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

[GuateGojira]

(04-08-2020, 11:58 PM)Pckts Wrote:

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.

Let me explain to you, again.

Scats are used to get the type of prey that the predator hunt, normally are not used to get the weight or anything like that. The weight was obtained from the animals that they actually weighed, like I showed to you before two times. The scat was only used to see the age of the prey taken based in the color of the hair, but normally the age is taken from the kills, like I told you before. So if most of the sample was kills of baits is irrelevant, as the point of this discussion is to prove if tigers can kill bulls of 1,000 kg and they prove it, because they found bulls of that weight killed by tigers. So I don't understand why you complain and discredit the work of Dr Karanth and Dr Sunquist, two of the top tiger experst, just because you want to disprove that tigers can and do hunt big bulls? I simple don't understand your attitude.

You say: "And Page 441 specifically talks about basing age and species off of Scat such as "hair, bones, hooves, teeth and quills""
Are you kidding? Page 441 do not say that, the page 441 clearly says that they used the kills to go the age of the prey, not the scats. Read it again!

Also you say: "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."
That is YOUR interpretation, not the real thing. This is not extremely interpretative data, these are the proved methods to get the date from the field, ask to any Biologist and they will explain to you. Just because you don't want to belive it that doesn't mean that they are innacurate. This methods to get the age and health are proved by many Biologists in the field, it is very silly to try to disprove it, I dare you to prove, with scientific evidence that these methods are just "extremely interpretative data".

You complain if Schaller saw the hunt, but you already know that this type of kills had not been witnessed. In fact, we don't even have to many videos to be sure if tigers hunt young gaurs but you don't complain about that. If you are unbiased, you will see that the few videos of tigers killing gaurs shows young specimens, but the sample shows that they are biased to yearlings, so just because we don't have a video or because someone had not saw tigers killing yearling gaurs that doesn't mean that they don't to it, the same happen with adult male gaur.

You say: "He only disproves Schaller in regards to Leopards not being around when Tigers are present, which of course he is correct."
Incorrect, Sankhala disproved Schaller in many points, directly or indirectly, like the use of stripes to indentify individual tigers and the territoriality of the tigers. I created and entire post about the missconceptions that he created and that modern Biologist disproved based in reliable methods.

You dobt in the record of Schaller of the bull gaur killed by the tigress and your excuse, been honest is patetic. I mean, based no you, tigers only eat dead bull gaurs that they found int he forrest. Do you see how silly is this claim? Again, I ask you, why a tiger will scratch, bite in the nose and throat if the animal is allready dead? Why a scientists will put his reputation in doubt claiming things if he don't hae evidence of that? Dr Karanth saw the bulls killed, he measured and weighed the bulls, he saw the marks of the figths and the outcomes (even one tiger died because of those fights), he saw the health status of those bulls based in the carcass. This is not a matter of "scats vs kills" or the use of "arbitraty" methods according with you. Again, here are the pictures:

*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, the claim that tigers can and do kill bull gaurs of up to 1,000 kg is not based in scats, is not based in bones, it IS based in the actuall carcasses found with signals of strougle and the outcome is real. If you want to disprove the study of Dr Karanth and the observations of Dr Schaller is up to you, but is really weird that you are lock with this debate and the only thing that you have done in your last posts is disproving the studies of scientists in the field! Reply