.5 years as a sudadult, kindly remember he was injured and in bad condition when he was weighed.
ST1 weighed in 220kgs at 3.5 years as a subadult, he was later captured as an adult and estimated 250kgs
Dollar male, Star male, Jhumroo, Fateh were all stated to be bigger males than T24.
Panna males
M91 exceeded 250kgs scale as an adult.
T3 weighed in 240kgs at 10 years (old male).
Madla exceeded 250kgs scale as an adult (remember Madla's neck girth was 10cm bigger than Sauraha male).
Hairyfoot male was the biggest of them all but unfortunately he was not weighed.
Uttar Pradesh maneater
This male weighed in 235kgs at 4 years as a subadult, he was said to be in bad shape with cataract and injuries.
Dudhwa subadult
This male weighed 210kgs at 4 years as a subadult, he was kicked out of Dudhwa core to the outskirts by the big adult males.
Well we can see a clear pattern here, healthy adult males should average 245-250 kgs.
IMO 280+Kgs prime males is a common occurence.and not a very rare occurence.
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Pantherinae - 03-26-2017
Could not have agreed more @Apollo
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Roflcopters - 03-26-2017
(03-25-2017, 11:04 PM)Pantherinae Wrote:(03-25-2017, 08:16 PM)Roflcopters Wrote:Quote:Well for me the Kanha and Pench tigers do look superior in size compared to Bandhavgarh and Tadoba ones. Bandhavgarh for instance: even the reserves biggest males, after watching pictures and videos of them, and compare that to Munna, Behma, Umarpani, KF etc from Kanha and the big males from Pench they look like a level or two below them tbh
can you elaborate further on what you mean by level? I think you're underestimating every tiger that's not from Kanha and Pench. that's how i see it at least.
Quote:Wagdoh for sure is big! huge actually. And I think he gives more of a giant presence and seems bigger than he actually are. Again I don't say he's an average tiger, but for me the big Kanha and Pench males looks bigger for sure. They look longer, taller and more muscular. And I've seen people say that Wagdoh looks like the biggest male in India, but I have also talked to people that says he's not that big, and far from the sizes others make him out to be.. so again there is the fact that people look at things very differently.
I could say the same but we're not really going to get anywhere unless we have signficant data on hand to come to this conclusion.
Quote:This is such a proof that ones view can be totally different from another's. I could not have disagreed more with you right here. Torn ears from Nagarhole looks just a big tiger to me, not a giant.. he's got a solid build, but seems to be very well fed and his head looks a little small.. but this is again my view.
Torn Ears from Nagarhole is believed to be one of the biggest male tiger from that reserve, again your lack of knowledge is evident.
Quote:The best evidence of this is Jai whom I thought was one of the biggest tigers arround, he only weighed 220 kg as an adult, bheema weighed 225 kg, and he was only 2,5 years old.. and he was killed by an even larger male as an adult, and who knows what he weighed then? We could expect maybe arround 280 kg at least in winter I've heard. And Umarpani and Kingfisher can maybe have reached 300 kg's at the same time, and Umarpani had an even larger brother who disappeared. I just can't see wagdoh in that category tbh.
can you tell me if Bheema had any stomach content? was he full stomach? let's hear some details. also if you're going to mention that, both of Jai's cubs weighed 230kg at 2.5 years old. this really proves nothing. 280kg in the winter and 300kg? that sounds fanatical to me. I don't think Central Indian tigers have that potential and looking at BMW, Wagdoh, Kingfisher, Umarpani. they are easily comparable and no such thing as levels. that just seems over-exaggerated to me.
Quote:Great list for sure, but how can you put Jai above Umarpani and Kingfisher, when the smaller bheema out weighed him at the age of 2,5 years? Also Bamera is not even close to be a top 10 tiger imo..
You clearly didnt read the part where i said, top 10 biggest in no order.
What I mean about level is very simply that they are not as big.
Well it has nothing to do with underestimating at all, I'm just saying that Pench and Kanha tigers looks bigger (for me) regardless of eyewitnesses or others opinion that's how I look at them. Eyewitnesses accounts are great to have don't get me wrong, but that's not what I'm saying, this is just purely based on what I think. And for me Wagdoh, Bamera etc looks quite a bit smaller..
Well you really can't say lack of knowledge to me, when you you're self have not even slightest more knowledge or fact on this particular subject as neither of us has any single proof, just eyewitness own opinion.. so that I thought was really unnecessary and childish to even bring up. I don't think he looked that big, I would personally rather use Raja as the example of huge southern tigers tbh.
No, I'll check that up and ask arround about that for sure (if he had stomach content). I don't know what bheema had eaten, but I heard speculation that he maybe bottomed out that scale. Even still I don't know if, what or how much he had/ hadn't eaten, but he weighed more regardless of that and he would most certinly surpass Jai with ease when he was older no matter how much he had eaten, as I know he grew quite a-lot afterwards. And you had listed Jai not his sons, but sorry for not noticing that you didn't put them in order.
The 280 claim I took from a guy who had experience of watching tigers in Central India for almost three decades (28 years), it was not my statement, but it actually makes sense to me if he weighed 225 kg empty at 2,5 years (we will hopefully get that straightened up) Over exaggerating that a Central Indian tiger can be 300 kg?? I don't think so at all. A very big male lion can be 250 kg, then a very big Central Tiger can be 300 kg that I'm quite sure of.
without signficant data on hand, there isn't much to really debate about. that was exactly my point, I respect your opinion though.
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Pantherinae - 03-26-2017
(03-26-2017, 03:36 AM)Roflcopters Wrote:Very true. well thanks for that and likewise. :)(03-25-2017, 11:04 PM)Pantherinae Wrote:(03-25-2017, 08:16 PM)Roflcopters Wrote:Quote:Well for me the Kanha and Pench tigers do look superior in size compared to Bandhavgarh and Tadoba ones. Bandhavgarh for instance: even the reserves biggest males, after watching pictures and videos of them, and compare that to Munna, Behma, Umarpani, KF etc from Kanha and the big males from Pench they look like a level or two below them tbh
can you elaborate further on what you mean by level? I think you're underestimating every tiger that's not from Kanha and Pench. that's how i see it at least.
Quote:Wagdoh for sure is big! huge actually. And I think he gives more of a giant presence and seems bigger than he actually are. Again I don't say he's an average tiger, but for me the big Kanha and Pench males looks bigger for sure. They look longer, taller and more muscular. And I've seen people say that Wagdoh looks like the biggest male in India, but I have also talked to people that says he's not that big, and far from the sizes others make him out to be.. so again there is the fact that people look at things very differently.
I could say the same but we're not really going to get anywhere unless we have signficant data on hand to come to this conclusion.
Quote:This is such a proof that ones view can be totally different from another's. I could not have disagreed more with you right here. Torn ears from Nagarhole looks just a big tiger to me, not a giant.. he's got a solid build, but seems to be very well fed and his head looks a little small.. but this is again my view.
Torn Ears from Nagarhole is believed to be one of the biggest male tiger from that reserve, again your lack of knowledge is evident.
Quote:The best evidence of this is Jai whom I thought was one of the biggest tigers arround, he only weighed 220 kg as an adult, bheema weighed 225 kg, and he was only 2,5 years old.. and he was killed by an even larger male as an adult, and who knows what he weighed then? We could expect maybe arround 280 kg at least in winter I've heard. And Umarpani and Kingfisher can maybe have reached 300 kg's at the same time, and Umarpani had an even larger brother who disappeared. I just can't see wagdoh in that category tbh.
can you tell me if Bheema had any stomach content? was he full stomach? let's hear some details. also if you're going to mention that, both of Jai's cubs weighed 230kg at 2.5 years old. this really proves nothing. 280kg in the winter and 300kg? that sounds fanatical to me. I don't think Central Indian tigers have that potential and looking at BMW, Wagdoh, Kingfisher, Umarpani. they are easily comparable and no such thing as levels. that just seems over-exaggerated to me.
Quote:Great list for sure, but how can you put Jai above Umarpani and Kingfisher, when the smaller bheema out weighed him at the age of 2,5 years? Also Bamera is not even close to be a top 10 tiger imo..
You clearly didnt read the part where i said, top 10 biggest in no order.
What I mean about level is very simply that they are not as big.
Well it has nothing to do with underestimating at all, I'm just saying that Pench and Kanha tigers looks bigger (for me) regardless of eyewitnesses or others opinion that's how I look at them. Eyewitnesses accounts are great to have don't get me wrong, but that's not what I'm saying, this is just purely based on what I think. And for me Wagdoh, Bamera etc looks quite a bit smaller..
Well you really can't say lack of knowledge to me, when you you're self have not even slightest more knowledge or fact on this particular subject as neither of us has any single proof, just eyewitness own opinion.. so that I thought was really unnecessary and childish to even bring up. I don't think he looked that big, I would personally rather use Raja as the example of huge southern tigers tbh.
No, I'll check that up and ask arround about that for sure (if he had stomach content). I don't know what bheema had eaten, but I heard speculation that he maybe bottomed out that scale. Even still I don't know if, what or how much he had/ hadn't eaten, but he weighed more regardless of that and he would most certinly surpass Jai with ease when he was older no matter how much he had eaten, as I know he grew quite a-lot afterwards. And you had listed Jai not his sons, but sorry for not noticing that you didn't put them in order.
The 280 claim I took from a guy who had experience of watching tigers in Central India for almost three decades (28 years), it was not my statement, but it actually makes sense to me if he weighed 225 kg empty at 2,5 years (we will hopefully get that straightened up) Over exaggerating that a Central Indian tiger can be 300 kg?? I don't think so at all. A very big male lion can be 250 kg, then a very big Central Tiger can be 300 kg that I'm quite sure of.
without signficant data on hand, there isn't much to really debate about. that was exactly my point, I respect your opinion though.
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Rishi - 03-26-2017
(03-25-2017, 11:04 PM)Pantherinae Wrote: The 280 claim I took from a guy who had experience of watching tigers in Central India for almost three decades (28 years), it was not my statement, but it actually makes sense to me if he weighed 225 kg empty at 2,5 years (we will hopefully get that straightened up) Over exaggerating that a Central Indian tiger can be 300 kg?? I don't think so at all. A very big male lion can be 250 kg, then a very big Central Tiger can be 300 kg that I'm quite sure of.
Your "the guy" is Sharad Vats, aint it!?
He thinks Kanha's Bhima weighted 280kg (REALLY???!!!!!)....& that Umarpani is largest ma!e of India...
He's kinda (read: extremely) biased towards his fav. Kanha males (makes sense there, he's only human). He is no expert (wildlife photographers, no matter how experienced or skilled, don't count) & have NEVER weighed a tiger.
He just threw a random number...
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Pantherinae - 03-26-2017
(03-26-2017, 04:32 AM)Rishi Wrote:(03-25-2017, 11:04 PM)Pantherinae Wrote: The 280 claim I took from a guy who had experience of watching tigers in Central India for almost three decades (28 years), it was not my statement, but it actually makes sense to me if he weighed 225 kg empty at 2,5 years (we will hopefully get that straightened up) Over exaggerating that a Central Indian tiger can be 300 kg?? I don't think so at all. A very big male lion can be 250 kg, then a very big Central Tiger can be 300 kg that I'm quite sure of.
Your "the guy" is Sharad Vats, aint it!?
He thinks Kanha's Bhima weighted 280kg (REALLY???!!!!!)....& that Umarpani is largest ma!e of India...
He's kinda (read: extremely) biased towards his fav. Kanha males (makes sense there, he's only human). He is no expert (wildlife photographers, no matter how skilled, don't count) & have never weighed a tiger.
He just threw a random number...If Ustad & T3 (Panna) weighed 240kg, a tiger visibly similar shouldnt weigh much different!!!..
Well he's not really talking nonsense right there, as Bhima weighed 225 kg at the age of 2,5 years he could have reached that weight (280 kg) I assume, still without having something to compare with....
You're now doing the same thing you criticize him for doing by comparing Bhima to Ustad and T3 and saying they are about the same size and can't weigh much more than them only based on you're personal views, that's just the same thing he did haha. I don't have a problem with people having opinions, but it's wrong to say he's just talking nonsense, when I would assume he probably has more experience with wild tigers than you? and then go and make one yourself..
I think you and him are entitled to have one. His too are quite a valid one as he's seen several tigers all over Central India for 28 years, I don't know if he prefers Kanha tigers and gives them some extra kg's neither does I say his opinions should be written in stone, but still I can't really disagree much with him, as it makes sense that Bhima probably grew quite a bit until he reached full maturity, and Umarpani and KF was bigger than him.
Also from my point of view they look the biggest along side the Pench males, but that is my opinion.
Cheers:)
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Rishi - 03-26-2017
(03-26-2017, 05:29 AM)Pantherinae Wrote:Although i used words like "visibly similar" & "shouldn't weigh" YOU are still right... So, i edited it out!!!(03-26-2017, 04:32 AM)Rishi Wrote:(03-25-2017, 11:04 PM)Pantherinae Wrote: The 280 claim I took from a guy who had experience of watching tigers in Central India for almost three decades (28 years), it was not my statement, but it actually makes sense to me if he weighed 225 kg empty at 2,5 years (we will hopefully get that straightened up) Over exaggerating that a Central Indian tiger can be 300 kg?? I don't think so at all. A very big male lion can be 250 kg, then a very big Central Tiger can be 300 kg that I'm quite sure of.
Your "the guy" is Sharad Vats, aint it!?
He thinks Kanha's Bhima weighted 280kg (REALLY???!!!!!)....& that Umarpani is largest ma!e of India...
He's kinda (read: extremely) biased towards his fav. Kanha males (makes sense there, he's only human). He is no expert (wildlife photographers, no matter how skilled, don't count) & have never weighed a tiger.
He just threw a random number...If Ustad & T3 (Panna) weighed 240kg, a tiger visibly similar shouldnt weigh much different!!!..
Well he's not really talking nonsense right there, as Bhima weighed 225 kg at the age of 2,5 years he could have reached that weight (280 kg) I assume, still without having something to compare with....
You're now doing the same thing you criticize him for doing by comparing Bhima to Ustad and T3 and saying they are about the same size and can't weigh much more than them only based on you're personal views, that's just the same thing he did haha. I don't have a problem with people having opinions, but it's wrong to say he's just talking nonsense, when I would assume he probably has more experience with wild tigers than you? and then go and make one yourself..
I think you and him are entitled to have one. His too are quite a valid one as he's seen several tigers all over Central India for 28 years, I don't know if he prefers Kanha tigers and gives them some extra kg's neither does I say his opinions should be written in stone, but still I can't really disagree much with him, as it makes sense that Bhima probably grew quite a bit until he reached full maturity, and Umarpani and KF was bigger than him.
Also from my point of view they look the biggest along side the Pench males, but that is my opinion.
Cheers:)
PS: I actually had a word with him on FB once, questioning his claims of Umarpani being Central India's largest (sent those pics of Uma & KF fight)..He sounded favouring Uma like one of those father who say "my son can't do drugs, he's such a good kid"
So, I personally prefer to NOT take his word literally...
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Pantherinae - 03-26-2017
(03-26-2017, 06:40 AM)Rishi Wrote:that's cool of you Rishi, I respect that.(03-26-2017, 05:29 AM)Pantherinae Wrote:Although i used words like "visibly similar" & "shouldn't weigh" YOU are still right... So, i edited it out!!!(03-26-2017, 04:32 AM)Rishi Wrote:(03-25-2017, 11:04 PM)Pantherinae Wrote: The 280 claim I took from a guy who had experience of watching tigers in Central India for almost three decades (28 years), it was not my statement, but it actually makes sense to me if he weighed 225 kg empty at 2,5 years (we will hopefully get that straightened up) Over exaggerating that a Central Indian tiger can be 300 kg?? I don't think so at all. A very big male lion can be 250 kg, then a very big Central Tiger can be 300 kg that I'm quite sure of.
Your "the guy" is Sharad Vats, aint it!?
He thinks Kanha's Bhima weighted 280kg (REALLY???!!!!!)....& that Umarpani is largest ma!e of India...
He's kinda (read: extremely) biased towards his fav. Kanha males (makes sense there, he's only human). He is no expert (wildlife photographers, no matter how skilled, don't count) & have never weighed a tiger.
He just threw a random number...If Ustad & T3 (Panna) weighed 240kg, a tiger visibly similar shouldnt weigh much different!!!..
Well he's not really talking nonsense right there, as Bhima weighed 225 kg at the age of 2,5 years he could have reached that weight (280 kg) I assume, still without having something to compare with....
You're now doing the same thing you criticize him for doing by comparing Bhima to Ustad and T3 and saying they are about the same size and can't weigh much more than them only based on you're personal views, that's just the same thing he did haha. I don't have a problem with people having opinions, but it's wrong to say he's just talking nonsense, when I would assume he probably has more experience with wild tigers than you? and then go and make one yourself..
I think you and him are entitled to have one. His too are quite a valid one as he's seen several tigers all over Central India for 28 years, I don't know if he prefers Kanha tigers and gives them some extra kg's neither does I say his opinions should be written in stone, but still I can't really disagree much with him, as it makes sense that Bhima probably grew quite a bit until he reached full maturity, and Umarpani and KF was bigger than him.
Also from my point of view they look the biggest along side the Pench males, but that is my opinion.
Cheers:)
PS: I actually had a word with him on FB once, questioning his claims of Umarpani being Central India's largest (sent those pics of Uma & KF fight)..He sounded favouring Uma like one of those father who say "my son can't do drugs, he's such a good kid"
So, I personally prefer to NOT take his word literally...
The Uma and KF pictures are for me difficult to tell! KF looks the heavier and bigger male, but Umarpani looks like an superior male.. more athletic and overall solid, to be honest he (Uma) is my favorite tiger, but I'm putting that aside when I discuss this. Still he actually killed KF so no matter who would out weigh who, they are still very evenly matched, both huge males for sure, and very sad that Kanha lost both KF and Bhima...
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - tigerluver - 03-26-2017
If we're guesstimating we might as well do it with data as a guide if we can:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Unfortunately no tiger data is available. However, the two species have similar lifespans and thus similar growth timelines is not illogical. Even if Bheema was 200 kg at 2.5 yrs, 270+ kg is well within the ballpark unless he was a very early bloomer.
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Rishi - 03-26-2017
(03-26-2017, 08:11 AM)tigerluver Wrote: If we're guesstimating we might as well do it with data as a guide if we can:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Unfortunately no tiger data is available. However, the two species have similar lifespans and thus similar growth timelines is not illogical. Even if Bheema was 200 kg at 2.5 yrs, 270+ kg is well within the ballpark unless he was a very early bloomer.
Konda, Banda, Bheema, Poochhkata, Jai, Jai's 2 sons ...a LOT males that has recently been weighed (during collarings) has fell in the 215-220-225-230 kgs range & were mostly of the 2.5-3yrs age group!!!..
(Jai was 220kgs at 2.5yrs & grew to be 238 when later weighed..source; Minh Ha)
Just making a statemdnt... no conclusions drawn!!!
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - sanjay - 03-26-2017
Nice debate. I like the way you guys are debating, disagree in opinions but still respect to other views. This is what we want when discussing
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Pantherinae - 03-26-2017
A little info I just got from my brother who talked to a supposedly very informative guy called Minh Ha.
Bhima was weighed early feb 2014, he was 2.5 yrs old, 225kg in weight, neck 75cm. head body Length was 2m or a bit over. Condition of stomach wasn't noted, but he wasn't baited.
This is what he told that was interesting regarding this debate!
In Oct 2014 his neck had grew to 80cm!
This is quite amazing his neck grew 5 cm in 8 months! Then just over 3 years of age and probably still a lot of growing left to do!
@Rishi I belive Jai was weighed at 220, 238 and 215 kg as an adult
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Pckts - 03-26-2017
@Rishi
Min says Jai was 215 kg then 220kg, I got confirmation he was 220kg empty from dr. Habib, I believe it was @sanjay who spoke with another dr. Who said Jai was 238kg and adjusted for scale error.
Min has many contacts with the forest dept. and that is where he got bheema's weight but body measurements and specifics have yet to be determined, I know the neck claim but we should have chest, shoulder and hbl/tl as well. Min also shows a tendency of bias towards Kahna tigers and extremely bias towards munna and his bloodline in general while trying to devalue other males so make sure you take what he says with a grain of salt. But I do agree with him and sharad about uma's size since I've seen other well known naturalists agree with those observations. @Pantherinae
For me, trying to determine size differences between c. Indian tigers and terai/Assam tigers is impossible. You don't get to see as many photos of the terai/Assam tigers and when you do see them, they're usually far off.
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Apollo - 03-26-2017
Hi @Pckts ,
I spoke to some of my sources who have seen Bengal tigers and African and Asiatic lions. All of them said Bengals were taller and longer than lions.
Sometime back I had a discussion with a very reputable person in tigernation about this and he clealry said Bengals are larger (taller and longer).
I also saw Minha's discussion with a person in fb regarding this. It was specifically about Kanha tigers and African lions and he too clearly said to Minha, "No way, Kanha tigers are bigger."
Since you are visiting India and have visited Africa already, kindly share your views too after the visit.
@Pantherinae
Sauraha male also had a neck girth of 80cm.
Madla had a neck girth of 90cm.
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Pckts - 03-26-2017
(03-26-2017, 07:25 PM)Apollo Wrote: Hi @Pckts ,
I spoke to some of my sources who have seen Bengal tigers and African and Asiatic lions. All of them said Bengals were taller and longer than lions.
Sometime back I had a discussion with a very reputable person in tigernation about this and he clealry said Bengals are larger (taller and longer).
I also saw Minha's discussion with a person in fb regarding this. It was specifically about Kanha tigers and African lions and he too clearly said to Minha, "No way, Kanha tigers are bigger."
Since you are visiting India and have visited Africa already, kindly share your views too after the visit.
@Pantherinae
Sauraha male also had a neck girth of 80cm.
Madla had a neck girth of 90cm.
I am curious to compare, I just hope I get the chance to. Lions in Africa are easier to spot, I'm sure I'll catch some tiger images I just hope I'm lucky enough to get to see male tigers up close so I can compare properly. I think shoulder height would be the hardest to compare since the mane hides it on the lion, I think body mass will be easier, but we shall see.