A Discussion on the Reliability of Hunting Records

[peter]

WaveRiders

I thought I saw a bit of disappointment in your last post and decided to respond in order straighten things out. Here's a few points that need to be remembered. 
 

1 - The responses to the tables in my posts on tigers in northern India and Nepal were appreciated

I had two reasons to post the tables. The first reason was to contribute to the exchange of information. This is one of the great advantages of the internet. It's so important, I decided to post information I intended for the book.  

The second reason was my interest in feedback. It is a fact you responded in detail. In this respect, I most certainly wasn't disappointed. This is important to remember. Same for PC.  


2 - There were good reasons to conclude the debate on Nepal tigers in the tiger-extinction thread

When I started on the extinction-thread on tigers some years ago, the aim was to create a place where those interested in wild tigers would be able to spend a few hours. In order to get there, the focus had to be on tiger ecology.  

The best way to get to decisions on what should be in and what not is to read. Every now and then, I enter the thread somewhere and start reading. I'm quite happy about the result so far, but it is a fact that debates at times resulted in loss of focus. Discussions should be to the point and short. After arguments have been presented, one should move forward.            

As to the debate on Nepal tigers. You confirmed the conclusion on total length measured 'over curves', but added the tables could have been somewhat distorted as a result of selection and also had some doubts on the 705-lbs. tiger shot in Chitawan. You presented your arguments and I responded. We didn't get to a conclusion, but this was to be expected. An opinion generally is a result of hard work. For this reason, it is not easy to convince those who invested time. I don't consider it a problem. The thing to remember is we did enough to enable readers to get to a conclusion. 


3 - There are good reason to continue the debate

Although it may seem different, I think the debate on methods and measurements is interesting. Digging in often produces good results over time. Here's what was achieved so far.

3a - All involved in the debate now know biologists measure big cats 'over curves' and not 'between pegs'.

3b - It's also clear that the method used to measure big cats can be applied in slightly different ways. The result is confusion. One could debate the issue, but one could also conclude the method used today, as was concluded a century ago, is unreliable.  

3c - Although biologists seem to disagree, the debate on methods strongly suggests measurements of today's big cats can be compared to measurements taken in the same way a century ago. The advantage is insight.  

3d - Today's tigers, although maybe a bit shorter than a century ago, could be as heavy, if not heavier. The question is why. One factor could be protection.   
   
3e - The information provided by Smythies and a few others suggests male Nepal tigers could have been the longest big cats about a century ago. The large size of Nepal tigers was confirmed by Sunquist half a century later. He added that Chitawan male tigers averaged about 235 kg. (520 lbs.) unadjusted and 221 kg. (488 lbs.) adjusted. One could discuss different issues, but one could also conclude that the information provided by Smythies and Hewett was largely confirmed by recent data. The main problems are sample size and adjustment.     

3f - Another issue discussed was maximum size. The Hasinger tiger shot in northern India in the sixties of the last century, at 10.7 'between pegs' and 11.1 'over curves' in total length, might have been the longest in the last 5 decades. What to say about reports of longer tigers shot 1-2 centuries ago?

If tigers like the one Hasinger shot existed in a period when they were on their way out, it's very likely there would have been more a century ago. Would these exceptional animals have been longer and heavier as well? My take is some of the tigers shot in the period 1750-1850 roughly could have ranged between 11-12 feet in total length 'over curves'. There was a marked decline in size between 1860-1900. This regarding India and Nepal.

Annam also produced tigers of exceptional size and there are many records of Amur tigers exceeding even 12 feet in total length 'over curves'. Although all reports were dismissed, it doesn't mean tigers of exceptional size never existed. The problem is there is no way to get to confirmations good enough to meet the threshold of today.

Your conclusion on tigers exceeding 11 feet 'over curves' are based on data that meet the threshold of today. The problem is the database is very small. Another problem is it doesn't have information on tigers shot 2 centuries ago, as all old records were dismissed by biologists. What I'm saying is your computations can only result in a confirmation of the message that has been broadcasted over and over in the last decades. It's the same message most hunters had a century ago regarding shorter (10 feet) tigers. There is, however, no question that tigers of 11 feet 'over curves' and slightly over have been shot in the period 1900-1940. Assuming the decline in size started after 1860, one could just as well make a case for longer tigers in the period they were hardly hunted. Also remember that larger populations produce relatively more, and more pronounced, exceptions.   


4 - A debate can only be productive if those opposing each other remember debates shouldn't result in animosity

Those interested in debates would sign a contract with this message in order to participate. The problem is living up to it when it matters. Many debates derail as a result of resentment, accusations and all the rest of it. When debating, preference and clashes just can't be avoided. One has to learn how to deal with it. The point to remember is it is about the result in the end, not personality. The rest will be forgotten. 

I propose to continue the debate. If we focus on arguments, results no doubts will be produced. In the near future, I will post a few tables with the largest tigers shot in India and Nepal. If we go over all individuals, chances are we will get to a few conclusions. Guate has been busy, but he is interested and will no doubt participate when he has finished reading. Others interested in (the reliability of) hunting records are invited as well. Reply