Maximum size of prey that a single male lion or tiger can kill

[Pckts]

Quote:Tooth ware is not found in scats but in the kills. If you think that the methods used by them are "hardly conclusive", then we can see that whatever evidence that we present, you are going to reject it arbitrarily just because, for reasons that I don't understand, you try to deny a fact that is accepted and proved by scientists in the field. The status of the bones, teeth and carcase itself is the best form to get the health and age status of a prey that is already dead, this method was used by Schaller in Kanha, Sunquist in Chitwan and Karanth in Nagarahole and there are other studies in India that used it too. So how is that now, this method widely used by scientists in the field are now "hardly conclusive" based on you? Now I really doubt that you are speaking seriously here.

*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

*This image is copyright of its original author

So tell me exactly how any of that is "conclusive?"
It's estimates based off of Scats *which make up the majority of kill samples and Kills" 
And Page 441 specifically talks about basing age and species off of Scat such as "hair, bones, hooves, teeth and quills"
It also mentions femur marrow fat and tooth ware for 4 different studies as well from kills too.
These are estimations based off of extremely interpretive data, trying to determine the weight or health of an animals based off of bones and teeth is loose at best.

Quote:The number of 1,000 do not came from Sankhala, in fact Schaller used a maximum figure of 2,071 lb (940 kg) and you should know that. So the figure of 1,000 kg is not an arbitrary figure, but a calculation using the big bulls found plus the amount that the tigers probably ate, this type of calculations are just like the ones used with the Nepalese tigers that botomed the scales of 600 lb in Nepal or the polar bears that bottomed scales of 800 kg. This are reliable calculations and we know that gaurs can reach and at least in one case, surpass the 1000 kg. So now your excuse is that the figure is arbitrary

And did Schaller witness a Bull of 940kg being killed by a Tiger?

Quote:Other thing, Schaller did not worked with Sankhala, in fact, now that you have the book you should know that Sankhala disproved Schaller at any oportunity, so other point against you.

Both were part of tiger research in Kanha, Sankhala was a few years later but I recall him mentioning a discussion they had in the book, I'd have to search through it again to be certain.
He only disproves Schaller in regards to Leopards not being around when Tigers are present, which of course he is correct.
He also mentions that Schallers studies were mostly based on a family of Tigers that had been conditioned by baits for more than a year and a half.
The group included only 1 male and was confined to a small area of 10-15 sq km.
Sankhala also found that natural kills gave no answer to actual cause of death as during he subsequent dragging multiple injuries occur and the real cause is difficult to locate. 

Quote:Other thing, if the cubs made or not a contribution may be important with the bull reported by Sankhala but you must not forget the tigress that killed the bull in Kanha reported by Schaller, no cubs/subadult/male was present to help her and still she manage to hunt it. Even if we guess (like you do) that this was a small bull of just about 500 kg, if that was an average tigress (130 kg) the relation between predator and prey could be of at least 1:3.8 and if this was a big tigress (170 kg) the relation could be of 1:2.9, still a big feat and certainly we can also guess that the gaur was a big one of over 900 kg if we want, just like you do, so the predator:prey relation could be of 1:6.9!

And once again, did Schaller witness this kill or did he come across a carcass?

Quote:At the end, even if you still denied this fact, scientists in the field already proved that tigers can and do kill big gaurs of at least 1,000 kg, it is not the must common prey but they do it and there is evidence of that. If you don't to accept it, it doesn't matter, as the real experts already done it.

And do we have a single 1st hand account of a Tiger killing a Bull weighing near 1,000kg? 



I'm not neglecting the fact that Tigers have killed Bull Gaurs but I've seen nothing that shows they have killed big Alpha healthy ones.
A carcass doesn't tell the whole story and neither does Scat, but as of now there has never been a witnessed account. 
Animals get injured in the wild, sick and die, just like anywhere else. Not all carcasses are killed by a tiger, I'd imagine that most animals die from natural causes than the other way around. Reply