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

[peter]

WaveRiders

I was a bit surprised at your post, as we only just finished cleaning the battleground. I usually respond to posts from the top down, but this time decided for a more direct approach. This means I'll focus on the three main points you made; the reason you decided to post (1), your attitude regarding the Nepalese (2) and your opinion on the exchange we had some time ago (3). 


1 - The reason for posting

The main reason you decided to post was a remark in one of my posts on tigers in northern India and Nepal. As this remark is most clear in the second quote you decided to add, I propose to use this one to respond. Before I do, I'll decided for a brief summary of the exchange we had on Smythies. 

You remember the exchange was on the measurements. I assume you also remember you had serious doubts on the validity of the measurements, not to say you took them with a bit of salt. Finally, I assume you remember I agreed with most of the arguments you presented, but not with the conclusion you got to. After our debate, I read Smythies again and concluded the measurements were reliable. My conclusion was based on a number of arguments, all of which were discussed at length. I assume you read them.     

We now return to the remark you perceived as an 'allegation' and a 'bait'. Your main argument was Smythies wasn't there when the tigers shot by the Maharajah of Nepal and his guests were measured. It is a fact you used this conclusion to doubt the measurements, if not to dismiss them outright. What to conclude?

One is you dismissed the measurements because Smythies hadn't been there himself. Two is you didn't take the measurements serious. As the team responsible for the measurements consisted of Nepalese, you, and this is the third conclusion, didn't take them serious. If we combine 1, 2 and 3, the conclusion is you didn't take the Nepalese serious. Not without Smythies. Final score: Smythies 3 - Nepal 0. 

A somewhat disturbing conclusion? I think so, as it is clear that the Nepalese were dismissed before they had even started, whereas Smythies, although you also severely questioned him, got away with a few scratches.  

A bit over the top? I don't think so. After reading your post, I decided to visit your thread on big cats and measurements in Carnivora. What did I see?

In your last two contributions, Nepal tigers and Nepal measurements featured. A response to my posts on tigers in northern India and Nepal? Very likely. Was a message conveyed? Yes. In one post, you presented a researcher who wrote adult male Nepal tigers average about 400 pounds. In the second, you presented someone with inside information on the habits of Nepal maharajahs. He suggested they couldn't be trusted on measurements: those they employed knew small tigers resulted in problems (less pay) and big ones in a promotion. Right. 

What to make of that? I'd say you delivered 2 messages. One is that adult male Nepal tigers are not as heavy as I suggested. Two is measurements taken by those employed by nobility in general and maharajahs in particular have to be taken with a lot of salt. What you really did, was you dismissed the information I posted on the size of Nepal tigers. 

I have to hand it to you that you, this time, used a Nepalese researcher (Mishra) and a Nepalese informer to present your case, but the bottom line is nothing changed. And what is the bottom line? One is that Nepal tigers are smaller than I found and two is that the one responsible for the information is not to be trusted.


2 - On the method used to measure a tiger today

As to your remark on me allegedly dismissing a Nepalese researcher (Tamang). It can't be denied that Tamang and Sunquist contradicted each other regarding the way the method used to measure tigers was applied. This resulted in confusion. Based on the information I have, I also strongly doubt your suggestion that the method used by Tamang was applied in the same way by Sunquist some years later. The problem with this method is it can be applied in different ways, protocol or no protocol. This is the reason many hunters (as well as Sterndale) proposed to use another method to measure tigers a century ago. It is beyond me why biologists opted for a method that resulted in a lot of confusion a century ago. I also don't understand why they decided to dismiss records of big cats measured in exactly the same way. I can only get to double standards.   

As to the method used to measure big cats today. Before a cat is measured, the body is stretched and the head is raised. In this way, the number of curves is limited and a more or less straight line is created. Perfect conditions to take a measurement with a steel tape in a straight line, but biologists opted for a flexible tape following the spine. The problem is in 'following the spine'. Based on the emails posted, I concluded that biologists press the tape to the body at all places in some regions and not in others. Miquelle was sure that tigers in Russia were measured 'over curves', but Sunquist was sure that tigers in Nepal were measured in a more or less straight line. The result was confusion and this was not a result of interpretations of posters. It was a result of the method used.    


3- The Nepalese

The response to the point you made on the Nepalese was largely discussed in the previous paragraph. I argued you distinguished between the British (Smythies) and the Nepalese in that you took one more serious than the other.    

As to your remarks on the Nepalese. Meaby your remark on the plight of people inhabiting poor regions is sincere. Same for the remark on solidarity. The neighbourhood in which I live has many people not born here. Their children are, but they don't feel accepted as well. I know, because they told me. Those who target people who are 'different' are everywhere and often use subtle ways. What we know on discrimination only is the top of the iceberg. Constitutions were invented to prevent discrimination, but the problem is laws are not often upheld.

I move between different communities, but prefer my neighbourhood. One of the main reasons is the solidarity I see and feel. I very much like individuality, but freedom of speech shouldn't result in segregation. I also think the quest for material prosperity has severe consequences.   

I repeat I don't doubt your ideas on people and solidarity. The point is you have to live up to it when it matters. This means you can't use people to 'present' or reject notions you embrace or dislike. Dismissing ethnic groups or the opposite are two sides of the same coin.

Those responsible for the measurements of tigers in Nepal no doubt were well-informed, well-trained and accurate, maybe even more so than many others. The reason is people who know they are not taken seriously because of their colour (and all the rest of it), will do everything in their power to overcome irrelevant, but often decisive, opinions merely based on preference. Remember the Indian 'shikari's' Corbett mentioned in his story on the Bachelor of Powalgarh? They were as accurate as anyone when they saw the prints of the tiger so many tried to bag for so many years. Their assessment on his length 'over curves', seven years after they saw his prints, was of exceptional quality. Premier League.   


4 - On the exchange a year ago

I agree with your evaluation of the clash. Only very few share the interest we have, meaning we should try to overcome the problems we experienced and aim for cooperation. In order to contribute, I decided to be frank in this post: cooperation starts by taking people serious, no matter what. Cooperation doesn't include acquiring tons of honey, cynicism and manipulation. It means you focus on good information, not something else. 

One thing to remember is it is necessary that all participating on a project have to learn how to deal with criticism. This is not easy, especially for those who think they don't need to do so because of their exceptional qualities. 

As to your remarks on this forum and the willingness to do business. It's true that some of our mods and members have a few doubts on WaveRiders. The reasons have been discussed before. In this post, I argued things didn't really change. When you are prepared to adapt in order to play ball, however, you are welcome.    Reply