(12-12-2019, 08:29 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(12-12-2019, 08:10 AM)Shadow Wrote: To clarify a bit. Of course no-one needs to like it, that some people are critical. I don´t expect people to like it nor do I care frankly speaking. I am just interested to find out reliable information.

Social media is one endless source for unreliable information, so naturally I don´t take too seriously all I see there. Poaching as reasoning to not publish all or some information too clearly is one quite ok argument. Same time it can be asked that if that is really something to be worried about so much, why then spreading that information all over facebook and other places and put all those pictures there? Do these people think, that people organizing poaching have no access to internet?

In reality now seems to happen so, that poachers know where to look for if they want to find big tigers. No logic all the way in that argument when thinking about it a moment, even though it sounds in the first place good. And on the other hand while some big tiger might create some extra interest for poachers, do they really care? People organizing poaching pay good money, no matter if tiger is 200. 250 or 300 kg.

Also it can be thought about it, that information could be given to people, who do research anyway. Like let´s say Ullas Karanth and others if information is really good. They could easily publish new and more or less record breaking information so, that location of the tiger wouldn´t be exposed. 

What comes to weighings, for instance it could be said if the tiger had been gorged etc. I guess, that tiger experts can separate a gorged tiger from normal looking. But that wasn´t said for some reason.

So when seeing information like that, I´m not saying that totally impossible. But I don´t take it as reliable weight just like that. As @Ashutosh mentioned, it could have been a 290 kg tiger and weighed after gorging. Or it could have been many other things in between. I have learned a long time ago to be somewhat careful when information like about this possible 340+ kg tiger comes up and wait for more.

It´s good to like animals, but it´s also good to remember, that things can be looked from different points of views. When forum name is "wildfact" and goal is to find out reliable information, certain level of criticism is and should be always present. No matter if we are talking about tigers, lions, bears, elephants or sharks etc.

Maybe that opens up a bit how I see things and why I don´t take that 340+ kg tiger as 100% confirmed with current information. I find it interesting though and will try to find out more information about it too. Luckily it´s 2019 and contact information of institutes and people are easy to find out for all who are interested to find out more information. 

And @Ashutosh , it looks like, that you like to talk about preconceived notions every now and then. Have you ever thought, that you can be seen as a person with preconceived notions, easily. It´s all about point of view. Maybe something to think about.

Regardless of this, dont they look like huge Tiger's, probably some of largest you've seen photographed in your life?

(12-12-2019, 01:26 PM)Ashutosh Wrote: Lol @Shadow, I haven’t mentioned you in my post neither was it directed at you. It is interesting to see that you took offence to something I had written in general. I am not responsible for the chip on your shoulder. I was just agreeing with @Roflcopters regarding people being so obtuse they are unwilling to consider factual information gathered by experts based on flimsy reasons. Why and how could that possibly prick you is a conversation you should have with yourself.

(12-12-2019, 01:42 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-12-2019, 01:26 PM)Ashutosh Wrote: Lol @Shadow, I haven’t mentioned you in my post neither was it directed at you. It is interesting to see that you took offence to something I had written in general. I am not responsible for the chip on your shoulder. I was just agreeing with @Roflcopters regarding people being so obtuse they are unwilling to consider factual information gathered by experts based on flimsy reasons. Why and how could that possibly prick you is a conversation you should have with yourself.

I mentioned it, because I´ve seen you to use that word often. No lol´s in it and nothing more or less than that, I meant what I said.

What comes to this tiger, I have got first reply from Wildlife Institute of India and they didn´t confirm that weight. Reply was that sounds far fetched and they had no information about that heavy tiger. I don´t yet post all, because conversation is still ongoing. The person with whom I have now discussed is one of their experts and he told to me, that heaviest tigers he had been radio collaring have been 280-290 kg with full belly.

I hope, that in 1-2 days more information and then I will post what I have been able to find out.

(12-12-2019, 05:23 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(12-12-2019, 01:42 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-12-2019, 01:26 PM)Ashutosh Wrote: Lol @Shadow, I haven’t mentioned you in my post neither was it directed at you. It is interesting to see that you took offence to something I had written in general. I am not responsible for the chip on your shoulder. I was just agreeing with @Roflcopters regarding people being so obtuse they are unwilling to consider factual information gathered by experts based on flimsy reasons. Why and how could that possibly prick you is a conversation you should have with yourself.

I mentioned it, because I´ve seen you to use that word often. No lol´s in it and nothing more or less than that, I meant what I said.

What comes to this tiger, I have got first reply from Wildlife Institute of India and they didn´t confirm that weight. Reply was that sounds far fetched and they had no information about that heavy tiger. I don´t yet post all, because conversation is still ongoing. The person with whom I have now discussed is one of their experts and he told to me, that heaviest tigers he had been radio collaring have been 280-290 kg with full belly.

I hope, that in 1-2 days more information and then I will post what I have been able to find out.

Neither Wasif or Siddharth work for the WII, Wasif works for the FD.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Wasif with a Tiger being collared.
You  should speak with him on FB and view his profile, you'll see how involved he is with capture and wildlife conflict in general.

 Dr. Raghu Chundawat
Works for the WII and he was the one saying that these Tigers look massive, even more so than Madla, who he captured.
But in regards to 280-290kg captured by them, I'd be very curious to know which cats they're speaking on.

(12-12-2019, 07:58 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-12-2019, 05:23 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(12-12-2019, 01:42 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-12-2019, 01:26 PM)Ashutosh Wrote: Lol @Shadow, I haven’t mentioned you in my post neither was it directed at you. It is interesting to see that you took offence to something I had written in general. I am not responsible for the chip on your shoulder. I was just agreeing with @Roflcopters regarding people being so obtuse they are unwilling to consider factual information gathered by experts based on flimsy reasons. Why and how could that possibly prick you is a conversation you should have with yourself.

I mentioned it, because I´ve seen you to use that word often. No lol´s in it and nothing more or less than that, I meant what I said.

What comes to this tiger, I have got first reply from Wildlife Institute of India and they didn´t confirm that weight. Reply was that sounds far fetched and they had no information about that heavy tiger. I don´t yet post all, because conversation is still ongoing. The person with whom I have now discussed is one of their experts and he told to me, that heaviest tigers he had been radio collaring have been 280-290 kg with full belly.

I hope, that in 1-2 days more information and then I will post what I have been able to find out.

Neither Wasif or Siddharth work for the WII, Wasif works for the FD.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Wasif with a Tiger being collared.
You  should speak with him on FB and view his profile, you'll see how involved he is with capture and wildlife conflict in general.

 Dr. Raghu Chundawat
Works for the WII and he was the one saying that these Tigers look massive, even more so than Madla, who he captured.
But in regards to 280-290kg captured by them, I'd be very curious to know which cats they're speaking on.

I have seen photos and information about Wasif, I know that he is a legit person working with wildlife. That figure he said was simply so high, that I wonder if it has to be taken at least slightly with a grain of salt, if that is right expression. 

The person with whom I now discuss has solid competence what comes to tigers in India as far as I know. I just forgot to ask if it´s ok for him to quote his words here openly and he also needs to check things, so I have to wait 1-2 days before I´m able to put more information here. I can of course ask more about biggest tigers he has been radio collaring himself. But he has busy job and time difference won´t help communication.

(12-12-2019, 08:18 PM)Pckts Wrote: Do the FD keep an updated data base on captures and measurements or is it on a park by park basis?

(12-12-2019, 09:23 PM)Roflcopters Wrote: I’d be curious to know who this radio-collared male of 280-290kg is.

(12-13-2019, 09:36 PM)BlakeW39 Wrote: I think some people might have a preconcieved notion regarding what tigers should weigh (usually with a thin veil of LvT over it) and pick and choose what they can believe and not believe, usually choosing to not believe the highest numbers, based upon that bias but not based on upon reliable experts who weigh the cats. But, I think that most people should be open-minded, especially here and not on the other forums which I choose to avoid. So really what we believe the tiger weighs is nothing, he weighs what he weighs and that is that. Big tigers can get really big but how big is the question, and if big is 600lbs or 700lbs or something else/more. But, I would definitely wait for more information to see if the specific figure of 340kg or so is accurate to his empty weight.

(12-16-2019, 04:52 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: On the record tigers, a wide point of view:

Since I have started my study on tigers, I have manage to read several sources on tiger biology, ecology and evolution, and about tiger size, all except one (Dinerstein, 2003) says that Amur tigers were the biggest and quote incredible figures of over 300 kg. However it was in 2005 that Dr Slaght (an owl expert) and others published a chapter in the Amur tiger monograph of the Siberian Tiger Project and they concluded that all the figures over 260 kg in litterature were not reliable, quoted without backup or simple imposible to verify. The best example is the figure of a tiger hunted by Baikov, the male was of 325 kg and is quoted by Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) but the team decided that was not reliable as they could not found the original source. At the end, they downgraded the Amur tiger and now is considered second in size to the Bengal tiger, with a maximum reliable weight of 254 kg. Some sources still quote the Amur tiger as the biggest, but to the "initiated circles" that is no longer a realiable fact.

Now, what happen with the Bengal tiger, the new king of tigers? Well, if we use the sources of Mazák (1981), Sunquist (2010), Karanth (2013) and Hunter (2015), they all conclude that the male Bengal tiger, in mainland, weight between 180 to 260 kg (Karanth (2013) put a lower figure of 175 kg, but that is because he is including all South Asia and that figure came from an Indochinese tiger quoted by Pocock (1939)), with the current record of 261 kg for a Nepalese tiger. However, the correct information is that two males captured in Nepal (M105 and M126) weighed over 272 kg and the calculated figure of 261 kg is bases in a chest girth equation; personally I calculated that "empty belly" those males weighed no less than 260 kg, and that is the current figure accepted as the normal maximum for the Bengal tiger.

But, that is the maximum that the tiger from the Indian subcontinent can reach? Apparently that is not the case. There are some records that shows tigers of over 600 lb and more, much more! The following list summarize the males that I could get from litterature, of tigers clasified as "exceptional" for they huge size. Take in count that while I put the top figure for males at 272 kg, this is based in the two Nepalese male tigers and that probably they had some stomach content, other male hunted in Gwalior weighed 590 lb (268 kg) and although it was attracted with a bait, the animal was searched and hunted the entire day, and based in the fact that the tiger did not eat during those more than 10 hours of hunt, the animal was practically "empty" when they hunt them (Singh,1959). Here is the list of the records from India and Nepal, is not a particularly long one:

1 - 272 kg (600 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by Lord Hardinge, Viceroy of India, in 1914. The total length was reported at 11 ft and 6.5 in (352 cm), obvioulsy taken "over curves" (Singh, 1970).
2 - 276 kg (608 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by the Kumar of Bikaner, probably before 1928. The total length was reported as 10 ft 2 in (310 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Wood, 1978).
3 - 281 kg (620 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by H. H. Sir Mahabat Khan Nawab, no date was mentioned. The total length was reported at 10 ft 3 in (313 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Vernay, 1930).
4 - 292 kg (645 lb) male hunted in Kumaon by E. H. Morbey, probably before 1928. The total length was reported as 10 ft 6 in (320 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Wood, 1978).
5 - 318 kg (700 lb) male hunted in Central Provinces by Captain M. D. Goring-Jones, probably before 1907. Total length reported as 9 ft 11.5 in (304 cm), probably taken "between pegs" (tail of 94 cm), skull of 362 mm X 267 mm and a weight of 5.2 lb (Rowland Ward, 1907).
6 - 320 kg (720 lb) male hunted in Chitwan, Nepal, by the Maharaha Joodha of Nepal. Total length reported as 10 ft 9 in (328 cm) taken "round the curves" (Smythies, 1942).

This list exhaust all the huge tigers in my database, if some one here have more records, feel free to post them. Appart from tigers 2 and 4, I have the original sources from the records.

From a list of 173 male Bengal tigers, 7 of them are clasified as "exceptional" and one of them is the Smithsonian tiger of 389 kg, which I no longer believe is entirely reiable. The other 166 males are the ones that I used for my normal list. These 7 males represent only about 4% of the sample, which shows how rare are animals of these dimentions. However, are these tigers really imposible to exist?

If we take this range of sizes, between 272 to 320 kg, there is a diference between 12 and 60 kg from the current highest figure of 260 kg. However, at least the tigers 3 and 6 are described as has been actually weighed, while those of Rowland Ward are still open to aceptance, as the males 2, 4 and 5 only appear in this series of books. Tiger 1 was just reported by Colonel Singh, but he did not saw it. There is other fact, the tigers from Gwalior were all hunted by dignataries and royalness, and were all probably baited, as the hunt for the tiger of 590 lb describe. We know that male tigers can eat up to 34 kg in one sit (Tamang, 1982), but in a normal bait they can eat between 14 to 19 kg (Sunquist, 1981). So, what happen if we adjust those "huge" males:

1 - 272 - 14-19 kg = 253 - 258 kg -- or as low as 238 kg (-34 kg).
2 - 276 - 14-19 kg = 257 - 262 kg -- or as low as 242 kg (-34 kg).
3 - 281 - 14-19 kg = 262 - 267 kg -- or as low as 247 kg (-34 kg).
4 - 292 - 14-19 kg = 273 - 278 kg -- or as low as 258 kg (-34 kg).
5 - 318 - 14-19 kg = 299 - 304 kg -- or as low as 284 kg (-34 kg).
6 - 320 - 14-19 kg = 301 - 306 kg -- or as low as 286 kg (-34 kg).


Under this conception, we can estimate that IF all these male tigers were baited, the empty belly weight could be between 255 to 303 kg, still exceptional but not completelly out of question, and if the tigers were fully gorged, which was probably not the case, these males could weight between 238 to 286 kg, lower but closer figures to the current record. Now, taking in count that the males 3 and 6 were actually weighed and vouched by persons that we can quote as real experts, the figures of 264 kg and 303 kg for these two males "empty belly" is completelly plausible and open the door to the corroboration that tigers up to 300 kg could exist.

Now, we know that the acceptance of these records will be always open to debate as none of them came from a first hand source and those that were actually witnessed are the male of 590 lb from Gwalior (Singh, 1959) and the two males from Chitwan of over 600 lb (Dinerstein, 2003). In this form we could concluded that "empty belly", a male tiger in the Indian subcontinent weight somewhat more than 260 kg and can reach up to 300 kg in exceptional cases.

Now, knowing how rare are the big tigers and checking all the posibilities about the existence of exceptionally big tigers, how plausible is the existence of a tiger of over 340 kg in modern times?

There are many conversations with experts in these says, but just a few speak of exceptional specimens out of the normal high figures of 250 - 260 kg, an example is one reported by @Pantherinae with Reuben Matthews about a lion called "Ceasar" in East Africa that apparently weighed "about 284 kg" and now we have other conversation of @Pckts with Wasif Jamshed that mention a tiger of "more than 340 kg". To be honest, from a list of 71 male lions in East Africa, 184 male lions in Southern Africa, 9 from West and North Africa and 11 from India, 275 male lion in total, none reched the 260 kg "empty". So if the figure of "about 284 kg" result to be real, it definitelly include stomach content (the male lion of 272 kg from Kenia was not completelly empty and was a cattle eater and consequently abnormally bulky).

Now, what about the tigers, we have a list of 173 male tigers in India and Nepal, and none of them, appart from the tiger of the Smithsonian, surpass the 320 kg, so is really hard to accept the existence of a tiger of 340 kg, specilaly in modern days. The source which is expert Wasif Jamshed should be credible, but like @Shadow pointed out, his motivations for not disclusing the details are not quite logic. If we accept this tiger, we will like to know if it was "empty belly" or if included some stomach content. For the moment, I am still skeptical with this figure, but let's see if someone can confirm it or not, after all this is the main goal of Wildfact, to uncover the true facts of nature.