Forum rules

[peter]

YUSUF

You recently contacted me in a PM. I responded and you sent another PM. When reading it, two of our mods told me you had broken (at least) one of our rules (referring to the multiple account rule). The result was an automatic ban and the end of our conversation. 

Here's a bit more about your response to my PM. In that PM, questions were asked. I didn't tell you it wasn't about (the answers to) these questions, but about something else. The result was interesting. I'm referring to your remarks about an internal affair (1) and a few exceptional lions in southern Africa (2). 

About internal affairs  

One is internal affairs are internal, meaning they're none of your business. Two is you need to read everything that could be relevant before deciding for an opinion. Three is you do not address one of the co-owners of a forum about a decision.  

Guate and PC, both longtime members, broke a number of rules. I'm referring to (incorrect) assumptions, insults, deliberate misinformation and, last but not least, respect. The result was animosity. When trying to solve the problem, I was dismissed and that was the end of it. Over here, rules count. No exceptions. I repeat our aims are good information and respect. Respect for good info, other members and mods. If good advice is ignored and a warning has no effect, the result will be a ban or an invitation to move. Both Guate and PC got an invitation. For good reasons.   

About posting, measurements and references  

Over here, members posting about the size of big cats are expected to deliver sources. We prefer two, but a very reliable source will do in some cases. You know, but didn't deliver. Not in the forums you joined and it wasn't any different in your PM. Meaning it's very likely you're not going to change any time soon. Do we want to attract those involved in speculation or those interested in good information and willing to play by the book? 

About the difference between wild big cats and their relatives living in private reserves

Wildfact is about wild big cats, not their captive relatives. We don't mind good info about the size of adult captive big cats, but the aim is good information about wild cats. With 'wild', we mean animals living in natural conditions. Is there, sizewise, a difference between wild lions and their relatives living in, say, (smallish) private reserves (referring to southern Africa in particular)? The answer, published in a thesis published a few years ago, is affirmative. Is the difference significant? Affirmative again. Remember I'm referring to a thesis, meaning the information used is reliable. I'll post the link in the lion extinction thread soon. In my PM, I informed you about the study. You, as expected, didn't ask for a link, but decided for an opinion right away and continued about the giants like before. Meaning you're not that interested in good information and also meaning trouble is to be expected.

About the size of captive and wild big cats

You know I measured (and weighed) captive big cats some years ago. Apart from that, I talked to those who hunted them a long time ago. I also interviewed trainers, vets, directors of facilities, biologists interested in big cats and conservators of natural history museums. All of them had seen many big cats, meaning they knew a few things about the size of these animals. They, to keep it short, roughly confirmed the information collected by reliable observers and hunters a century ago. A healthy adult captive male tiger or lion of 400 pounds (empty) and 9 feet in total length measured in a straight line with a steel tape is an impressive animal. One of 9 feet 6 and 450-500 pounds is large and a 10 feet male well exceeding 500 pounds is quite something to behold. Every now and then, a male exceeds 10 feet 6 and 550 pounds empty. Exceptional individuals can be even heavier, but they are few and far between. 

Any difference between lions and tigers? Not at the level of species (referring to the situation after tigers were extermined in Bali, the Caspian region and China), but subspecies seem to be more pronounced in tigers. Meaning it's more likely to find an exceptional individual in, say, Nepal, northern India, northeastern China and southeastern Russia than in, say, southern Africa. That's, of course, without the exceptions. At the level of averages, lions top the table in the skull department, but tigers are a tad longer. All in all, I'd say there's not much to choose between both. 

About the size of lions in private reserves and the effect of hunting and conservation
 
The main thing to remember is just about anything is possible in private reserves. I talked to a few experienced (referring to cattle) ranchers living in the northwestern part of Europe and asked them how much time they would need to produce a big cat averaging 10 feet and 650 pounds empty. More often than not, the result was a big smile. Meaning they thought it would be a piece of cake. I can hear you say it's unlikely there're pronounced differences between wild lions and their relatives living in private reserves. Not so. More food, better allround conditions and, in particular, less competition have an effect. Compared to an average healthy adult Kruger male (about 420 pounds or 190 kg), an average male lion living in a private reserve is longer, taller, bigger and heavier (referring to the thesis mentioned above).  

Same for tigers? Affirmative, both in captivity and in natural conditions. Example. In Wild Nepal, about a century ago, male tigers had about 4 inches (referring to total length measured 'over curves') on their relatives living in northern India. Back then, in that region, every inch added about 7 pounds. The cause? Tigers, apart from a few exceptions, were not hunted in Nepal, whereas they were in northern India. So much so, it had an effect. This happened in a few decades only. 

About the effect of conditions 

Have a look at the Russian Far East. In the period 1992-2004 (referring to tigers captured in the Sichote-Alin Biosphere Reserve only), males (referring to young adults, adults and old tigers) ranged between 140-212 kg. The average of a limited number of males (including young adults) was about 9 feet 8 inches (total length measured 'over curves' with a flexible tape) and 176,4 kg (389 pounds). Two decades later, Feng Limin (a Chinese biologist who knows quite a bit about wild Amur tigers), in an interview, said a male of 270 kg (596 pounds) had been captured in northeastern China not so long ago. Another male (actually captured) was about 250 kg (552 pounds), whereas a male about 3 years of age arrested for domestic violence a few years ago was 225 kg (496 pounds). That's still without the Anyuisky (Khabarovsky Krai) male tigers leaving prints with a 'heel width' of 14-16 cm. These prints were measured by a young, but quite experienced, biologist (A. Gotvansky) in summer. Not once, but repeatedly. In different parts of the National Park, meaning they were left by different male tigers. The 'heel width' of an average adult male, for comparison, ranges between 10-12 cm. 

All this to suggest an average wild adult male Amur tiger today, sizewise, compares to an average male Pleistocene tiger? Negative, but it is very likely (assumption) an average adult male today is heavier than a few decades ago. A result of protection and favourable conditions? No question (another assumption). 

And lions? Not so long ago, wild adult male Kruger lions averaged 187,5-190,0 kg (413-420 pounds) on an empty stomach. At about 9 feet in total length measured 'between pegs' (about 9.6 'over curves'), we're talking about an impressive big wild cat. The Kruger has different districts with different conditions. Conditions that can have an effect on the average weight of adult male lions. Some years ago, in one district, males averaged about 200 kg (442 pounds). In another dsitrict, they averaged 185 kg (409 pounds). The difference, biologists thought, was a result of a disease.  

In large parts of the Amur region (returning to tigers), wild boars have been decimated by a disease. The result was tigers had to find alternative food sources. Deer qualify, but the population density is lower. Furthermore, deer are more aware of their surroundings, meaning tigers had to follow an additional course in hunting. As the course is quite expensive, youngsters were unable to attend. The result was they in particular struggled. All in all, one could conclude the disease targeting wild boars, for tigers, resulted in more investment for a lower return. Experienced adults were able to cope, but it was a different story for youngsters and old tigers. The number of conflicts between them and locals, as was to be expected, sharply increased. Did the deteriorating conditions affect the health of tigers in the Russian Far East? More than likely (assumption). Will it affect the number of tigers and the average weight of adults? More than likely as well. 

What I'm saying is the average size of a population of large carnivores depends on many factors. Some are known (conditions and genes), but others are not. Let's take precipitation. Lions and tigers trying to make a living in semi-desertlike districts and regions seem (referring to recent information) to be consistently longer and taller than their relatives living in hotspots? Food is another factor to consider. Why is it big cats living in a meat paradise tend to develop in the department of robustness in particular?   

Anyhow. Wild male lions and tigers (of large subspecies) living in hotspots average 175-210 kg, perhaps a bit more in some districts. Very large individuals (referring to reliable records) are 25-35% (at times up to 50%) heavier, meaning the 'normal' maxima range between 225-290 kg (empty) roughly. That's still without the occasional 'freak'. Assuming a large male is able to eat about 30-40 kg of meat in one sitting, records of 300-335 kg fully loaded can't be excluded out of hand.   

In the heavyweight division (referring to wild adult males), chances are tigers of large subspecies could be more often seen than lions. The reason is tigers live on their own. For solitary carnivores, it's about being able to adapt quickly. Most adult lions live in prides or coalitions. If, say, a coalition with a combined weight of 1000 kg is needed to defend a territory in a hotspot and about a quarter of that in less challenging conditions, chances are the combined weight of the coalition will decrease as a result of competition (between coalitions or between members within a coalition). If they don't adapt, the result could be starvation. That and the loss of a kingdom. Lions, in other words, respond as fast as tigers, but they operate at the level of coalitions (or prides).               

To conclude   

Based on what I saw, my guess is you'll continue to find a forum that suits your needs. It is, we think, quite likely this attempt will produce a result that compares to the results of the previous attempts. The reasons were discussed in this post. Our advice is to continue your quest, but to accept the rules of engagement from now on. Meaning you need to produce solid evidence for every measurement and weight you post. When possible, add information about the reserve in which the cat was captured, add names and, last but not least, inform members about the conditions and the number of prides and coalitions. Stay away from 'debates', never ever lecture another member or a mod, treat your neighbours well and open up when good information is presented. 

As to preference. The advice is to do it at home, not at a public forum. If preference enters, the result can only be selection and distortion. Example. Half a century ago, biologists decided to sideline information collected by hunters ('unreliable'). They entered the forest with 400-pound or 500-pound scales. As large males often bottomed the scale, the result was weights based on regression (...). That, confusion and countless discussions about stomach content. Not a few members of forums more or less compare in that they too are quite involved in preconceived ideas.       

If interested in giving it another try in a few months from now, remember to start with the rules of engagement (and the multiple account rule in particular). Our advice is to use your own name when you join a forum. Good luck.

Edit (03-05-2024)

When members of forums discuss the size of big cats, problems often erupt. The reason is recent information about the size of adult wild big cats (referring to measurements and weights of adult wild big cats captured after, say, 1970) often is unclear. In contrast to the method adopted by hunters in what used to be British India a century ago, biologists today measure big cats 'over curves'. The problem with this method is it can be applied in different ways. One could conclude the adopted method is 'confusing', if not unclear. That's still without slightly different methods used by some biologists (referring to southern parts of Africa). 

Same with weights. Most biologists today 'correct' the weight of an adult wild big cat. That's to say, they deduct about 30 kg (referring to adult male tigers captured in India) because of stomach content. Is there a protocol for tigers unable to hunt as a result of an injury of a disease? Negative. I can only get to inconsistent, if not confusing.    

When discussing size, I use information collected by experienced hunters or Forest Officers about a century ago. Their samples were quite large and all cats were measured 'between pegs'. The result is overview and reliable averages. I take notice of recent information, but never saw a book or table that, sizeinformationwise, compared to what Stevenson-Hamilton, Dunbar Brander, Hewett and the Maharajah of Cooch Behar offered a long time ago. 

V. Mazak, also using reliable information only (referring to 'Der Tiger', third edition, 1983), compared to them. I read many books and articles I consider reliable, I talked to many who saw (wild and captive) big cats, I measured captive big cats and hundreds of skulls and talked to a number of experienced trainers. The conclusion is V. Mazak's information is as reliable as it gets at the level of averages. When describing both, however, there's little to choose between them. Wild male Amur tigers more or less compare (referring to recent information). 

The only telling difference is in captive big cats, in that captive Amur tigers are consistently longer, taller and heavier (referring to averages only) than all other big cats. Captive lions also seem to be larger than their wild relatives. In the end, however, it's about averages of wild big cats living in natural conditions.  

The information I use, as was stated above, was collected about a century ago. It could be wild big cats today are a bit smaller or larger, but it's unlikely lions and tigers today are significantly shorter, longer, taller or heavier than a century ago. That could change if conservation really tops the list of priorities and national parks and reserves are significantly enlarged. A decent national park should be able to accomodate a few hundred adult big cats. 

If the conditions keep improving, chances are apex predators will respond. That's, however, still different from saying an average adult male lion or tiger will get close to, say, 250 kg. The reason is it's, energywise, very difficult to get to that average and stay there. Compared to, for instance, brown bears, big cats need to be more active, agile and faster, while still being able to engage a herbivore severely outweighing them. Considering these demands and today's conditions, a big cat ranging between 180-200 kg at the level of averages is really big. Big cats living in hotspots may slightly top that mark, but that's about it. Even these giants do not quite compare to (most of) their captive relatives, but they're much more able in all departments and way fitter. No comparison. Reply