+- WildFact (https://wildfact.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Information Section (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-information-section)
+--- Forum: Terrestrial Wild Animals (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-terrestrial-wild-animals)
+---- Forum: Wild Cats (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-wild-cats)
+----- Forum: Tiger (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-tiger)
+----- Thread: Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers (/topic-modern-weights-and-measurements-on-wild-tigers)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
RE: Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers - Pckts - 10-07-2022
(10-07-2022, 08:15 PM)LonePredator Wrote:Again you don’t know what you’re talking about. When using a soft tape they’ll press against the skin. When you straighten a tail to(10-07-2022, 08:04 PM)Pckts Wrote:(10-07-2022, 07:37 PM)LonePredator Wrote:(10-07-2022, 07:22 PM)Pckts Wrote:(10-07-2022, 07:17 PM)Kk LonePredator Wrote:(10-07-2022, 07:03 PM)Pckts Wrote: Here is a comparable male in all departments
*This image is copyright of its original author
213cm in HBL but taken over curves so around 208cm in a straight line.
His chest girth is 140cm *4 cm* larger than Wagdoh
Shoulder height unknown but it’s safe to say it’s going to be at least as tall as Wagdoh since he wasn’t a very tall Tiger.
This males weight was 546lbs or 247 kgs.
213cm over the curves would mean 200-203 cm in straight which totally adds up with the weight of 247kg.
And like I have already stated, chest girth does not correlate with weight as much as bodylength does and also the fact that Wagdoh was so old his chest girth would have shrunk due to old age.
No it wouldn’t, generally you’ll see anywhere from 2-4” difference between the two. So assuming they both are fairly close in length, Wagdoh is outsized in chest and most likely shoulder. And Branders 600lb Tiger significantly outsized him in every department
*This image is copyright of its original author
Completely wrong. The straight bodylength is about 0.94-0.955 times the curved bodylength. Your method of ‘subtracting’ 2-4 inches is invalid because the bigger the Tiger, the more you’ll have to subtract and the smaller the Tiger, the less.
Maźak even suggests subtracting 20cm (8 inches) for the largest Tigers so your method of subtracting 2-4 inches is completely wrong.
And even if you subtract 4 inches since this was a large Tiger, it would still mean 203cm in straight line so where did you pull out 208cm from??
And I am saying this the 17th time, chest girth does not have a good enough correlation between with weight and neither does height and Wagdoh was so old his chest would have shrunk anyway.
And the Brander example is invalid since that Tiger was never weighed on a scale.
First off, no two people measure the same which is why you can have different results from the same Tiger depending on who took them. So it doesn’t matter how long or short a Tiger is if the protocol of between the pegs or over the curves is different.
Next is that generally speaking the differences between the two is going to be in the range I specified. What Mazak quoted is too much unless the cat has extreme curvatures or the person taking the measurements is doing it “wrong.” Brander specifically mentions 3-5” for his cats. And this includes the tail which is 1/3 the length of the total body.
And who is saying to take off 4”, certainly not me. Like i said, generally it’s between 2-4” so they’ll be “around” the same length but that male with have a larger chest. So assuming his height is at least as tall he by all accounts will be within the same range as Wagdoh.
Chest girth is one factor, like weight, and height. All show decent correlations to total weight but none will point the whole picture.
Hence the shorter Tiger weighing more than the longer one with the same chest girth.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Lastly back to Brander, his weight estimate is far more valid than 99.9% of the people out there since he’s weighed and measured many cats who were fresh.
Wrong again and thanks for proving my point.
Brander suggests subtracting 3-5 inches. Doesn’t matter if it’s with tail or without tail because tail is ALWAYS measured in straight line even when the total length is measured over the curves because tails have no ‘curves’.
So 3-5 inches is what you have to subtract from bodylength (excluding tail) as well.
And by this, we can understand that Brander tells us to subtract 3 inches for the small males and 5 inches for the large males and this 213cm male was large so we have to subtract 5 inches which gives us 200cm length in straight line.
And a 200cm Tiger in straight line weighed 247kg which makes total sense. This example of yours once again further proves my point.
Measure the curves you are in a sense “stretching it.” When you lay them down and stamp pegs on either side the tail rests naturally which will
Offer some contraction.
And Brander never says to subtract 3” for a small male and 5” for a large one.
Lastly you again make invalid claims like somehow claiming that Tiger shown was 200cm in a straight line. What about the 217cm one that’s sub 500lbs, what’s your excuse for that?
I’m glad you’re starting to get away from your flawed calculations though, even if you go about it in a aggressive way, you’re starting to ask better questions inadvertently.
RE: Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers - LonePredator - 10-07-2022
(10-07-2022, 08:34 PM)Pckts Wrote:(10-07-2022, 08:15 PM)LonePredator Wrote:Again you don’t know what you’re talking about. When using a soft tape they’ll press against the skin. When you straighten a tail to(10-07-2022, 08:04 PM)Pckts Wrote:(10-07-2022, 07:37 PM)LonePredator Wrote:(10-07-2022, 07:22 PM)Pckts Wrote:(10-07-2022, 07:17 PM)Kk LonePredator Wrote:(10-07-2022, 07:03 PM)Pckts Wrote: Here is a comparable male in all departments
*This image is copyright of its original author
213cm in HBL but taken over curves so around 208cm in a straight line.
His chest girth is 140cm *4 cm* larger than Wagdoh
Shoulder height unknown but it’s safe to say it’s going to be at least as tall as Wagdoh since he wasn’t a very tall Tiger.
This males weight was 546lbs or 247 kgs.
213cm over the curves would mean 200-203 cm in straight which totally adds up with the weight of 247kg.
And like I have already stated, chest girth does not correlate with weight as much as bodylength does and also the fact that Wagdoh was so old his chest girth would have shrunk due to old age.
No it wouldn’t, generally you’ll see anywhere from 2-4” difference between the two. So assuming they both are fairly close in length, Wagdoh is outsized in chest and most likely shoulder. And Branders 600lb Tiger significantly outsized him in every department
*This image is copyright of its original author
Completely wrong. The straight bodylength is about 0.94-0.955 times the curved bodylength. Your method of ‘subtracting’ 2-4 inches is invalid because the bigger the Tiger, the more you’ll have to subtract and the smaller the Tiger, the less.
Maźak even suggests subtracting 20cm (8 inches) for the largest Tigers so your method of subtracting 2-4 inches is completely wrong.
And even if you subtract 4 inches since this was a large Tiger, it would still mean 203cm in straight line so where did you pull out 208cm from??
And I am saying this the 17th time, chest girth does not have a good enough correlation between with weight and neither does height and Wagdoh was so old his chest would have shrunk anyway.
And the Brander example is invalid since that Tiger was never weighed on a scale.
First off, no two people measure the same which is why you can have different results from the same Tiger depending on who took them. So it doesn’t matter how long or short a Tiger is if the protocol of between the pegs or over the curves is different.
Next is that generally speaking the differences between the two is going to be in the range I specified. What Mazak quoted is too much unless the cat has extreme curvatures or the person taking the measurements is doing it “wrong.” Brander specifically mentions 3-5” for his cats. And this includes the tail which is 1/3 the length of the total body.
And who is saying to take off 4”, certainly not me. Like i said, generally it’s between 2-4” so they’ll be “around” the same length but that male with have a larger chest. So assuming his height is at least as tall he by all accounts will be within the same range as Wagdoh.
Chest girth is one factor, like weight, and height. All show decent correlations to total weight but none will point the whole picture.
Hence the shorter Tiger weighing more than the longer one with the same chest girth.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Lastly back to Brander, his weight estimate is far more valid than 99.9% of the people out there since he’s weighed and measured many cats who were fresh.
Wrong again and thanks for proving my point.
Brander suggests subtracting 3-5 inches. Doesn’t matter if it’s with tail or without tail because tail is ALWAYS measured in straight line even when the total length is measured over the curves because tails have no ‘curves’.
So 3-5 inches is what you have to subtract from bodylength (excluding tail) as well.
And by this, we can understand that Brander tells us to subtract 3 inches for the small males and 5 inches for the large males and this 213cm male was large so we have to subtract 5 inches which gives us 200cm length in straight line.
And a 200cm Tiger in straight line weighed 247kg which makes total sense. This example of yours once again further proves my point.
Measure the curves you are in a sense “stretching it.” When you lay them down and stamp pegs on either side the tail rests naturally which will
Offer some contraction.
And Brander never says to subtract 3” for a small male and 5” for a large one.
Lastly you again make invalid claims like somehow claiming that Tiger shown was 200cm in a straight line. What about the 217cm one that’s sub 500lbs, what’s your excuse for that?
I’m glad you’re starting to get away from your flawed calculations though, even if you go about it in a aggressive way, you’re starting to ask better questions inadvertently.
Like I said, everything you have said till now is devoid of logic. And for your information, I’m still going by those same calculations (the same ‘flawed’ calculations that are based on the same principles used by the likes of Wroe and Christiansen). Maybe those people are idiots and you are the genius.
And I was trying to educate you but for some reason you seem to think I’m ‘asking questions’. And it’s common sense that you would subtract 3 for small ones and 5 for big ones. You have not yet even been able to comprehend this basic logic.
You continue to keep arguing despite being completely wrong about everything you have said so far. I regret trying to educate you because it’s useless.
RE: Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers - GreenForest - 10-07-2022
The new information on Wagdoh's weight is fitting tribute to his legacy. He finally got the recognition he deserved. It is no rocket science he should have weighed at-least 50kg more on his prime.
RIP now Wagdoh! May your tribe flourish!
RE: Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers - GuateGojira - 10-07-2022
(10-07-2022, 02:58 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote: whats ur view on bloating guate , how much it can increase the weight ?
Nothing, that is just an inflated body, and inflate by decomposition gas, nothing more.
RE: Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers - Roflcopters - 10-07-2022
(10-07-2022, 04:38 PM)Jerricson Wrote: I don't know if its just me , but I can't view majority of the pics posted by you @Roflcopters . Its just showing here - 'This image is copyright of its original author'.
weird, i wonder if this is the case for everybody. can someone look into this. @peter
(10-07-2022, 10:52 PM)GreenForest Wrote: @OrpadanI am glad you managed to see the difference between "1" and "7", dear Yusuf.Now, look at the document again, you will see the difference between "4" and "7".
Is this the same dude that appears here every week under a different name only to get banned within 24 hours. sounds like somebody’s angry stalkerish ex girlfriend.
RE: Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers - GuateGojira - 10-07-2022
(10-06-2022, 11:52 PM)Khan85 Wrote: 270
Ok, thank you. So it is what it is, 270 kg, period.
Now, for all the other posters, are you serious guys? Are you creating 4 pages or useless post discussing if a dead animal weighed or not what the official paper says? We did not measured the animal, they did, and if the paper says what it says, why we need to put it in doubht?
Let me tell you this experience, I was checking the comments of a real expert, the Paleontologist Roberto Diaz (Paleos) and he was explaning that measurements are not something of real interest, that they focus more on the ecology, evolution, relations and other things, when they study fossils. That is why many of the estimations in scientific papers are in ranges, as the methods of estimation are not 100% perfect. The only thing that is reliable are the measurements of the bones, as the experts actually measure them, but even then they are not 100% "official", as sometimes it happen that two people may use a different method and get different results, even in bones! So, that is why there are not "official" measurements of an animal, especially when we have only one specimen (I will like to go deeper on this in another post).
Now, why am I taking the time to mention this? Well, because modern Biologist record the body measurements and weights in the best form possible, but there is not an standard protocol. Oh yes, Dr Karanth says that there is, you may say, but actually that is just the series of measurements, but not about the method. Also, nobody care if the animal had or not stomach content, that is something that we should already know, and very few people atually adjust them. The problem is when people, like us, think that all of them follow the same method, and that is an error, for example we can't compare the Hobatere lions with the Chitwan tigers in body size as the methods are completelly different, or the lions in Etosha with the lions in Kruger as the body mass is not adjusted in one of them. So here we can see that the differences in the recording methods made significant differences, and the only thing that we can do is to dig in the methods as much as we can, and compare between the similar ones.
Other thing, there is no standard in Biology, animals are living things and are not simetrical, just like in humans, there are short but heavy persons, and tall but light persons, and the same happen with tigers. We have tigers of over 200 cm in head-body that weight less than 230 kg, and other specimens of a little over 190 cm that surpass that figure. So a male Bengal tiger of 208 cm in head-body "straight" can weight as low as 220 kg and as high as 270 kg with no problem, depending of its health status, age, and of course its stomach content. In this case this entire debate is futile and there is no reason to insult each other, or try to misstreat the idea of the other using harsh arguments. The truth is that we know how the tigers are measured in India, we have documents and even videos and all are taken over the curves following a straight line when possible. About the weight, it is a real feat that they actually took the time to weight it, but I did remember scientists weighing a carcass of a decompose lion in Gir, and also Dr Karanth weighed carcasses of dead gaur (some of them about 1,000 kg), so it is not crazy that this huge and famous tiger was actually weighed. On the measurements, probably some of them are smaller than in life, remember that at that point the rigor mortis was already affecting the carcass.
In conclution, there is no form to deny that the measurements and the weight are real, the official document is available and we know the methods. There is no point in discussing if an animal of "x" size can weight "x" kg, as the variation on a species and in the same sex is big in any animal species, and I have saw litterally hundreds of measurements and weights of so many animals that vouch my conclution. The best thing that we can do is to take the measurments availble and quote them as they are, simple. I will do it I am not going to waste time is discussing something that to Biologist is not even relevant. In fact, we should be thankfull with Khan85 that actually took the time to get those documents and share it with us, I personally really appreaciate them and I am going to use them with no hesitate. My two cents on this, and I hope that this will clarify my point of view on this.
By the way, I have new information about the Nagarahole tigers captured by Dr Karanth, and just like the tigers from Panna, it is not what we expected and many things are going to change.
RE: Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers - Roflcopters - 10-08-2022
@GuateGojira
Quote:By the way, I have new information about the Nagarahole tigers captured by Dr Karanth, and just like the tigers from Panna, it is not what we expected and many things are going to change.
can you reveal this info?
*This image is copyright of its original author
I came across this study few weeks back, they displayed prey selection of a male tiger (235kg) and a female tiger. (140kg)
if i recall right, the study was based on Bardiya tigers. i’ll see if i can find the abstract again, it was a 9 page document by author Upadhyaya et al
RE: Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers - GuateGojira - 10-08-2022
(10-08-2022, 07:22 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: can you reveal this info?
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
I came across this study few weeks back, they displayed prey selection of a male tiger (235kg) and a female tiger. (140kg)
if i recall right, the study was based on Bardiya tigers. i’ll see if i can find the abstract again, it was a 9 page document by author Upadhyaya et al
Oh yes, I will prepare an entire post about the tigers of Nagarahole.
Now, about this document, the weight of 235 kg for males and 140 kg for females, came from the tigers of Chitwan, you can check it in the sources and notes of the same table that you showed (check the footnotes).
RE: Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers - abhisingh7 - 10-08-2022
(10-08-2022, 10:57 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(10-08-2022, 07:22 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: can you reveal this info?
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
I came across this study few weeks back, they displayed prey selection of a male tiger (235kg) and a female tiger. (140kg)
if i recall right, the study was based on Bardiya tigers. i’ll see if i can find the abstract again, it was a 9 page document by author Upadhyaya et al
Oh yes, I will prepare an entire post about the tigers of Nagarahole.
Now, about this document, the weight of 235 kg for males and 140 kg for females, came from the tigers of Chitwan, you can check it in the sources and notes of the same table that you showed (check the footnotes).
https://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110528/region.htm?fbclid=IwAR2N60wasE685dOXb9Y8vqScr_njholOi9Ds2v37PbyA2fir1CrRofoi0jw , 270kg male caught from bijrani , https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DT0BqQTpPX4 ,
RE: Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers - Pckts - 10-08-2022
Understanding the Post Mortem Process
http://www.iucn-whsg.org/sites/default/files/Post-mortem%20procedures%20for%20wildlife%20veterinarians%20and%20field%20biologists.pdf
RE: Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers - Roflcopters - 10-09-2022
@Pckts
Quote:In regards to Tadoba having smaller Tigers there’s no debate. This is factual, you have multiple researchers and hunters discussing this, guides who’ve seen both and modern day weights and measurements. Wagdoh is a big cat, no doubt and Tigers can get big no matter the location but it’s not with the same frequency nor the same body composition. And it’s not just the males but the females as well, Tadoba females are notoriously small, especially compared to their Sal Forest cousins.
I think Tadoba has a large variation of big cats in all sizes, some of the females are small while some are large sized. same with males. a lot of it has to do with traffic and corridors. prey density is really good in some areas while certain parts of buffer areas lack behind in overall prey numbers. i think generalizing how a tiger appears based on food availability is subjective. genetics play a big part in a tiger’s overall appearance, rest of the argument depends on a tiger’s ability to hunt and sourcing their food options. generally speaking Kanha should have bigger tigers based on environmental factor but i’d be willing to bet that Shiva, Wagdoh, Bajrang, Khali, Kitadi male/Coal mine male, Mowgli, Dadiyal, V7 and Narasimha and countless others could top most Kanha tigers. judging a whole population based on 185kg battle season Gabbar, 197kg sick male, 270kg Wagdoh and 85k Choti Tara isn’t even a real sample size considering Tadoba’s overall population. if anything, Wagdoh’s post mortem report makes me think otherwise. I could’ve been misjudging their sizes all this time and I’m sure few others feel the same way. less than 2 year old Chota Matka weighed 162kg and his brother Tarachand (now deceased) weighed 173kg. CM is probably walking around 200kg+ at 6 years of age with the second biggest territory after Bajrang.
Quote:It’s pretty simple, Cooler temps, more rain and hilly terrain will produce larger cats assuming all prey density is equal. More prey and / or larger prey will add into that. This is why I think it’s safe to assume Kaziranga Tigers should be the largest alive today.
genetics play a much bigger role than anything you mentioned. Kaziranga tigers are all just opinion of people and nothing more. concrete evidence must be provided for all these baseless claims of Kaziranga having the biggest tigers. also last time i checked, Dudhwa has very dense forests. perfect for hunting so they are definitely not lacking behind by much and Siddharth Singh once told me that old thunder male also known as Ring Road male or Kishanpur male was the biggest tiger he ever saw in India.
*This image is copyright of its original author
I don’t see much difference between all the ruling males of Dudhwa and Kaziranga in the present day.
Charger
Old thunder male
Bhavani male
Bankati male
Sathiana male
New thunder male
Sathiana male x2
vs
KZT023
Kazi 14
Kazi 59
KZT085
Burapahar male
headshot male
Kazi 54
can you really say the Kaziranga tigers mentioned above stand out? Dudhwa’s top 7 are easily topping Kaziranga’s top 7 imo.
young male from Kaziranga
vs
Charger
how are people seeing things differently still? where are these big skulls from Kaziranga that Dudhwa can’t top.
RE: Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers - Pckts - 10-09-2022
(10-09-2022, 03:47 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: @Pckts
Quote:In regards to Tadoba having smaller Tigers there’s no debate. This is factual, you have multiple researchers and hunters discussing this, guides who’ve seen both and modern day weights and measurements. Wagdoh is a big cat, no doubt and Tigers can get big no matter the location but it’s not with the same frequency nor the same body composition. And it’s not just the males but the females as well, Tadoba females are notoriously small, especially compared to their Sal Forest cousins.
I think Tadoba has a large variation of big cats in all sizes, some of the females are small while some are large sized. same with males. a lot of it has to do with traffic and corridors. prey density is really good in some areas while certain parts of buffer areas lack behind in overall prey numbers. i think generalizing how a tiger appears based on food availability is subjective. genetics play a big part in a tiger’s overall appearance, rest of the argument depends on a tiger’s ability to hunt and sourcing their food options. generally speaking Kanha should have bigger tigers based on environmental factor but i’d be willing to bet that Shiva, Wagdoh, Bajrang, Khali, Kitadi male/Coal mine male, Mowgli, Dadiyal, V7 and Narasimha and countless others could top most Kanha tigers. judging a whole population based on 185kg battle season Gabbar, 197kg sick male, 270kg Wagdoh and 85k Choti Tara isn’t even a real sample size considering Tadoba’s overall population. if anything, Wagdoh’s post mortem report makes me think otherwise. I could’ve been misjudging their sizes all this time and I’m sure few others feel the same way. less than 2 year old Chota Matka weighed 162kg and his brother Tarachand (now deceased) weighed 173kg. CM is probably walking around 200kg+ at 6 years of age with the second biggest territory after Bajrang.
Quote:It’s pretty simple, Cooler temps, more rain and hilly terrain will produce larger cats assuming all prey density is equal. More prey and / or larger prey will add into that. This is why I think it’s safe to assume Kaziranga Tigers should be the largest alive today.
genetics play a much bigger role than anything you mentioned. Kaziranga tigers are all just opinion of people and nothing more. concrete evidence must be provided for all these baseless claims of Kaziranga having the biggest tigers. also last time i checked, Dudhwa has very dense forests. perfect for hunting so they are definitely not lacking behind by much and Siddharth Singh once told me that old thunder male also known as Ring Road male or Kishanpur male was the biggest tiger he ever saw in India.
*This image is copyright of its original author
I don’t see much difference between all the ruling males of Dudhwa and Kaziranga in the present day.
Charger
Old thunder male
Bhavani male
Bankati male
Sathiana male
New thunder male
Sathiana male x2
vs
KZT023
Kazi 14
Kazi 59
KZT085
Burapahar male
headshot male
Kazi 54
can you really say the Kaziranga tigers mentioned above stand out? Dudhwa’s top 7 are easily topping Kaziranga’s top 7 imo.
young male from Kaziranga
vs
Charger
how are people seeing things differently still? where are these big skulls from Kaziranga that Dudhwa can’t top.
Wagdohs weight aside which hasn’t been verified. The person involved is unnamed as well as the protocol used or if he was even weighed during the Post mortem which would be done by cutting him to pieces according to the protocols shown or on weighing on site. But regardless, no other Tiger from Tadoba has surpassed 200kg meanwhile Tigers in Kanha surpass 225kg at sub adult ages and the largest weight on record comes from Kanha as well.
You mentioned Gabbar at 185kg and we have seen him fighting Saturn and Katezari, all three are similar sized while you have MV2 at 195kgs fighting Umarpani and he’s completely dwarfed. That’s a big difference. And as we’ve seen, Umarpani is a huge male but he’s by no means the biggest and he is said to be as large if not larger than Wagdoh while Wagdoh is the undisputed king of Tadoba. It shows the amount of big males that are in Kanha.
Next is Terai (Dudhwa in particular) v Kaziranga
Aside from the major difference of the amount large prey available in Kaziranga and not so in Dudhwa we have weights and measurements from Terai and Assam. Both are similar but Kaziranga is a unique habitat much like the Crater. There’s absolutely no reason any Tiger should outsize them.
What Tiger habitat is better suited to produce large cats?
And last is the eye witnesses, while few, there are some with good resumes and they say the same, Kaziranga Tigers are larger than their Terai counterparts. But like all places Tigers inhabit, you’ll have overlap. It’s just the amount of big Tigers that are there.
So in closing, Kanha is larger than Tadoba, cooler than Tadoba and has more tigers than Tadoba with better prey density. I don’t see why Tadoba would have as large of cats.
RE: Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers - Roflcopters - 10-09-2022
Quote:no other Tiger from Tadoba has surpassed 200kg meanwhile Tigers in Kanha surpass 225kg at sub adult ages and the largest weight on record comes from Kanha as well.
bogus arguments based on the smallest sample size, Tadoba has 88 tigers within the park and about 27 or so outside by the park boundaries. so a number generated based on 3 tigers is laughable to me. do you actually believe half the things you type?
also where is the proof of Sub-Adult Bheema weighing 225kg as a sub adult, how much food content did he have? i want actual proof and not some screenshot of Minh Ha typing a bunch of things.
Quote:You mentioned Gabbar at 185kg and we have seen him fighting Saturn and Katezari, all three are similar sized while you have MV2 at 195kgs fighting Umarpani and he’s completely dwarfed.
how do you know the Gabbar that faced Saturn and Katezari male was 185kg tiger at that time. let me ask you this. could he have been over 200kg? or could he have been under 185kg? why are you ruling all these possibilities out? every tiger is a product of their environment when it comes to weight. they lose and gain weight all throughout their life cycle. weight fluctuations are a real thing. you mention Gabbar with a tag of 185kg as if the tiger was custom designed with a weight limit of 185kg all his adult life. please try and make sense, your logic is extremely flawed. here let me ask you this, why did Kankatta from Kanha only weigh 197kg?
Quote:Next is Terai (Dudhwa in particular) v Kaziranga
Aside from the major difference of the amount large prey available in Kaziranga and not so in Dudhwa we have weights and measurements from Terai and Assam. Both are similar but Kaziranga is a unique habitat much like the Crater. There’s absolutely no reason any Tiger should outsize them.
both are good habitats and evidently big tigers are found in both places. Kaziranga is just overhyped with no real scientific backing. similar to how Kanha is overrated in Central India.
Quote:What Tiger habitat is better suited to produce large cats?
And last is the eye witnesses, while few, there are some with good resumes and they say the same, Kaziranga Tigers are larger than their Terai counterparts. But like all places Tigers inhabit, you’ll have overlap. It’s just the amount of big Tigers that are there.
there is no proof of anything you just mentioned, some of the renowned tiger researchers have claimed otherwise in Terai Arc’s favor over Assam. I know most tigers from Kaziranga and Dudhwa. I don’t see any visible difference between both sides.
Quote:So in closing, Kanha is larger than Tadoba, cooler than Tadoba and has more tigers than Tadoba with better prey density. I don’t see why Tadoba would have as large of cats.
body weight is more individual based + big genes. tigers with big territories will have more access to food in general. not every tiger in Kanha has access to good amount of food and if they are not dominant in their areas. food argument doesn’t work in their favor at all. it’s not like Kanha is a wholesale food market for tigers where they just come and stuff themselves for best survival. you generalizing something based on abundance of food alone isn’t reality. jungle rules are different. the most dominant of tigers from both of these parks will usually have access to the best food options.
RE: Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers - abhisingh7 - 10-09-2022
(10-09-2022, 05:23 AM)Pckts Wrote:(10-09-2022, 03:47 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: @Pckts
Quote:In regards to Tadoba having smaller Tigers there’s no debate. This is factual, you have multiple researchers and hunters discussing this, guides who’ve seen both and modern day weights and measurements. Wagdoh is a big cat, no doubt and Tigers can get big no matter the location but it’s not with the same frequency nor the same body composition. And it’s not just the males but the females as well, Tadoba females are notoriously small, especially compared to their Sal Forest cousins.
I think Tadoba has a large variation of big cats in all sizes, some of the females are small while some are large sized. same with males. a lot of it has to do with traffic and corridors. prey density is really good in some areas while certain parts of buffer areas lack behind in overall prey numbers. i think generalizing how a tiger appears based on food availability is subjective. genetics play a big part in a tiger’s overall appearance, rest of the argument depends on a tiger’s ability to hunt and sourcing their food options. generally speaking Kanha should have bigger tigers based on environmental factor but i’d be willing to bet that Shiva, Wagdoh, Bajrang, Khali, Kitadi male/Coal mine male, Mowgli, Dadiyal, V7 and Narasimha and countless others could top most Kanha tigers. judging a whole population based on 185kg battle season Gabbar, 197kg sick male, 270kg Wagdoh and 85k Choti Tara isn’t even a real sample size considering Tadoba’s overall population. if anything, Wagdoh’s post mortem report makes me think otherwise. I could’ve been misjudging their sizes all this time and I’m sure few others feel the same way. less than 2 year old Chota Matka weighed 162kg and his brother Tarachand (now deceased) weighed 173kg. CM is probably walking around 200kg+ at 6 years of age with the second biggest territory after Bajrang.
Quote:It’s pretty simple, Cooler temps, more rain and hilly terrain will produce larger cats assuming all prey density is equal. More prey and / or larger prey will add into that. This is why I think it’s safe to assume Kaziranga Tigers should be the largest alive today.
genetics play a much bigger role than anything you mentioned. Kaziranga tigers are all just opinion of people and nothing more. concrete evidence must be provided for all these baseless claims of Kaziranga having the biggest tigers. also last time i checked, Dudhwa has very dense forests. perfect for hunting so they are definitely not lacking behind by much and Siddharth Singh once told me that old thunder male also known as Ring Road male or Kishanpur male was the biggest tiger he ever saw in India.
*This image is copyright of its original author
I don’t see much difference between all the ruling males of Dudhwa and Kaziranga in the present day.
Charger
Old thunder male
Bhavani male
Bankati male
Sathiana male
New thunder male
Sathiana male x2
vs
KZT023
Kazi 14
Kazi 59
KZT085
Burapahar male
headshot male
Kazi 54
can you really say the Kaziranga tigers mentioned above stand out? Dudhwa’s top 7 are easily topping Kaziranga’s top 7 imo.
young male from Kaziranga
vs
Charger
how are people seeing things differently still? where are these big skulls from Kaziranga that Dudhwa can’t top.
Wagdohs weight aside which hasn’t been verified. The person involved is unnamed as well as the protocol used or if he was even weighed during the Post mortem which would be done by cutting him to pieces according to the protocols shown or on weighing on site. But regardless, no other Tiger from Tadoba has surpassed 200kg meanwhile Tigers in Kanha surpass 225kg at sub adult ages and the largest weight on record comes from Kanha as well.
You mentioned Gabbar at 185kg and we have seen him fighting Saturn and Katezari, all three are similar sized while you have MV2 at 195kgs fighting Umarpani and he’s completely dwarfed. That’s a big difference. And as we’ve seen, Umarpani is a huge male but he’s by no means the biggest and he is said to be as large if not larger than Wagdoh while Wagdoh is the undisputed king of Tadoba. It shows the amount of big males that are in Kanha.
Next is Terai (Dudhwa in particular) v Kaziranga
Aside from the major difference of the amount large prey available in Kaziranga and not so in Dudhwa we have weights and measurements from Terai and Assam. Both are similar but Kaziranga is a unique habitat much like the Crater. There’s absolutely no reason any Tiger should outsize them.
What Tiger habitat is better suited to produce large cats?
And last is the eye witnesses, while few, there are some with good resumes and they say the same, Kaziranga Tigers are larger than their Terai counterparts. But like all places Tigers inhabit, you’ll have overlap. It’s just the amount of big Tigers that are there.
So in closing, Kanha is larger than Tadoba, cooler than Tadoba and has more tigers than Tadoba with better prey density. I don’t see why Tadoba would have as large of cats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MsNA8GofLA wagdoh may have had 20-25 kg of content in his 270kg weight . his stomach does look here having content in it . in his prime wagdoh was a beast 270-280kg empty male . that could be the case i guess .
RE: Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers - LonePredator - 10-09-2022
(10-09-2022, 11:40 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:(10-09-2022, 05:23 AM)Pckts Wrote:(10-09-2022, 03:47 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: @Pckts
Quote:In regards to Tadoba having smaller Tigers there’s no debate. This is factual, you have multiple researchers and hunters discussing this, guides who’ve seen both and modern day weights and measurements. Wagdoh is a big cat, no doubt and Tigers can get big no matter the location but it’s not with the same frequency nor the same body composition. And it’s not just the males but the females as well, Tadoba females are notoriously small, especially compared to their Sal Forest cousins.
I think Tadoba has a large variation of big cats in all sizes, some of the females are small while some are large sized. same with males. a lot of it has to do with traffic and corridors. prey density is really good in some areas while certain parts of buffer areas lack behind in overall prey numbers. i think generalizing how a tiger appears based on food availability is subjective. genetics play a big part in a tiger’s overall appearance, rest of the argument depends on a tiger’s ability to hunt and sourcing their food options. generally speaking Kanha should have bigger tigers based on environmental factor but i’d be willing to bet that Shiva, Wagdoh, Bajrang, Khali, Kitadi male/Coal mine male, Mowgli, Dadiyal, V7 and Narasimha and countless others could top most Kanha tigers. judging a whole population based on 185kg battle season Gabbar, 197kg sick male, 270kg Wagdoh and 85k Choti Tara isn’t even a real sample size considering Tadoba’s overall population. if anything, Wagdoh’s post mortem report makes me think otherwise. I could’ve been misjudging their sizes all this time and I’m sure few others feel the same way. less than 2 year old Chota Matka weighed 162kg and his brother Tarachand (now deceased) weighed 173kg. CM is probably walking around 200kg+ at 6 years of age with the second biggest territory after Bajrang.
Quote:It’s pretty simple, Cooler temps, more rain and hilly terrain will produce larger cats assuming all prey density is equal. More prey and / or larger prey will add into that. This is why I think it’s safe to assume Kaziranga Tigers should be the largest alive today.
genetics play a much bigger role than anything you mentioned. Kaziranga tigers are all just opinion of people and nothing more. concrete evidence must be provided for all these baseless claims of Kaziranga having the biggest tigers. also last time i checked, Dudhwa has very dense forests. perfect for hunting so they are definitely not lacking behind by much and Siddharth Singh once told me that old thunder male also known as Ring Road male or Kishanpur male was the biggest tiger he ever saw in India.
*This image is copyright of its original author
I don’t see much difference between all the ruling males of Dudhwa and Kaziranga in the present day.
Charger
Old thunder male
Bhavani male
Bankati male
Sathiana male
New thunder male
Sathiana male x2
vs
KZT023
Kazi 14
Kazi 59
KZT085
Burapahar male
headshot male
Kazi 54
can you really say the Kaziranga tigers mentioned above stand out? Dudhwa’s top 7 are easily topping Kaziranga’s top 7 imo.
young male from Kaziranga
vs
Charger
how are people seeing things differently still? where are these big skulls from Kaziranga that Dudhwa can’t top.
Wagdohs weight aside which hasn’t been verified. The person involved is unnamed as well as the protocol used or if he was even weighed during the Post mortem which would be done by cutting him to pieces according to the protocols shown or on weighing on site. But regardless, no other Tiger from Tadoba has surpassed 200kg meanwhile Tigers in Kanha surpass 225kg at sub adult ages and the largest weight on record comes from Kanha as well.
You mentioned Gabbar at 185kg and we have seen him fighting Saturn and Katezari, all three are similar sized while you have MV2 at 195kgs fighting Umarpani and he’s completely dwarfed. That’s a big difference. And as we’ve seen, Umarpani is a huge male but he’s by no means the biggest and he is said to be as large if not larger than Wagdoh while Wagdoh is the undisputed king of Tadoba. It shows the amount of big males that are in Kanha.
Next is Terai (Dudhwa in particular) v Kaziranga
Aside from the major difference of the amount large prey available in Kaziranga and not so in Dudhwa we have weights and measurements from Terai and Assam. Both are similar but Kaziranga is a unique habitat much like the Crater. There’s absolutely no reason any Tiger should outsize them.
What Tiger habitat is better suited to produce large cats?
And last is the eye witnesses, while few, there are some with good resumes and they say the same, Kaziranga Tigers are larger than their Terai counterparts. But like all places Tigers inhabit, you’ll have overlap. It’s just the amount of big Tigers that are there.
So in closing, Kanha is larger than Tadoba, cooler than Tadoba and has more tigers than Tadoba with better prey density. I don’t see why Tadoba would have as large of cats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MsNA8GofLA wagdoh may have had 20-25 kg of content in his 270kg weight . his stomach does look here having content in it . in his prime wagdoh was a beast 270-280kg empty male . that could be the case i guess .
His stomach looks almost flat. 20-25kg content too much. Even baited Tiger rarely have 25kg of stomach content. 20-25kg of stomach content would mean a full or almost full stomach.
When a Tiger has 20-25kg of stomach content, it's stomach will look visibly full and bloated while Wagdoh's stomach looks almost flat from the side.
Wagdoh probably had under 5kg of stomach content.
This is what a Tiger with 20kg of stomach content should look like:
*This image is copyright of its original author