Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers

[abhisingh7]

(10-10-2022, 10:11 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-10-2022, 01:36 AM)Roflcopters Wrote:

Quote:Proceeded with caution” has more to do with your animosity towards Vijay since you were his reason for leaving WF.

wait what? why wasn’t i aware of this. what animosity are you talking about? i don’t even know him like that and never did. i only knew Minh Ha/Asianbuffalo and everyone around me disliked the guy for obvious reasons. 

Quote:No offense, but he’s far more reliable thank just some fly by night quote.

get off the Kanha bandwagon and provide actual proof. stop running around in circles and mentioning names to avoid the real issue. in the end, it’s all about transparency and with the exception of maybe Poochkanta. all those other weights are questionable. 

"bandwagon"

You've been a tadoba fan boy for years, trying to discredit everyone presenting actual facts.

Back to the topic.
What happened Copters, you're going against your own words now?

*This image is copyright of its original author

And in regards to Vijay leaving because of you, here you go.

Post #141


"While I agree with Pckts on most of his views, I condemn the distorted views expressed by the supposedly resident expert here, Roflcopters. 


Sorry Sanjay, I'm leaving this forum for good. All the best on your wildphoto venture where I'll continue to contribute as long as you keep that forum inviolate from such troubled souls.
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-overrat...15#pid5515

Now in regards to the sources 

[img]https://i.imgur.com/26omZhB.jpg" class="lozad max-img-size" alt="" title="">

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

He was stated to be 213cm HBL, most likely over the curves but unspecified with a short tail.

and here is Vijay discussing his sources 

*This image is copyright of its original author

Again, it's a reach trying to question his but to each their own.

Lastly, you mentioned a Tadoba Male at 197kg, do you know his measurements?
He was 287cm with a 187cm HBL.



Here is a comp I made of KF at the bottom, Baghin Nala sub adult in the middle and Wagdoh at the top.
Do any of you really think Wagdoh looks larger than either shown?
All are bloated so that shouldn't factor.

*This image is copyright of its original author

kanha have large pool of huge tigers , kingfisher was a very huge male . could be legit 270-275kgs empty here . Reply

[GreenForest]

@abhisingh7 Thats just a myth. Most of the tigers you see in Mukki zone are descendants of Munna. Munna used to be average tiger, not known for his size. If you read @Pckts screenshot previous page, out of 9 tigers weighed in Kanha, only one crossed 225kg. 

@Pckts You should at-least have some decency to compare similar aged tigers in similar photo angle. But, You are on agenda to discredit tadoba tigers. Wrong motives can blind rational thinking. Thats right in your case. Reply

[abhisingh7]

(10-10-2022, 11:57 PM)GreenForest Wrote: @abhisingh7 Thats just a myth. Most of the tigers you see in Mukki zone are descendants of Munna. Munna used to be average tiger, not known for his size. If you read @Pckts screenshot previous page, out of 9 tigers weighed in Kanha, only one crossed 225kg. 

@Pckts You should at-least have some decency to compare similar aged tigers in similar photo angle. But, You are on agenda to discredit tadoba tigers. Wrong motives can blind rational thinking. Thats right in your case.

bro munna was a big male in prime , they used scale limited to 225kg for many males , also bheema weighted 223 kg at age 2.5 , and mv2 195kg at age 2.4 , bro i know many people who seen many tigers in several parks , i don't quote things randomly ,i too have seen many tigers myself , some caught from wild in zoo and some in national parks . kanha does have large pool of big tigers , umarpnai , t2 , neel nala , t67 yuvraj , t46 baisanghat , m3 , db3 etc .  by the way see munna in prime https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFDcMtVaZqw, we can say matkasur of tadoba is around 220-225kg in prime and munna was 10-15% larger than him which is visible . Reply

[Pckts]

(10-11-2022, 12:55 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(10-10-2022, 11:57 PM)GreenForest Wrote: @abhisingh7 Thats just a myth. Most of the tigers you see in Mukki zone are descendants of Munna. Munna used to be average tiger, not known for his size. If you read @Pckts screenshot previous page, out of 9 tigers weighed in Kanha, only one crossed 225kg. 

@Pckts You should at-least have some decency to compare similar aged tigers in similar photo angle. But, You are on agenda to discredit tadoba tigers. Wrong motives can blind rational thinking. Thats right in your case.

bro munna was a big male in prime , they used scale limited to 225kg for many males  , also bheema weighted 223 kg at age 2.5 , and mv2 195kg at age 2.4 , bro i know many people who seen many tigers in several parks , i don't quote things randomly ,i too have seen many tigers myself , some caught from wild in zoo and some in national parks . kanha does have large pool of big tigers , umarpnai , t2 , neel nala , t67 yuvraj , t46 baisanghat , m3 , db3 etc .  by the way see munna in prime https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFDcMtVaZqw, we can say matkasur of tadoba is around 220-225kg in prime and munna was 10-15% larger than him which is visible .

Matkasur was probably 200kg at best.
My friend and guide when I was in Tadoba/Pench/Kanha saw Matkasur in his prime, then Mr. X (bamera son) in his prime and Chota Munna (in his prime) all on the same trip, back to back to back. Matkasur was the smallest of the 3, then Bamera son with Chota Munna being the largest of the 3. He's seen Wagdoh and Munna many times as well, both were similar in size.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

In regards to the quote mentioned, that was in direct response to Minha when he mentioned he wasn't sure if they were weighed at the time. You have Jhala stating the same with his largest Tiger ever weighed coming from Kanha as well. *280-290kg* He is misrepresented the "only  1" comment since there is no mention of that in the response only mention of that tiger flooring the scale. 

@GreenForest 
Enough of your fanboy nonsense. I have no agenda, between the two of us, I'm the only one who has actually been to Tadoba while you make accusations with no real facts to back them. 

And the only Tiger with Munna's lineage in Mukki atm is Umarpani who's not even there anymore and his mother was possibly the biggest girl in Kanha. You want to talk about small Lineage, Maya and Choti Tara are some of the smallest Tigress you'll see, Saturn, Gabbar and Katezari were all near the 200kg Range. I've seen the Navegaon Male and Female and they didn't come close to Kanha Tigers or Pench, you're talking about a major difference. But of course Tadoba can have larger males as well but in the tourism area the lineage running through there is small. Reply

[Roflcopters]

@Pckts 

Quote:"bandwagon"

You've been a tadoba fan boy for years, trying to discredit everyone presenting actual facts.

how am i a fanboy when all i do is share the lives of Tadoba tigers and i have done it for over a decade purely out of passion. for years i believed they were mediocre size wise. if i was such a fanboy, i’d be comparing them to the likes of Terai and Kaziranga males but i have no such history. i’m just very realistic when i follow the lives of tigers in general. i see them for who they are. you believe in science fiction, most of your logic is flawed and lately in the internet world. you have become a meme. such a male Karen, it’s beyond cringe. 

Quote:And in regards to Vijay leaving because of you, here you go.

totally irrelevant discussion, somehow you turned this into Roflcopters vs Vijay when i haven’t even insulted the dude or acknowledged the dude’s existence. lastly, i don’t care if anyone gets in their feelings. i say things how it is. if someone doesn’t like it. it’s too damn bad. Alpha male rule #1 - don’t get in your feelings   

I asked you to present proof of Kanha tiger weights without mentioning a bunch of statements that we all have seen over the years, almost repetitively. where is the concrete proof? word of mouth isn’t enough and holds no credibility in the real world. these people you see as messiah aren’t exempt from this grilling. at the end of the day, everyone wants a disclosure. people here are contributing on this topic for a reason. perhaps you should read the topic title before turning this into a toxic debate. most people here are only here for transparency and legitimacy of weights and measurements. you were summoned to provide proof but instead, you would much rather run around and get all aggressive and emotional. 


Roflcopters checking in 

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:Thats just a myth. Most of the tigers you see in Mukki zone are descendants of Munna. Munna used to be average tiger, not known for his size. If you read @Pckts screenshot previous page, out of 9 tigers weighed in Kanha, only one crossed 225kg.

Munna was a very mediocre sized tiger at best, overhyped by Minh ha aka Asianbuffalo. he used to claim 350-400kg for Munna. in reality, Munna was just your average size male from Kanha. nothing special.  Reply

[Lycaon]

I would like to move on from this debate. Reply

[abhisingh7]

(10-11-2022, 02:47 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: @Pckts 

Quote:"bandwagon"

You've been a tadoba fan boy for years, trying to discredit everyone presenting actual facts.

how am i a fanboy when all i do is share the lives of Tadoba tigers and i have done it for over a decade purely out of passion. for years i believed they were mediocre size wise. if i was such a fanboy, i’d be comparing them to the likes of Terai and Kaziranga males but i have no such history. i’m just very realistic when i follow the lives of tigers in general. i see them for who they are. you believe in science fiction, most of your logic is flawed and lately in the internet world. you have become a meme. such a male Karen, it’s beyond cringe. 

Quote:And in regards to Vijay leaving because of you, here you go.

totally irrelevant discussion, somehow you turned this into Roflcopters vs Vijay when i haven’t even insulted the dude or acknowledged the dude’s existence. lastly, i don’t care if anyone gets in their feelings. i say things how it is. if someone doesn’t like it. it’s too damn bad. Alpha male rule #1 - don’t get in your feelings   

I asked you to present proof of Kanha tiger weights without mentioning a bunch of statements that we all have seen over the years, almost repetitively. where is the concrete proof? word of mouth isn’t enough and holds no credibility in the real world. these people you see as messiah aren’t exempt from this grilling. at the end of the day, everyone wants a disclosure. people here are contributing on this topic for a reason. perhaps you should read the topic title before turning this into a toxic debate. most people here are only here for transparency and legitimacy of weights and measurements. you were summoned to provide proof but instead, you would much rather run around and get all aggressive and emotional. 


Roflcopters checking in 

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:Thats just a myth. Most of the tigers you see in Mukki zone are descendants of Munna. Munna used to be average tiger, not known for his size. If you read @Pckts screenshot previous page, out of 9 tigers weighed in Kanha, only one crossed 225kg.

Munna was a very mediocre sized tiger at best, overhyped by Minh ha aka Asianbuffalo. he used to claim 350-400kg for Munna. in reality, Munna was just your average size male from Kanha. nothing special. 

bro planet documentary on kanha tigers see from 19:30 to 20:00 , the avg wt is 230kgs mentioned here .    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_efdMOd0io&t=30s Reply

[Roflcopters]

(10-11-2022, 12:10 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(10-11-2022, 02:47 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: @Pckts 

Quote:"bandwagon"

You've been a tadoba fan boy for years, trying to discredit everyone presenting actual facts.

how am i a fanboy when all i do is share the lives of Tadoba tigers and i have done it for over a decade purely out of passion. for years i believed they were mediocre size wise. if i was such a fanboy, i’d be comparing them to the likes of Terai and Kaziranga males but i have no such history. i’m just very realistic when i follow the lives of tigers in general. i see them for who they are. you believe in science fiction, most of your logic is flawed and lately in the internet world. you have become a meme. such a male Karen, it’s beyond cringe. 

Quote:And in regards to Vijay leaving because of you, here you go.

totally irrelevant discussion, somehow you turned this into Roflcopters vs Vijay when i haven’t even insulted the dude or acknowledged the dude’s existence. lastly, i don’t care if anyone gets in their feelings. i say things how it is. if someone doesn’t like it. it’s too damn bad. Alpha male rule #1 - don’t get in your feelings   

I asked you to present proof of Kanha tiger weights without mentioning a bunch of statements that we all have seen over the years, almost repetitively. where is the concrete proof? word of mouth isn’t enough and holds no credibility in the real world. these people you see as messiah aren’t exempt from this grilling. at the end of the day, everyone wants a disclosure. people here are contributing on this topic for a reason. perhaps you should read the topic title before turning this into a toxic debate. most people here are only here for transparency and legitimacy of weights and measurements. you were summoned to provide proof but instead, you would much rather run around and get all aggressive and emotional. 


Roflcopters checking in 

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:Thats just a myth. Most of the tigers you see in Mukki zone are descendants of Munna. Munna used to be average tiger, not known for his size. If you read @Pckts screenshot previous page, out of 9 tigers weighed in Kanha, only one crossed 225kg.

Munna was a very mediocre sized tiger at best, overhyped by Minh ha aka Asianbuffalo. he used to claim 350-400kg for Munna. in reality, Munna was just your average size male from Kanha. nothing special. 

bro planet documentary on kanha tigers see from 19:30 to 20:00 , the avg wt is 230kgs mentioned here .    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_efdMOd0io&t=30s

I honestly wouldn’t doubt that, most dominant males in their prime ages should be able to hit that. my whole argument is that there are many more Wagdoh/Umarpani in both parks than what some people would like to think. this person is basically saying tadoba tigers are much smaller because he has weights of 3 males out of a total population of 115 (the actual number could be more or less) and in person he has seen one male to come to this final conclusion. the argument lacks all common sense, sample size alone is so tiny. it’s literally irrelevant. his only proof is what this guide said or what that guide said. all hot air. no real proof and somehow we’re supposed to believe in his fairytales. he also claims Kanha tigers should be bigger because of food abundance alone but in the grand scheme of things. it’s a combination of things. 

food : generally tigers with the biggest territories will have the best of everything at their disposal.

genes : very decisive factor, big frame generally will give a tiger huge advantage at max capacity.

dominance : the most dominant of males, if they are good hunters too will usually come off well seasoned every time of the year. KF, Wagdoh, Shiva and Umarpani were massive all year long from my memory. 

so again, size is individual based and can’t be generalized. 

to further my argument, there are mix of every tiger in Tadoba (Umred/Brahmapuri/Nagzira) are all so connected and it’s been proven that tigers have all moved around from these parks. it’s the same case with Kanha & Pench. Bajrang alone had a territory size far bigger than any Kanha male ever did and he was a large male in his prime. to claim that these tigers are small based on the smallest sample size is purely foolish and fanatical at best. some would even see it as bashing, it could be unintentional but it is something that’s being overlooked at and it needs to stop. 3 out of 115 is all the number he’s working with. just my two cents. Reply

[GreenForest]

If Jhala, Bilal Habib publish their full research, we can settle this debate. I think we are close to get full weights of central indian tigers. As @Roflcopters said, every park has mix of small, medium, big size tigers just like humans. Their weight range can vary from 180kg to 300kg. It depends on genetics and food availability. So no point in calling one reserve tigers are superior than others. Reply

[sanjay]

Hey,
Please keep your head calm and don't start in fight here. I don't want to close this thread again. Reply

[Pckts]

(10-11-2022, 12:52 PM)Roflcopters Wrote:

(10-11-2022, 12:10 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(10-11-2022, 02:47 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: @Pckts 

Quote:"bandwagon"

You've been a tadoba fan boy for years, trying to discredit everyone presenting actual facts.

how am i a fanboy when all i do is share the lives of Tadoba tigers and i have done it for over a decade purely out of passion. for years i believed they were mediocre size wise. if i was such a fanboy, i’d be comparing them to the likes of Terai and Kaziranga males but i have no such history. i’m just very realistic when i follow the lives of tigers in general. i see them for who they are. you believe in science fiction, most of your logic is flawed and lately in the internet world. you have become a meme. such a male Karen, it’s beyond cringe. 

Quote:And in regards to Vijay leaving because of you, here you go.

totally irrelevant discussion, somehow you turned this into Roflcopters vs Vijay when i haven’t even insulted the dude or acknowledged the dude’s existence. lastly, i don’t care if anyone gets in their feelings. i say things how it is. if someone doesn’t like it. it’s too damn bad. Alpha male rule #1 - don’t get in your feelings   

I asked you to present proof of Kanha tiger weights without mentioning a bunch of statements that we all have seen over the years, almost repetitively. where is the concrete proof? word of mouth isn’t enough and holds no credibility in the real world. these people you see as messiah aren’t exempt from this grilling. at the end of the day, everyone wants a disclosure. people here are contributing on this topic for a reason. perhaps you should read the topic title before turning this into a toxic debate. most people here are only here for transparency and legitimacy of weights and measurements. you were summoned to provide proof but instead, you would much rather run around and get all aggressive and emotional. 


Roflcopters checking in 

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:Thats just a myth. Most of the tigers you see in Mukki zone are descendants of Munna. Munna used to be average tiger, not known for his size. If you read @Pckts screenshot previous page, out of 9 tigers weighed in Kanha, only one crossed 225kg.

Munna was a very mediocre sized tiger at best, overhyped by Minh ha aka Asianbuffalo. he used to claim 350-400kg for Munna. in reality, Munna was just your average size male from Kanha. nothing special. 

bro planet documentary on kanha tigers see from 19:30 to 20:00 , the avg wt is 230kgs mentioned here .    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_efdMOd0io&t=30s

I honestly wouldn’t doubt that, most dominant males in their prime ages should be able to hit that. my whole argument is that there are many more Wagdoh/Umarpani in both parks than what some people would like to think. this person is basically saying tadoba tigers are much smaller because he has weights of 3 males out of a total population of 115 (the actual number could be more or less) and in person he has seen one male to come to this final conclusion. the argument lacks all common sense, sample size alone is so tiny. it’s literally irrelevant. his only proof is what this guide said or what that guide said. all hot air. no real proof and somehow we’re supposed to believe in his fairytales. he also claims Kanha tigers should be bigger because of food abundance alone but in the grand scheme of things. it’s a combination of things. 

food : generally tigers with the biggest territories will have the best of everything at their disposal.

genes : very decisive factor, big frame generally will give a tiger huge advantage at max capacity.

dominance : the most dominant of males, if they are good hunters too will usually come off well seasoned every time of the year. KF, Wagdoh, Shiva and Umarpani were massive all year long from my memory. 

so again, size is individual based and can’t be generalized. 

to further my argument, there are mix of every tiger in Tadoba (Umred/Brahmapuri/Nagzira) are all so connected and it’s been proven that tigers have all moved around from these parks. it’s the same case with Kanha & Pench. Bajrang alone had a territory size far bigger than any Kanha male ever did and he was a large male in his prime. to claim that these tigers are small based on the smallest sample size is purely foolish and fanatical at best. some would even see it as bashing, it could be unintentional but it is something that’s being overlooked at and it needs to stop. 3 out of 115 is all the number he’s working with. just my two cents.

Quote:this person is basically saying tadoba tigers are much smaller because he has weights of 3 males out of a total population of 115 (the actual number could be more or less) and in person he has seen one male to come to this final conclusion.

Or the fact that this person has actually been to these places while you've never stepped foot there.  Seeing the Tigers was just a confirmation on what the actual parks showed whether it'd be habitat, temp, prey animals or terrain.
How about this person here, are they qualified?

*This image is copyright of its original author

I mean they've only been all over India and seen huge males from all over. 

Quote:his only proof is what this guide said or what that guide said. all hot air. no real proof and somehow we’re supposed to believe in his fairytales. he also claims Kanha tigers should be bigger because of food abundance alone but in the grand scheme of things. it’s a combination of things. 

So they're fairytales while I'm posting actual conversations and between the two of us, you're the one who's had 0 experience in any of these places. 
And yes, it is a combination of things.
Cooler Temps: Kahna
More Rain: Kahna
Larger: Kanha
Prey Density: Kanha
Tiger Density: Kanha
Hill Terrain: Kanha 
Let's see what Brander has to say about it, I'm sure his qualifications aren't enough for you since you but for others who are less blinded by fanaticism I'm sure they'll be appreciated. 

*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

Next will be a Guides and Naturalists observations on the Pugmarks in Kanha being larger.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:to further my argument, there are mix of every tiger in Tadoba (Umred/Brahmapuri/Nagzira) are all so connected and it’s been proven that tigers have all moved around from these parks. it’s the same case with Kanha & Pench. Bajrang alone had a territory size far bigger than any Kanha male ever did and he was a large male in his prime. to claim that these tigers are small based on the smallest sample size is purely foolish and fanatical at best. some would even see it as bashing, it could be unintentional but it is something that’s being overlooked at and it needs to stop. 3 out of 115 is all the number he’s working with. just my two cents.

Connect is vague, the distance between these parks is massive. While some do travel between them, generally when a Tiger makes it these areas, they'll stay there and reproduce. These reproductions over time reap the benefits the park offers and will obtain larger sizes. 
Your claim about territory shows your lack of understanding about the sizes of these parks. Kanha is 1.5x's the size of Tadoba. The territories aren't apples to apples and one Tiger may "rule" a territory but it will travel between these areas constantly. It's nothing new for a Tiger to rule huge areas, Munna for instance ruled "  Due to immense pressure from Munna, whose dominance extended all the way from Digdola, Salghat, Siliyari, Bapsabehra, Link-7, Sijhora, Shravan Tal, Umarpani to Chuhri etc, " -Vijay 
All at one time.
Lastly is the eye test, this is for you since you haven't seen them in person and prefer to cherry pick images or videos. 
Watch any Tiger fight from Tadoba and tell me with an unbias eye that they compare to the ones from Kanha.
There's no chance. Always the males fighting eachother in Kanha have a much thicker frame.
This is the last of my responses to you on this, obviously there's not much more I need to add. Think what you want but the proof is all laid out. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

RIP Wagdoh

The first time I saw him in pic was back in 2007 where he got along with his mate, and I was always impressed by his memorable physical stature.

I guess he should be a bit older than the description in his death report as he was already a huge mature dominant male back in 2007.

And most likely that Wagdoh was born in 2001 - 2002. Reply

[GuateGojira]

(10-08-2022, 08:02 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote: https://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/201105...CrRofoi0jw , 270kg male caught from bijrani , https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DT0BqQTpPX4

Good data. Just a doubt, is this weight before its capture or after its confinement? Reply

[GuateGojira]

A though about this situation:

Just like in the lion section, I only see here speculation after speculation. How is possible that an useless debate about the reliability of a weight, change to one about a reliability of size, and then about reliability on sources and now about which park has bigger tigers???

People, we have a document that shows the size of the animal and its weight, plus extra details, this is the first time that we actually have it and that is great. About the weight, it seems that this is the same case as the lion from Kenya, as Waghdoh became a cattle eater, and this demostrate that eating cattle did increase the weight and fat amount of the cats (both of them were fat). However, there are important differences, like the fact that the Kenya lion was post prime but not as old as the tiger (10 years agains 16-17 years, based in they ID cards), so it is impresive that a cat so old still kept that frame. So, weight is logic and been from an oficial document is reliable, period.

About the body size, I don't know why you are obsesed about it, ignoring the fact that the measurements were taken in a carcases that had about two days decomposing. We know that these animals are measured over the curves following a straight line as possible, but even then it will be a slightly underestimation as the body was already stiff and in decomposition status. So, it they do not match is not the end of the world. In fact, I remember Dr Bertram that once he says that is practically impossible to get an accurate size of a living animal, and that it will depend of the position of the specimen, so taking this in count plus the stiffness of the carcass, those body measurements are suggestive and ussefull, but is irrelevant to try to refute or defend them. For me, they are reliable and are added to the records.

Sources, that is the pain in the head of each investigator and can be problematic in the case when they do not want to be quoted. In this case, we reached a moment when we have more than 40 males reported in modern days (after 1974, when scientific captures happened), but interestingly only about 20 are from 100% published and confirmed sources. However, it is interesting that we have reached the same sample as the modern Amur tigers and now we can make a fair comparison between them without the need to use the hunting records (Karanth's and Yamaguchi's dream! ). In few words, we no longer need the hunting records as the main source of size, now that we have a good database of modern specimens. We must understand that while we can use personal communications as sources, they are going to be allways debatable, specially if contradict the official published data (this data is the KEY to use the personall communications, and I have examples for this....). So, if you ask me for a table with all the 40+ records, I will put it with no name/namesake as this include unverified reports, but if you ask me a table with only the confirmed weights I will definitelly put my name on it as is based in confirmed data. 

Finally, the size of tigers in the parks. That is the most sad parts of this "debate". We have only little pieces of the big frame and certainly the personal perception of a photographers is not going to be 100% accurate, so there is no form to say that tigers from "x" park are bigger/smaller than those from "y" park. In fact, I have saw several hunting/scientific records of tigers all over India and the difference is minimum between them. I support what GreenForest said:

"If Jhala, Bilal Habib publish their full research, we can settle this debate. I think we are close to get full weights of central indian tigers. As @Roflcopters said, every park has mix of small, medium, big size tigers just like humans. Their weight range can vary from 180kg to 300kg. It depends on genetics and food availability. So no point in calling one reserve tigers are superior than others."

So, I hope we can just finish this nonesense and focus in get more data, tables are almoust ready and information fo modern and even old records are still rising, so I think that we are in a good moment when we can stablish good databases for the future.

Greetings to all.

Ps: Sorry I still don't finish the post about the tigers of Dr Karanth, but I can tell that it is important data, just like what happen with the Panna tigers database. Reply

[Pckts]

(10-12-2022, 10:07 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: A though about this situation:

Just like in the lion section, I only see here speculation after speculation. How is possible that an useless debate about the reliability of a weight, change to one about a reliability of size, and then about reliability on sources and now about which park has bigger tigers???

People, we have a document that shows the size of the animal and its weight, plus extra details, this is the first time that we actually have it and that is great. About the weight, it seems that this is the same case as the lion from Kenya, as Waghdoh became a cattle eater, and this demostrate that eating cattle did increase the weight and fat amount of the cats (both of them were fat). However, there are important differences, like the fact that the Kenya lion was post prime but not as old as the tiger (10 years agains 16-17 years, based in they ID cards), so it is impresive that a cat so old still kept that frame. So, weight is logic and been from an oficial document is reliable, period.

About the body size, I don't know why you are obsesed about it, ignoring the fact that the measurements were taken in a carcases that had about two days decomposing. We know that these animals are measured over the curves following a straight line as possible, but even then it will be a slightly underestimation as the body was already stiff and in decomposition status. So, it they do not match is not the end of the world. In fact, I remember Dr Bertram that once he says that is practically impossible to get an accurate size of a living animal, and that it will depend of the position of the specimen, so taking this in count plus the stiffness of the carcass, those body measurements are suggestive and ussefull, but is irrelevant to try to refute or defend them. For me, they are reliable and are added to the records.

Sources, that is the pain in the head of each investigator and can be problematic in the case when they do not want to be quoted. In this case, we reached a moment when we have more than 40 males reported in modern days (after 1974, when scientific captures happened), but interestingly only about 20 are from 100% published and confirmed sources. However, it is interesting that we have reached the same sample as the modern Amur tigers and now we can make a fair comparison between them without the need to use the hunting records (Karanth's and Yamaguchi's dream! ). In few words, we no longer need the hunting records as the main source of size, now that we have a good database of modern specimens. We must understand that while we can use personal communications as sources, they are going to be allways debatable, specially if contradict the official published data (this data is the KEY to use the personall communications, and I have examples for this....). So, if you ask me for a table with all the 40+ records, I will put it with no name/namesake as this include unverified reports, but if you ask me a table with only the confirmed weights I will definitelly put my name on it as is based in confirmed data. 

Finally, the size of tigers in the parks. That is the most sad parts of this "debate". We have only little pieces of the big frame and certainly the personal perception of a photographers is not going to be 100% accurate, so there is no form to say that tigers from "x" park are bigger/smaller than those from "y" park. In fact, I have saw several hunting/scientific records of tigers all over India and the difference is minimum between them. I support what GreenForest said:

"If Jhala, Bilal Habib publish their full research, we can settle this debate. I think we are close to get full weights of central indian tigers. As @Roflcopters said, every park has mix of small, medium, big size tigers just like humans. Their weight range can vary from 180kg to 300kg. It depends on genetics and food availability. So no point in calling one reserve tigers are superior than others."

So, I hope we can just finish this nonesense and focus in get more data, tables are almoust ready and information fo modern and even old records are still rising, so I think that we are in a good moment when we can stablish good databases for the future.

Greetings to all.

Ps: Sorry I still don't finish the post about the tigers of Dr Karanth, but I can tell that it is important data, just like what happen with the Panna tigers database.

Modern day records unfortunately are far less detailed. We have almost none with body measurements documented and protocol taken compared to the old hunters data base. Days of Brander and Almeida presenting detailed information are long gone. At least presenting to the public. 

In regards to park differences, there is definitely one.
When data of old was presented it's broken down into large chunks of land not individual parks. Brander for instance just mentions the Central Province while hunting throughout Central India but he specifically mentions the Sal Forests vs mixed forests which shows that exact thing. 
Its the same as saying all African Lions are within a range of X. But the truth is depending on the park you'll certainly see numerous morphological differences. 
It's beating a dead horse but if you go to these places you will see instantly that some will yield a healthier animal. The Crater is the easiest to use just because the differences are so pronounced. You travel through the Serengeti and you'll see a whole mix of animals. Some healthier than others but most will be mid tier lets say but you go to the crater and almost all animals are large and healthy. Lions are the thickest with the biggest manes, the warthog are huge, Buffalo and Elephant are by far the biggest you'll see, hyena are big and so on. Each park offers different crucial life giving elements and some are more beneficial than others. Reply