Experience with Wild Cats

[Pckts]

(07-03-2014, 03:26 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: I think I found the title, "Secrets of Wild India: Tiger Jungles." Unfortunately, I can't find the footage anywhere. Though, it's likely Nat. Geo. was referring to Wagdoh as just a normal tiger, as in they do not recognize his identity, which is what they do commonly in their documentaries. Nat. Geo. still sticks to the idea of your average Amur being 300 kg while being able to reach 409 kg. They did that for an average looking Amur tiger a while back I believe. I think the only documentary that recognized individual tigers was the "Tigers of Emerald Forest."

 

All of the Docs with weights quoted for lions or Tigers are pure estimates.
The only doc that has a weight captured is the Madla documentory.

Here is another guy on Youtube who also states Bamera being large but Waghdoh or Munna being 1.5x's the size of him.

"Do you know that very large male tigers leave 20x20cm pugmark, with about 14-15cm paw width? Munna's paw width alone is around 20cm. Check out this vid for his sheer size and note the massive paws (in fact, everything about him is massive, especially the head): watch?v=mrT9PUp92fc Pattewala male is also similarly huge: watch?v=PyVh6BYJFNI Again, note the gigantic head size. Those are top-of-the-line tigers. Pattewala has been killed by poachers in mosoon 2010 though. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

asianbuffalo10 months ago in reply to marcus hagen   "Bamera is not a good tiger to compare with huge males. what's so special about him? Someone who has seen Bamera first hand many times and never considered him anything more than "just a big guy not more than 9ft", has seen the Karai ghati male in kanha and surpised by his sheer size. Another said while Bamera is big, Munna is HUGE. Munna is 1.5 times the size of Bamera too, and is bigger even than Wagdoh. I don't care about weights, appearance-wise, huge males are easily 1.5x the size of Bamera"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqLmMMYIPMQ

  Reply