(10-24-2015, 04:01 PM)Roflcopters Wrote: Kingfisher killed two of the Mahaveer female's cubs.

(10-23-2015, 02:13 PM)Apollo Wrote:

(10-23-2015, 12:22 AM)strana Wrote:

(10-21-2015, 07:44 PM)anand3690 Wrote: Is Chinkoo the Tala male seen recently?

It is a nice question, because I think there are no news/pics of Chinkoo recently.
By the way, does anyone know how old are Kingfisher and Tarun ??
Kingfisher  looks like enormous, the biggest in Kanha, but I have heard that Chota Munna is already taller than him and becoming a powerful force.
Tarun is in fact amazing. Only a special tiger can beat so many adversaries, including Jobhi, who, I think, is also a very large animal.

Hi strana,

First of all  I like to say that there are a lot of misguiding and misleading informations available all over internet.
In regards to Kanha tiger reserve there are a lot of Munna fan boys all over YouTube,  tigernation, forums etc.
They want to make Munna "a larger than life tiger".
I've seen these fanatics saying Konda, Banda, Naak kata are smaller than Munna.
But in reality these tigers were massive and larger than Munna.
The reason is Munna being very popular.
Similarly now these fanboys are trying to make Chotta Munna an icon.

I've read these fanboys saying kingfisher is a very small tiger, umarpani male tiger is massive in size with big head, Chotta Munna is taller and bigger than kingfisher male.
I also read that these guys saying kingfisher won't stand a chance against bisanpura male and mahavir male, but unfortunately these males vanished when kingfisher arrived.
The funny part is they say kingfisher is a very small tiger and umarpani male to be massive in size, but if you see the pics of the latest dispute between these two males we can clearly see kingfisher male being taller, longer, larger, with bigger head and chest girth than umarpani male tiger.
See the pics below Kingfisher male in the back umarpani in front.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Regarding Mukki zone, initially it was ruled by a dominant male called the thin stripe male aka bisanpura male.
But later he was challenged by Umarpani male, Kingfisher male and Bheema and subsequently lost the territory to these males.
After the takeover of Mukki  zone, the umarpani male remained the most dominant among the trio (He was also the oldest).
Then on Jan 2015 both Kingfisher and Umarpani went at each other, Kingfisher dominated the battle and both the males sustained injuries which were later treated by the forest officials (both these males fought several times).
Finally Umarpani settled on central area of Mukki and Kingfisher near Mukki gate.
Here is the video below

In the meantime Chotta Munna aka link 7 male came into picture, in Jan 2015 he fought with Bheema at Chota chatta pather road. Bheema was defeated in the fight and Chotta munna took control of most of Bheema's territory and his female. Later Chotta munna went onto challenge umarpani male, but lost the fight with injuries and disappeared for some time. Currently umarpani and chotta Munna holds the main central part of Mukki.
Kingfisher male to show his dominance over his territory killed two one year cubs of Mahavir female (but I'm not sure who fathered the cubs).

Mukki is a very volatile zone and anything can happen.
let's see what Kana holds for this season.

(10-25-2015, 04:20 AM)Shardul Wrote: Apart from this particular poster on tigernation, I haven't seen anyone making such claims as Munna being much bigger than Waghdoh & Bamera. Not just that, I haven't seen such blatant cheerleading of one particular tiger anywhere, even on the immature AVA forums.

Two people who have seen the same tiger might not agree on the size. But when one tiger is being called consistently bigger than all, by multiple photographers who have seen tigers in multiple reserves, then maybe we can take their word. eg, Waghdoh. 

I too have seen wild tigers, in Ranthambhore and in Kanha, yet I don't have such strong opinions on size.

It seems no one on tigernation seems to know anything better and hence no one challenges this poster and take his opinion on everything as gospel. They have let  one person hijack their website which is why I stopped going there because it has turned into one giant Munna/Banda jerkfest.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

(10-26-2015, 09:28 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-25-2015, 04:20 AM)Shardul Wrote: Apart from this particular poster on tigernation, I haven't seen anyone making such claims as Munna being much bigger than Waghdoh & Bamera. Not just that, I haven't seen such blatant cheerleading of one particular tiger anywhere, even on the immature AVA forums.

Two people who have seen the same tiger might not agree on the size. But when one tiger is being called consistently bigger than all, by multiple photographers who have seen tigers in multiple reserves, then maybe we can take their word. eg, Waghdoh. 

I too have seen wild tigers, in Ranthambhore and in Kanha, yet I don't have such strong opinions on size.

It seems no one on tigernation seems to know anything better and hence no one challenges this poster and take his opinion on everything as gospel. They have let  one person hijack their website which is why I stopped going there because it has turned into one giant Munna/Banda jerkfest.

I agree for the most part, Tigenation hasn't been updated in quite some time. But a few of the posters there are good, I truly think Kay is definitely one of them. He contributes many photographs and very rarely gets caught up in the debate of individual tigers.
So I take his word about Kahna males being larger than Bandhavargh males, but I have heard from a few that the males there aren't quite as large as else where. But that being said, I would still put Bheema up there with any tiger, hes huge. And very few tigers have carried as impressive of a body as bamera, in terms of muscle definition.

Most of us know by now that every area has there own version of "Waghoh"

The tiger that is bigger than all the others.
But like you stated, someone who has been to many reserves, word, will carry more weight than a one time traveler, obviously.

That being said, I have heard from Kanwar and Anjan that Munna is very large tiger, but other than that, its pure speculation. So at the end of the day, I assume he is a large male, nothing more, nothing less.


Edit: Also, I love Kahna and Ranthambhore Tigers, both look to be large cats in their own way. Do you notice any different in size between those two locations of Tigers?

To me, Ranth tigers have slightly smaller heads than Kahna tigers but Ranth body frame look to be very tall and athletic, Kahna also looks to be tall but a little more robust. To my naked eye of course, and only through video, not like I have seen them in person.
Unfortunately

(10-27-2015, 09:36 PM)Pckts Wrote: That tiger also resembles a youngster to me as well, but obviously impossible to know for sure.

The only thing I don't think is likely is whether or not it matters if a human is crouching or not, I never agree with the statement that Sharks confused a surfer for a seal and the same goes for a apex predator.
Their senses have evolved for many 1000s of years, they know the scent, sight and posture of all prey they hunt regularly and I highly doubt they will confuse a human being with a prey animal they have been hunting throughout history.

(10-28-2015, 01:06 AM)Shardul Wrote:

(10-26-2015, 09:28 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-25-2015, 04:20 AM)Shardul Wrote: Apart from this particular poster on tigernation, I haven't seen anyone making such claims as Munna being much bigger than Waghdoh & Bamera. Not just that, I haven't seen such blatant cheerleading of one particular tiger anywhere, even on the immature AVA forums.

Two people who have seen the same tiger might not agree on the size. But when one tiger is being called consistently bigger than all, by multiple photographers who have seen tigers in multiple reserves, then maybe we can take their word. eg, Waghdoh. 

I too have seen wild tigers, in Ranthambhore and in Kanha, yet I don't have such strong opinions on size.

It seems no one on tigernation seems to know anything better and hence no one challenges this poster and take his opinion on everything as gospel. They have let  one person hijack their website which is why I stopped going there because it has turned into one giant Munna/Banda jerkfest.

I agree for the most part, Tigenation hasn't been updated in quite some time. But a few of the posters there are good, I truly think Kay is definitely one of them. He contributes many photographs and very rarely gets caught up in the debate of individual tigers.
So I take his word about Kahna males being larger than Bandhavargh males, but I have heard from a few that the males there aren't quite as large as else where. But that being said, I would still put Bheema up there with any tiger, hes huge. And very few tigers have carried as impressive of a body as bamera, in terms of muscle definition.

Most of us know by now that every area has there own version of "Waghoh"

The tiger that is bigger than all the others.
But like you stated, someone who has been to many reserves, word, will carry more weight than a one time traveler, obviously.

That being said, I have heard from Kanwar and Anjan that Munna is very large tiger, but other than that, its pure speculation. So at the end of the day, I assume he is a large male, nothing more, nothing less.


Edit: Also, I love Kahna and Ranthambhore Tigers, both look to be large cats in their own way. Do you notice any different in size between those two locations of Tigers?

To me, Ranth tigers have slightly smaller heads than Kahna tigers but Ranth body frame look to be very tall and athletic, Kahna also looks to be tall but a little more robust. To my naked eye of course, and only through video, not like I have seen them in person.
Unfortunately

I only saw one adult male in Kanha, rest were cubs. This was in April 2012. The guide called him the Kisli male. I saw him from close on the side of the road, less than 500 mtrs from our forest rest house near the Khatia gate. He didn't look like any Kanha tiger I had seen in photographs on the internet, and I had a good look at his face. He was big, taller than both t24 & t25. Not longer though. Big head and big paws. But it was just one individual. So I am not in a position to make a comparison between RTR and Kanha.

Btw, Kay is a woman :)

(10-28-2015, 01:11 AM)Shardul Wrote:

(10-27-2015, 09:36 PM)Pckts Wrote: That tiger also resembles a youngster to me as well, but obviously impossible to know for sure.

The only thing I don't think is likely is whether or not it matters if a human is crouching or not, I never agree with the statement that Sharks confused a surfer for a seal and the same goes for a apex predator.
Their senses have evolved for many 1000s of years, they know the scent, sight and posture of all prey they hunt regularly and I highly doubt they will confuse a human being with a prey animal they have been hunting throughout history.

 
I agree. I think predators can make out the difference, maybe certain postures simply trigger their natural instinct to attack. Or maybe they are just looking for an opportunity.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

(10-28-2015, 11:13 PM)tigerluver Wrote: How old is Bamera? I think he's aged poorly, but isn't necessarily that old in raw terms, as if I'm not mistaken, I remember watching him displace B2 back in 2009-2010 when he was supposedly young.