ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

[peter]

TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART XV


Nepal (males - b)


a - A.E. Smythies ('Big game shooting in Nepal', Calcutta, 1942)

This post has the second table on male tigers shot in Nepal between 14-01-1933 and 16-02-1939. Not less than 17 of the 25 tigers in table XVI taped 10 feet or over and the result is the totals are quite a bit higher than in the first table. I'm not sure about the reason, but my guess is the second table only has adult males, whereas the first had at least 7 of which I have serious doubts (see the previous post on Nepal male tigers).

TABLE XVI:

*This image is copyright of its original author

b - Remarks

1 - Tiger 36 was a " ... very big tiger ... " (pp. 78). This male, the record for the Naya Muluk jungles, was shot by Field-Marshall Mannerheim (Finnish Army). The tiger had eaten no less than 8 'padahs' and had 8 toes (...). Mannerheim " ... was often unable to spot the glimpses of the slinking form, and several shots missed the mark. At last a shot went home, but it took three more to finish him off ... " (pp. 78). I'll post the story on Mannerheim and the 8-toed tiger in a few days.

2 - Table XVI has 5 regional averages. The average for Chitawan (307,65 cm. 'over curves') is quite reliable (n=23). Tigers 16 and 17 were omitted for the reasons discussed before. Have a good look, as you will not find anything that even comes close. It definitely is an all-time record. This then has to be the result of a lack of hunting pressure. Nepal tigers, and those in Chitawan and Morang in particular, apart from a few exceptions, were not hunted in the days of the Maharajahs. If we add good conditions and a sizeable population, the result is 10.1 'over curves' for males in the period 1933-1939. Very similar to the 8 males shot by Harcourt-Butler's party in 1918, who averaged just over 10 feet  ('Jungle trails in northern India', J. Hewett, 1938 - pp. 71 in the 2008 reprint).

Many moons later, hunters returned to Chitawan. This time, however, they had a degree in biology, darts and good intentions. The averages they found almost compared to the averages found in the days of the Maharajahs. Their peers, although they seem to be different from those involved in debates on lions, tigers, bears and measurements on 'forums', still didn't get over it. The method of measurement was questioned, weights were adjusted and again, the samples were too small and they also saw a pregnant tigress. My guess is they will never ever stop going for them measurements until Nepal tigers are ranked directly after Gir lions. Talkin' biologists here.

Although they have some good points, the criticism can't erase the facts. After decades of bloodshed, low numbers (there are just over 200 tigers left in Nepal), poverty, habitat destruction, prey depletion and bad publicity, at least one of the few adult Nepal male tigers left still was very close to 10 feet in total length 'between pegs'. He and another male still bottomed a 600-pound scale. I saw others just south of the Himalayas who could have been even larger. This to underline that tigers in that region were and still are large animals.           

3 - Table XVI is concluded with an average for all males. The average (301,67 cm. 'over curves' in total length) is unsurpassed. If we add that at least 7 of them were suspect (if not immature), it is baffling. I made a second average without tigers 16,17 and 21 and got to 303,76 cm. If I would have added the other 4, the average of 45 would have been over 10 feet in total length 'over curves' (...). There's no question that Nepal male tigers were (and probably still are) the longest of all by a margin.

4 - Tiger 52 didn't take it lying down: " ... The beater elephants were pursued by the tiger, and he would not let them go near him. He growled and thundered and all the beater elephants ran away in panic to the outer ring. As the tiger would not come within sight of the howdah elephants, His Highness with Commanding General Bahadur advanced into the ring, and attacked him in his lair. One bullit struck him, and he fled into heavy grass cover in the centre, where His Highness killed him with two more bullets. This tiger had a big round head and was of a dreadful appearance ... " (pp. 115 - a direct quote from the diary).

5 - Any pictures of these extra-large males? Table XVI has 3 tigers of 10.8 in total length 'over curves', all shot in Chitawan. The third of the 4 photographs below has one of them, but I'm not sure about 2 of the others. My guess is the males in the first 2 photographs also taped 10.8. The last tiger, for comparison, is the 10.2 Sauraha male, who also made his home in Chitawan. He's the one who bottomed a 600-pound scale:

*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

c - Conclusions

1 - The Nepal sample is reliable. The average total length of 52 male tigers was 301,67 cm. 'over curves'. Without 3 of the 7 immatures, the average is 303,76 cm. If all immature males would have been removed, the average of the remaining 45 would have been over 10 feet.

2 - Although the differences between the 5 regions are limited, central and southeastern Nepal produced the longest tigers. The Chitawan sample (n=23) is quite reliable.

3 - The only tiger weighed was tiger 03 (table XV). Although baited, he tiger vigorously attacked a howdah elephant. He was shot in mid-air by the Maharajah. At 10.9 and 705 pounds, he was both long and heavy. Based on what I read, I concluded he could have been 10.4 - 10.5 'between pegs' in total length and 635-660 pounds empty. My guess is he would have been closer to 660, as he was able to attack a howdah elephant. Furthermore, he didn't seem to be gorged on the plate posted in the previous post.

4 - I have collected measurements and weights of big cats for a long time. Although tigers of 10 feet and over (total length measured 'over curves') have been shot in most regions in southern Asia, there is, in my opinion, no question that the averages of male Nepal tigers are unsurpassed. Northern India is close, but the difference with other regions is clear and pronounced. 

The question on weight is more difficult to answer. The reason is a lack of data. The best sample is from Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam. The 53 males weighed averaged 461,34 lbs. and just over 295,00 cm. in total length measured 'over curves' (about 281,00 cm. 'between pegs'). The males weighed in northern India lacked a bit, but they were shorter than the Cooch Behar tigers who were weighed. If those who were not weighed would have been included (they averaged over 300,00 cm. in total length), the average for northern India would have been well over 461 lbs., whereas the average for Cooch Behar (those not weighed were a bit shorter than those weighed) would have been closer to 450-455 lbs. (empty).

Only very few Nepal tigers were weighed. Those that were ranged between 368-705 lbs. If we remove the young male and the giant shot by the Maharajah, the average weight could have been somewhere between 475-500 lbs. This, at least, was the outcome of the attempts I did. All of these were based on total length, because of the strong correlation between length and weight in tigers (in India). The Chitawan males weighed by the Sunquists half a century later averaged 235 kg. (520 lbs.) unadjusted and 221 kg. (488 lbs.) adjusted. 

5 - I would like to make a case for unadjusted weights. The reason is scales are precise, whereas adjustments always are a are result of negociations and coincidence. If Kitchener and Yamaguchi happen to be in town when they are discussing adjustments, it will have a serious effect. 

Another reason to use unadjusted weights is adjustment is a human invention, whereas real life has many faces. Wild big cats range in weight all the time. What you find depends on fitness, age and circumstances, not equations, ingredients and interpretations. As an adult, the Sauraha tiger bottomed a 500-pound scale when he was first darted. Some time later, he bottomed a 600-pound scale. The famous bear-hunter 'Dale' in Russia was 424 lbs. in the WCS-table, but that weight was the result of at least 3 attempts. He ranged between 445 in good shape and 375 after a severe cough. Although he lost 3 of his 4 canines, he recovered and almost got to his old weight. But I wonder if he was still involved in bears after losing most his his canines.  

As to adjustments. The method used presently (deduct 30 kg. of 67 lbs. in males unseen or face the consequences) is a result of assumptions, negociations and all the rest of it. Unadjusted weights are real, precise and, therefore, reliable. My proposal would be to use unadjusted weights for documents and leave the adjustment to others. I would, however, advice to add a description and a picture of every individual darted, weighed and measured in the Appendix.

And, while we're at it, I recommend a course on how to measure a big cat for those interested in working with big cats. Obligatory and straight lines only. If they fail, I propose to enter their own length 'loosely measured over curves' in their passports and send them to 15 different countries where you serve a minimum of 2 months for cheating with length. This should give 'm the opportunity to study the debates on the two most used methods in detail and, more important, experience the effects of using the wrong method. 


d - The largest tigers

Nepal tigers were, and still are, large animals. We also know they lived in near-pristine conditions just before the last war. Finally, we know that the Maharajah and those involved in tiger hunting knew all there was to know about tigers in general and extra-large specimens in particular. For this reason, I expected to find at least one male of about 11 feet 'over curves' in the book of Smythies. Not so. 

But how about the special tapes and very important persons bagging very important tigers in those days? I think you would have to ask Ullas Karanth, Kitchener and Yamaguchi about the details. They apparently have plenty.

I read a few books written by those who hunted extra-large males only. I also talked to a few hunters. At least one of them hunted in India and he really knew about the habits of tigers. My guess was he might have been involved in extra-large tigers. 

What I read and heard suggests that at least some of these extra-large tigers were very aware and elusive animals, always on the move and apparently able to foresee the moves of the one after them. Same, by the way, for some old and very large male lions and brown bears hunted by specialists.

Experienced man-eaters also were described as wary and elusive animals, but they always left traces (the remains of those they killed) and, for this reason, quite many were shot. If you had the time to stay on their tail, you would get your chance, that is. Maybe one only, but that still beats zilch. Not so for those after tigers who avoided humans.

Was there such a 'ghost-tiger' of extraordinary size in Nepal? A tiger never seen, but sensed? Maybe there was. In December 1935, in Bagari Camp, the 'rings' had no tigers. A result of incompetence, or something else? 

" ... Some nilgai ... were seen, but these of course, owing to their name, cannot be shot in a Hindu country! 'The kills obtained continued to fail to locate the tigers, and all sorts of theories were put forward to account for the non-success. Some attributed the absence of tiger in a properly formed circle to the errors of the shikaris in 'cutting the circle'. Others blamed the shikaris for tying baits at places near which there was no drinking water. A few superstitious people grounded their arguments upon folk-lore, and claimed that the tiger was a 'Garau' tiger, meaning a ghost tiger, into which some wizard converted himself, so that during the kill he was a tiger but during the hunt he was a man again'.

In this forest there is undoubtedly a very old, very enormous, and very cunning tiger, which goes by the local name of 'Ajingare Bagh', who, when he kills a padah, makes a meal of it and 'betakes himself away to a distance of 14 or 15 miles from the place, and thus succeeds in baffling the shikaris'. His Highness still hopes one day to get him, and that he will be 11 feet ... " (pp. 121). 

I saw many captive big cats. Some of these were extra-large. What I saw strongly suggests they knew they were in a different league. You can communicate with them, but work is out of the question. They have their own agenda and want to be left alone. They often are killers, but do not compare to many of the derailed butchers intent on showing off. They kill with a purpose. Read Beatty, who discussed a few extra-large lions. They too didn't like crowds and were never questioned by their peers. Not done.

Those who hunted extra-large tigers were told about a few basics in no uncertain way when they least expected it. One of them, after a year of hunting him and zero contact, felt a bit uneasy when he had been lying on his belly waiting for a deer for the pot. When he turned round, he saw the one he was after. The tiger had watched him from a leap's distance, yet hadn't killed him. When eyes met, a message was conveyed. When hunter and hunted were similar, the game continued. And it wasn't about killing your opponent, I think. When they were not similar, the one with the gun not seldom was taken out. Not directly and not by surprise, but later and in another way. These remarks are based on a few stories I read. Amur tigers. But the one who hunted tigers in India confirmed.   

Some of these extra-large big cats are interested in mating, but not always and not when females are in heat. When you try to mate them, they might kill her. Many big cats (and bears), after centuries of prosecution, have adapted to humans in that they don't hunt and kill them as often as one would expect. These extra-large animals seem to be different. They won't hunt you (less so than others in fact), but they could have kept something that was there before they were hunted. In captivity, big cats often compare to adult cubs. A wild big cat, however, is an experienced and well-trained observator. And a terminator. Not a walking brain, but a creature driven by instinct. Instinct in its most true nature, meaning it isn't used to kill. Not only, to be more accurate. You can see this type in all species, but tigers seem to produce them more often. The reasons are size, way of life and specialisation. If you live on your own most of the time, you apparently can reach a different dimension at times. I might have seen it a few times, but wouldn't be able to inform you on it. It's difficult to explain.      

Anything to back this up in wild animals? Not really. Stevenson-Hamilton saw glimpses of what " ... appeared ... to be much the largest lion ... " he had ever seen, but, in spite of the best trackers and intimate knowledge of the country, never was able to contact this giant ('Wildlife in South Africa', J. Stevenson-Hamilton, Panther edition, 1957, pp. 208). The locals said he was as big and black as a buffalo and had named him 'Tshokwane'. His spoor measured 8 inches in diameter. This ghost lion outwitted Stevenson-Hamilton " ... first, last, and all the time ... ":

" ... He was usually accompanied by some full-grown, but younger lion, and when his companion was killed, as happened several times, he always seemed able to collect another almost immediately. No doubt his great sagacity and experience were invaluable in hunting, and there was a fair division of labour; 'Tshokwane' doing the planning ..., while the younger undertook the more strenuous part of the actual killing.

His selection of day lairs was always characterized by foresight. He never chose a place where surprise would be easy, and his scout was usually stationed at an outpost. His favourite spot was at the top of a high flat-topped hill, covered with large boulders and loose stones, but with rather steep sides, from which a perfect view could be got all over the surrounding country and over which it was impossible to make a quiet approach ... " (pp. 208).

Stevenson-Hamilton wasn't sorry he never got to 'Tshokwane': " ... The natives, of course, said that as he was a 'tagati' I would never get him, and this made me, ..., all the more keen to do so; but had I succeeded, I think I would have been rather sorry on the whole, for so much cleverness and reasoning power deserved the success it actually achieved ... " (pp. 211).  

I read similar accounts of hunters who spent their best years going after tigers who compared to the great ghost lion in South Africa or the giant Nepal tiger shot by the Maharajah in 1933. 

Some, like Col. Powell, succeeded, whereas others didn't. They had seen the tiger they were after, but didn't pull the trigger. Neither did the tiger when he had the chance. Maybe hunting isn't about bagging the one you are after. Maybe real hunters want to connect to something that is no longer here. The moment you shoot, it will be lost forever. 

Only those in the know understand that this should not happen. They also know that a true experience is not that different from an illusion. Maybe you need to have explored the natural world with everything you have to know that life could be about something else. Something difficult to explain at the best of times. It really is a pity that those who were there never wrote about their experiences. But they might have had good reasons. I mean, who would believe you? You can show a trophy, but you can never show that what is connected to it. Besides, words are words. The essence of many things just can't be described. It has to be felt. What is felt, however, is very personal. It never is universal. Only those who have experience will understand what you mean. For this reason, not many of them read or write books. Reply