(10-12-2022, 09:25 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(10-08-2022, 08:02 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote: https://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/201105...CrRofoi0jw , 270kg male caught from bijrani , https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DT0BqQTpPX4

Good data. Just a doubt, is this weight before its capture or after its confinement?

(10-12-2022, 11:46 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(10-12-2022, 09:25 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(10-08-2022, 08:02 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote: https://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/201105...CrRofoi0jw , 270kg male caught from bijrani , https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DT0BqQTpPX4

Good data. Just a doubt, is this weight before its capture or after its confinement?

weight must be  during its capture . i had seen this male in 2014 i didn't knew the details then,also it didn't looked fat then too .its just very long , tall with a gigantic head and robust body, looked bigger than 270kg to me (may have gained few kgs in zoo).

(10-13-2022, 12:49 AM)Pckts Wrote: Forty years among the Wild Animals of India
By F.C. Hicks

"However, here goes : — Except a few freaks of nature, such as men nine feet in height, and as rare, I do not believe there are any tigers in India who, fairly measured, are more than eleven feet in length from the tip of the nose to the tip of the tail between pegs and before the skin has been removed from the body. So, in my opinion, those who say they have shot tigers which, thus measured, exceeded eleven feet in length, are either drawing the long-bow or have shot one of these extraordinary "freaks of nature " to which I have referred."

"It is a curious fact, which I have frequently noticed, that wild animals appear soon to differentiate between a fat and lazy old cattle- lifting tiger that is comparatively harmless as far as they themselves are concerned, and a lithe and active game-killing tiger whose creep- ing presence in their neighbourhood they dread. A cattle-lifter they do not appear to mind one little bit, but seem rather to enjoy mobbing him in turn all over the jungles ; but when an active game-killer has been in a certain bit of jungle for two or three days, it will often be found that that jungle is as silent and deserted, as far as four-footed animals are concerned, as if a pack of jungle-dogs had been at work in it for a week."

*This image is copyright of its original author

think would probably be something like 18'' against 12'' of the Khara Tigers foot."

https://archive.org/details/FortyYearsAmongTheWildAnimalsOfIndi/page/n137/mode/2up


I'll continue to relevant info as I find it. Link should work for all, and it's a good read.

His first Tiger

*This image is copyright of its original author

(10-13-2022, 12:49 AM)Pckts Wrote: Forty years among the Wild Animals of India
By F.C. Hicks

"However, here goes : — Except a few freaks of nature, such as men nine feet in height, and as rare, I do not believe there are any tigers in India who, fairly measured, are more than eleven feet in length from the tip of the nose to the tip of the tail between pegs and before the skin has been removed from the body. So, in my opinion, those who say they have shot tigers which, thus measured, exceeded eleven feet in length, are either drawing the long-bow or have shot one of these extraordinary "freaks of nature " to which I have referred."

"It is a curious fact, which I have frequently noticed, that wild animals appear soon to differentiate between a fat and lazy old cattle- lifting tiger that is comparatively harmless as far as they themselves are concerned, and a lithe and active game-killing tiger whose creep- ing presence in their neighbourhood they dread. A cattle-lifter they do not appear to mind one little bit, but seem rather to enjoy mobbing him in turn all over the jungles ; but when an active game-killer has been in a certain bit of jungle for two or three days, it will often be found that that jungle is as silent and deserted, as far as four-footed animals are concerned, as if a pack of jungle-dogs had been at work in it for a week."

*This image is copyright of its original author

think would probably be something like 18'' against 12'' of the Khara Tigers foot."

https://archive.org/details/FortyYearsAmongTheWildAnimalsOfIndi/page/n137/mode/2up


I'll continue to relevant info as I find it. Link should work for all, and it's a good read.

His first Tiger

*This image is copyright of its original author

(10-13-2022, 01:42 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(10-13-2022, 12:49 AM)Pckts Wrote: Forty years among the Wild Animals of India
By F.C. Hicks

"However, here goes : — Except a few freaks of nature, such as men nine feet in height, and as rare, I do not believe there are any tigers in India who, fairly measured, are more than eleven feet in length from the tip of the nose to the tip of the tail between pegs and before the skin has been removed from the body. So, in my opinion, those who say they have shot tigers which, thus measured, exceeded eleven feet in length, are either drawing the long-bow or have shot one of these extraordinary "freaks of nature " to which I have referred."

"It is a curious fact, which I have frequently noticed, that wild animals appear soon to differentiate between a fat and lazy old cattle- lifting tiger that is comparatively harmless as far as they themselves are concerned, and a lithe and active game-killing tiger whose creep- ing presence in their neighbourhood they dread. A cattle-lifter they do not appear to mind one little bit, but seem rather to enjoy mobbing him in turn all over the jungles ; but when an active game-killer has been in a certain bit of jungle for two or three days, it will often be found that that jungle is as silent and deserted, as far as four-footed animals are concerned, as if a pack of jungle-dogs had been at work in it for a week."

*This image is copyright of its original author

think would probably be something like 18'' against 12'' of the Khara Tigers foot."

https://archive.org/details/FortyYearsAmongTheWildAnimalsOfIndi/page/n137/mode/2up


I'll continue to relevant info as I find it. Link should work for all, and it's a good read.

His first Tiger

*This image is copyright of its original author

75 inch or 190cm girth? .

(10-13-2022, 04:32 AM)Ashutosh Wrote: @Pckts, you keep talking about Branders mentioning different sizes in sal and mixed forest, but you keep leaving out context. Context of persecution of wildlife. Sal forests have always been much better preserved and were given preferential treatment during the colonial/maharaja days.

So, Brander doing his research in the 70s had a very different landscape to work in. One of the largest tigers EVER killed was the Palamu tiger shot whose skull is easily the biggest I have seen. That male was not from a Sal forest.

If you dig through history of central India, you will see how British incentivised/threatened the local gond tribes to cut down their own forests and inviolate spaces. You talk about how certain areas of Pench have gotten tigers because of artificial waterholes, well, this exploitation on a massive scale is the reason. You cut down trees and waterholes dry up instantly.

Nagzira, Pench, Satpura and Kanha were part of one big forest not even 150 years ago. While Kanha was to be a hunting lodge, the other forests were seen as a resource and an inconvenience including everything living in it. Kanha remained pristine whereas others withered away. And, when Branders did his research these forests were still recovering (they still are but are much healthier) whereas Kanha while not perfect was always much better placed ecologically speaking (hunting aside).

The results of that conservation was reflected in the last tiger census which clearly concluded that Pench had a better biomass/area ratio than Kanha with a higher density for all herbivores (except Barasingha which are only found in Kanha) and boars.

(10-13-2022, 05:28 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-13-2022, 04:32 AM)Ashutosh Wrote: @Pckts, you keep talking about Branders mentioning different sizes in sal and mixed forest, but you keep leaving out context. Context of persecution of wildlife. Sal forests have always been much better preserved and were given preferential treatment during the colonial/maharaja days.

So, Brander doing his research in the 70s had a very different landscape to work in. One of the largest tigers EVER killed was the Palamu tiger shot whose skull is easily the biggest I have seen. That male was not from a Sal forest.

If you dig through history of central India, you will see how British incentivised/threatened the local gond tribes to cut down their own forests and inviolate spaces. You talk about how certain areas of Pench have gotten tigers because of artificial waterholes, well, this exploitation on a massive scale is the reason. You cut down trees and waterholes dry up instantly.

Nagzira, Pench, Satpura and Kanha were part of one big forest not even 150 years ago. While Kanha was to be a hunting lodge, the other forests were seen as a resource and an inconvenience including everything living in it. Kanha remained pristine whereas others withered away. And, when Branders did his research these forests were still recovering (they still are but are much healthier) whereas Kanha while not perfect was always much better placed ecologically speaking (hunting aside).

The results of that conservation was reflected in the last tiger census which clearly concluded that Pench had a better biomass/area ratio than Kanha with a higher density for all herbivores (except Barasingha which are only found in Kanha) and boars.

There is no “context” because none of that has been mentioned nor proven. Hunting occurred all throughout india, Kanha included.
Not only that but you like to say the largest tigers on earth live in the Terai arc which was probably one of the most heavily hunted locations on earth. Tigers are larger in Kanha compared to Tadoba because of the differences I’ve mentioned numerous times. 

In regards to the census, we’ve already gone over it and Kanha has many more large herbivores than Pench which far outcontribute to a Tigers diet.
Pench tigers showed almost no Gaur in their scat samples while for Kanha Tigers Prey on Gaur regularly. Pench has a high number of small animals while Kanha has much more Gaur and larger prey in general which contributes to the high prey biomass weight.
Chital for instance made up 90% of the ungulate density biomass in Pench while they only made up 33% for Kanha.
And then the areas where very different, only 61 km2  for Pench with specified noticeable differences in density between core and buffer areas.
Add on top Kanha  being cooler with more water, larger and higher Tiger density.
You always seem to bring up Pench but the discussion was about Tadoba but Pench is no different, it’ll certainly produce larger cats than tadoba but there’s no reason it’ll produce larger than Kanha.

Records: Sal vs Mixed/Teak
The largest Tiger ever recorded Tiger lived in a Sal Forest, the largest modern day Tiger came from a Sal forest, the largest sub adults and adults have come from a Sal forest. 
Modern day experts, experts from the past and the casual naturalist all say the same. There is no debate here.

Higher Tiger density
More prey
More large prey
Cooler temps
More rain
Elevated hills
Eye witness accounts
Measurements 

What else can really be shown to convince someone who’s never seen it? 


I remember you saying you were going to go at some point, I really look forward to that and to hear your opinions then.

(10-13-2022, 07:08 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(10-13-2022, 05:28 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-13-2022, 04:32 AM)Ashutosh Wrote: @Pckts, you keep talking about Branders mentioning different sizes in sal and mixed forest, but you keep leaving out context. Context of persecution of wildlife. Sal forests have always been much better preserved and were given preferential treatment during the colonial/maharaja days.

So, Brander doing his research in the 70s had a very different landscape to work in. One of the largest tigers EVER killed was the Palamu tiger shot whose skull is easily the biggest I have seen. That male was not from a Sal forest.

If you dig through history of central India, you will see how British incentivised/threatened the local gond tribes to cut down their own forests and inviolate spaces. You talk about how certain areas of Pench have gotten tigers because of artificial waterholes, well, this exploitation on a massive scale is the reason. You cut down trees and waterholes dry up instantly.

Nagzira, Pench, Satpura and Kanha were part of one big forest not even 150 years ago. While Kanha was to be a hunting lodge, the other forests were seen as a resource and an inconvenience including everything living in it. Kanha remained pristine whereas others withered away. And, when Branders did his research these forests were still recovering (they still are but are much healthier) whereas Kanha while not perfect was always much better placed ecologically speaking (hunting aside).

The results of that conservation was reflected in the last tiger census which clearly concluded that Pench had a better biomass/area ratio than Kanha with a higher density for all herbivores (except Barasingha which are only found in Kanha) and boars.

There is no “context” because none of that has been mentioned nor proven. Hunting occurred all throughout india, Kanha included.
Not only that but you like to say the largest tigers on earth live in the Terai arc which was probably one of the most heavily hunted locations on earth. Tigers are larger in Kanha compared to Tadoba because of the differences I’ve mentioned numerous times. 

In regards to the census, we’ve already gone over it and Kanha has many more large herbivores than Pench which far outcontribute to a Tigers diet.
Pench tigers showed almost no Gaur in their scat samples while for Kanha Tigers Prey on Gaur regularly. Pench has a high number of small animals while Kanha has much more Gaur and larger prey in general which contributes to the high prey biomass weight.
Chital for instance made up 90% of the ungulate density biomass in Pench while they only made up 33% for Kanha.
And then the areas where very different, only 61 km2  for Pench with specified noticeable differences in density between core and buffer areas.
Add on top Kanha  being cooler with more water, larger and higher Tiger density.
You always seem to bring up Pench but the discussion was about Tadoba but Pench is no different, it’ll certainly produce larger cats than tadoba but there’s no reason it’ll produce larger than Kanha.

Records: Sal vs Mixed/Teak
The largest Tiger ever recorded Tiger lived in a Sal Forest, the largest modern day Tiger came from a Sal forest, the largest sub adults and adults have come from a Sal forest. 
Modern day experts, experts from the past and the casual naturalist all say the same. There is no debate here.

Higher Tiger density
More prey
More large prey
Cooler temps
More rain
Elevated hills
Eye witness accounts
Measurements 

What else can really be shown to convince someone who’s never seen it? 


I remember you saying you were going to go at some point, I really look forward to that and to hear your opinions then.

corbett have beautiful mota sal trees ...........this male looks exceptionally long .

(10-13-2022, 07:22 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-13-2022, 07:08 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(10-13-2022, 05:28 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-13-2022, 04:32 AM)Ashutosh Wrote: @Pckts, you keep talking about Branders mentioning different sizes in sal and mixed forest, but you keep leaving out context. Context of persecution of wildlife. Sal forests have always been much better preserved and were given preferential treatment during the colonial/maharaja days.

So, Brander doing his research in the 70s had a very different landscape to work in. One of the largest tigers EVER killed was the Palamu tiger shot whose skull is easily the biggest I have seen. That male was not from a Sal forest.

If you dig through history of central India, you will see how British incentivised/threatened the local gond tribes to cut down their own forests and inviolate spaces. You talk about how certain areas of Pench have gotten tigers because of artificial waterholes, well, this exploitation on a massive scale is the reason. You cut down trees and waterholes dry up instantly.

Nagzira, Pench, Satpura and Kanha were part of one big forest not even 150 years ago. While Kanha was to be a hunting lodge, the other forests were seen as a resource and an inconvenience including everything living in it. Kanha remained pristine whereas others withered away. And, when Branders did his research these forests were still recovering (they still are but are much healthier) whereas Kanha while not perfect was always much better placed ecologically speaking (hunting aside).

The results of that conservation was reflected in the last tiger census which clearly concluded that Pench had a better biomass/area ratio than Kanha with a higher density for all herbivores (except Barasingha which are only found in Kanha) and boars.

There is no “context” because none of that has been mentioned nor proven. Hunting occurred all throughout india, Kanha included.
Not only that but you like to say the largest tigers on earth live in the Terai arc which was probably one of the most heavily hunted locations on earth. Tigers are larger in Kanha compared to Tadoba because of the differences I’ve mentioned numerous times. 

In regards to the census, we’ve already gone over it and Kanha has many more large herbivores than Pench which far outcontribute to a Tigers diet.
Pench tigers showed almost no Gaur in their scat samples while for Kanha Tigers Prey on Gaur regularly. Pench has a high number of small animals while Kanha has much more Gaur and larger prey in general which contributes to the high prey biomass weight.
Chital for instance made up 90% of the ungulate density biomass in Pench while they only made up 33% for Kanha.
And then the areas where very different, only 61 km2  for Pench with specified noticeable differences in density between core and buffer areas.
Add on top Kanha  being cooler with more water, larger and higher Tiger density.
You always seem to bring up Pench but the discussion was about Tadoba but Pench is no different, it’ll certainly produce larger cats than tadoba but there’s no reason it’ll produce larger than Kanha.

Records: Sal vs Mixed/Teak
The largest Tiger ever recorded Tiger lived in a Sal Forest, the largest modern day Tiger came from a Sal forest, the largest sub adults and adults have come from a Sal forest. 
Modern day experts, experts from the past and the casual naturalist all say the same. There is no debate here.

Higher Tiger density
More prey
More large prey
Cooler temps
More rain
Elevated hills
Eye witness accounts
Measurements 

What else can really be shown to convince someone who’s never seen it? 


I remember you saying you were going to go at some point, I really look forward to that and to hear your opinions then.

corbett have beautiful mota sal trees ...........this male looks exceptionally long .

Most of the Terai arc has Sal forests.
Assam, Nepal etc all have Sal.
This also coincides with the locations that most of us here consider to hold the largest Tigers on earth.

(10-13-2022, 07:46 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(10-13-2022, 07:22 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-13-2022, 07:08 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(10-13-2022, 05:28 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-13-2022, 04:32 AM)Ashutosh Wrote: @Pckts, you keep talking about Branders mentioning different sizes in sal and mixed forest, but you keep leaving out context. Context of persecution of wildlife. Sal forests have always been much better preserved and were given preferential treatment during the colonial/maharaja days.

So, Brander doing his research in the 70s had a very different landscape to work in. One of the largest tigers EVER killed was the Palamu tiger shot whose skull is easily the biggest I have seen. That male was not from a Sal forest.

If you dig through history of central India, you will see how British incentivised/threatened the local gond tribes to cut down their own forests and inviolate spaces. You talk about how certain areas of Pench have gotten tigers because of artificial waterholes, well, this exploitation on a massive scale is the reason. You cut down trees and waterholes dry up instantly.

Nagzira, Pench, Satpura and Kanha were part of one big forest not even 150 years ago. While Kanha was to be a hunting lodge, the other forests were seen as a resource and an inconvenience including everything living in it. Kanha remained pristine whereas others withered away. And, when Branders did his research these forests were still recovering (they still are but are much healthier) whereas Kanha while not perfect was always much better placed ecologically speaking (hunting aside).

The results of that conservation was reflected in the last tiger census which clearly concluded that Pench had a better biomass/area ratio than Kanha with a higher density for all herbivores (except Barasingha which are only found in Kanha) and boars.

There is no “context” because none of that has been mentioned nor proven. Hunting occurred all throughout india, Kanha included.
Not only that but you like to say the largest tigers on earth live in the Terai arc which was probably one of the most heavily hunted locations on earth. Tigers are larger in Kanha compared to Tadoba because of the differences I’ve mentioned numerous times. 

In regards to the census, we’ve already gone over it and Kanha has many more large herbivores than Pench which far outcontribute to a Tigers diet.
Pench tigers showed almost no Gaur in their scat samples while for Kanha Tigers Prey on Gaur regularly. Pench has a high number of small animals while Kanha has much more Gaur and larger prey in general which contributes to the high prey biomass weight.
Chital for instance made up 90% of the ungulate density biomass in Pench while they only made up 33% for Kanha.
And then the areas where very different, only 61 km2  for Pench with specified noticeable differences in density between core and buffer areas.
Add on top Kanha  being cooler with more water, larger and higher Tiger density.
You always seem to bring up Pench but the discussion was about Tadoba but Pench is no different, it’ll certainly produce larger cats than tadoba but there’s no reason it’ll produce larger than Kanha.

Records: Sal vs Mixed/Teak
The largest Tiger ever recorded Tiger lived in a Sal Forest, the largest modern day Tiger came from a Sal forest, the largest sub adults and adults have come from a Sal forest. 
Modern day experts, experts from the past and the casual naturalist all say the same. There is no debate here.

Higher Tiger density
More prey
More large prey
Cooler temps
More rain
Elevated hills
Eye witness accounts
Measurements 

What else can really be shown to convince someone who’s never seen it? 


I remember you saying you were going to go at some point, I really look forward to that and to hear your opinions then.

corbett have beautiful mota sal trees ...........this male looks exceptionally long .

Most of the Terai arc has Sal forests.
Assam, Nepal etc all have Sal.
This also coincides with the locations that most of us here consider to hold the largest Tigers on earth.

see this