WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
Maximum size of prey that a single male lion or tiger can kill
Maximum size of prey that a single male lion or tiger can kill
|
Maximum size of prey that a single male lion or tiger can kill
|
 (04-18-2020, 12:53 AM)Ashutosh Wrote: @Pckts, the study you quote says that the average weight of adult gaurs killed by tigers was 737.8 kilos. Does this figure include female gaurs? Because, if it does, it very well proves that tigers prey on gaurs as big as 1000 kilos as simple sexual dimorphism between the weights of male and female gaurs would give you that average figure. I think you're talking about Dhasa better known as T-03 as described by him in that book.  *This image is copyright of its original author back then i read something like this from that book. 1. T-01 (old tiger, 12-13 years), Wt 230 kg+ (507 lb+). Although the tiger was quite a large animal, he had mortal wounds in a fight with another tiger. Died from wounds. 2. T-02 (prime female). Wt 177 kg (390 lb) Was radiotracked for several years offering great insights into tiger behaviour. She was a huge tigress and ruled for a long time. 3. T-03 (prime male). 257 kg (565 lb) Was radiotracked for two years. Was apparently involved in several battles for territory and lost a large part of range to another male tiger, ended up shifting his range. Was a gaur expert, but ultimately was killed in a fight with a bull gaur. 4. T-04 (3-4 years) Wt 250 kg (550 lb) Lost his radiocollar after 2 months in a battle with another male tiger. The bite penetrated the steel collar and severed it. But T-04 seemed to have won the battle and was seen for a few more years. Also recorded as having committed infanticide (killed 3 cubs of the defeated male). These weights ignore stomach contents, however. I came across this back in 2008, 12 years ago from now and I could never understand how such an experienced male would get killed by a Gaur. of course my knowledge was limited back then, now that i think about it. Dhasa/T03 was probably nearing the end of his life and was desperate for food. which ultimately lead to his death. simple law of the jungle, you live by the sword and die by the sword. his favorite prey item ended up being the reason for his death. that was probably one of the first few books that really inspired me to look deep into the tigers and since then, I never really looked back. good old times. my only wish list is to read and hear more from tigers in South India. those are perhaps some of the most prestigious chunk of forests with such density. it's a damn shame we don't get to hear much from Bandipur and Nagarhole. Raja was like the last nail in the coffin before Bandipur literally fell off the map. just my two cents, sorry for hijacking the on-going discussions.  (04-18-2020, 01:18 AM)Pckts Wrote: At this point I'm fighting a losing battle, the fact is that Tigers can kill bull Gaurs and they do so. Apparently I'm splitting hairs when I doubt they can kill big, alpha ones straight up. I have my doubts but who knows, maybe they can. I will take this as your final word. The conclution in this case is simple: tiger can and do kill adult gaurs up to 1000 kg, however more than half of the kills are from young specimens. Simple. 
Lion can kill Bull Giraffe, Bull Eland and on rare occasions Cape Buffalo Bulls.
Tigers have killed Bull Gaurs and Water Buffalos on certain occasions, with some freaky occurrences of adult Rhinos.  (04-18-2020, 04:01 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(04-18-2020, 01:18 AM)Pckts Wrote: At this point I'm fighting a losing battle, the fact is that Tigers can kill bull Gaurs and they do so. Apparently I'm splitting hairs when I doubt they can kill big, alpha ones straight up. I have my doubts but who knows, maybe they can. Never said anything about 1000kg Gaur, let's not put words in my mouth and I've always maintained the difference between a Bull and a Alpha male which started the whole debate did it not? Other than that, I've maintained that they can kill Bulls but I'm tired of the back and forth of the same data.
Here we go again...
Quote:Sorry but that is exactly what you are saying between lines.Between your lines are not mine. Quote:We are talking of the same study (no plural, there is only one study that you posted and is the same that I posted)In that exact study I posted they made 0 mention of weighing any prey. Quote:Dr Karanth of Dr Sunquist. Like I explained several times, they DID weighed the animals and they estimated the rest from what the tiger ate. Taking in count the maximum and the minimum that a tiger can eat, 35 and 10 kg respectivelly, and the amount of time that the tiger expended in the prey, they estimated the remain body mass of the carcass.Like I've already shown, carcasses get preyed upon by many scavengers and far more than what a tiger can eat at one sitting can be removed from a carcass. Next is that you cannot show me a single weight of a carcass can you? You cant present me a single Gaur that was killed by a tiger and weighed? You can show a picture of one being weighed but you have no weight to add to the image or any other Gaur for that matter. Quote:Tiger vs Bison accounts from 1935To what extent are these cases known? Carcasses found, fine heads, predations seen? All of those need to be determined before it's case closed account. Quote:Kanha Account Like we've already gone over, the older the bull the larger the horns. Was this bull old and on its last legs, did it die from natural causes was the carcass intact? Again, these are question you cannot answer because these details are missing and they're the most important ones to know for this debate. Quote:Kanha female Once again, carcass found at a stream bank. Do I need to bring up again the multitude of sizes in "bulls" and a Tigress certainly isn't overpowering an Alpha bull with a bite to the back of the neck. Quote:Dasha" or T-03 was a gaur expert, which means that he killed several gaurs of several sizes. The case that you put was just the result of his error. Yes several sized Gaurs, no mention of a big Bull other than the one that killed him. Quote:In this case you have a personal problem, because all the people, scientists and experts, "interpret" the document of Karanth & Sunqusit (1995) in the same form that I. You say that there is no new data for the moment and that is correct as no study appart from that of Karanth and Schaller took the time to see the sex, health and age of the prey killed. From my part, Dr Karanth, Dr Sunquist and I are 100% sure that a tiger can and do kill gaurs of up to 1,000 kg and that is the scientific status, if you don't belive it is up to you. By the way I will like to clarify that I am not trying to convince you, for the contrary I am just showing to any other reader how wron you are in this point and in fact I am happy because this is an oportunity to show the information then the casual reader will have the oportunity to learn and to see what the scientists do and how even with evidence there is going to be allways people that denied the factsAnd I'm happy to show that people are so desperate to embellish predatory feats that they are willing to make claims and accept them without proper evidence to back them. I'll take a healthy Skepticism over a blind acceptance any day of the week. Quote:Wow, this is funny in many levels!And yet again, show me a single Gaur carcass that weighed 1000kg. Show me one excerpt where they state "this carcass was weighed and it weighed 1000kg and was killed by a Tiger"
I have a favor to ask GG.
It's your time, do it if you like but I want to help understand where I'm coming from and I think this may be the only way. If you have the measurements of a 1000kg Gaur or the horn size comparison of the large bull quoted in Kanha, can you make a comparison chart of a 1000kg Gaur and a Tiger of Sauhara males size. I just want you to visualize the type of Gaur I'm talking about and see what it looks like next to a massive male Tiger. It's not scientific proof but it's a good tool to visualize these guys together. 
ALL
As far as I can see, the debate on tigers and (bull) gaurs was based on good information and sound arguments all the way. The result was a sound conclusion. Doesn't get much better. I enjoyed it from start to finish. Many thanks on behalf of all. There are, to be sure, no winners and losers in a debate, PC. In order to get the best possible result, those opposing each other need to start at the very end of the line. Both have to find information to support their position. In the end, it is about the facts. When they're inconclusive, a debate based on arguments and sound reasoning has to follow. Sooner or later, the result will be a conclusion supported by many. All of those involved in the debate contributed in some way or another. This is one of the best ways to get to knowledge. Anyhow. The debate was on tigers and gaurs, but it could have been about tigers and rhinos. Or tigers and elephants. Or tigers and bears. The question is not if they attack large and dangerous animals every now and then, but why they're prepared to take risks. These risks are very real; tigers have been killed by elephants, gaurs, wild boars, rhinos and bears. All trainers I interviewed thought big cats, to a degree, are thinking animals. They know what they're doing, that is. So the questing is what we're missing. Interesting topic. Maybe we should start a thread on big cats and risks?
@Pckts, there is a known say: "There is no worst blind that the one that don't want to see". I think that this applies to you now. So, let's continue with this nonesense.
 You say: "Between your lines are not mine." Sorry dude, but anyone can interpret that from your posts about Karanth and Sunquist, after all, your complains had been specifically about that study of 1995 and they are the authors. You say: "In that exact study I posted they made 0 mention of weighing any prey." In that case you must learn a little of history, because the paper of 2000 that you post and the paper of 1995 are of the same study made in Nagarahole. You say: "Like I've already shown, carcasses get preyed upon by many scavengers and far more than what a tiger can eat at one sitting can be removed from a carcass." Well, in that case the figure of 1,000 kg will be an underestimation, which means that some of the bulls could weight more than the stablished figure. You say: "Next is that you cannot show me a single weight of a carcass can you? You cant present me a single Gaur that was killed by a tiger and weighed? You can show a picture of one being weighed but you have no weight to add to the image or any other Gaur for that matter." And the point is? Karanth and Sunquist already showed that the carcasses are up to 1,000 kg including all the prey recorded. They did not published single weights but is logic to see that if there are bulls of up to 1,000 kg surely they were killed by a tiger, not by a leopard or a pack of dholes, but by a tiger. Is simple evidence, plus the fact that the bulls had evidence of struggle and injures. So, there were some bulls of 1,000 kg according with them and all of those bulls were obviously killed by tigers. Simple as it is. If there are single weights is irrelevant. And again, you twist the point of the picture, which was to show you that kills were actually weighed, something that you denied several times, don't forget that. You say: "To what extent are these cases known? Carcasses found, fine heads, predations seen? All of those need to be determined before it's case closed account." Thank you for proving my point, like I told you, you will complain about those cases, BUT you quote one single case of a bull killing a "tiger" (sex not stated in the image that you posted) but you don't complain about it. So, according with you if the tiger win the account is false/incorrect/not-corroborated but if the tiger loose is correct/corroborated/factual??? You say: "Like we've already gone over, the older the bull the larger the horns. Was this bull old and on its last legs, did it die from natural causes was the carcass intact?Again, these are question you cannot answer because these details are missing and they're the most important ones to know for this debate." The same thing, did you know the same details in the single account of the gaur and tiger fight to the death? According with you the bulls gaurs are just dead in the park and tigers, for unknown reasons attack the carcasses and bite them and scratch them! The known fact is that the large bull, with record horns, was killed by a tiger, and if Dr Schaller said that is probably because they had evidence for that. If not, why they will risk his reputation for saying nonsenses? That is a point that, like a professional, we can't ignore. You say: "Once again, carcass found at a stream bank. Do I need to bring up again the multitude of sizes in "bulls" and a Tigress certainly isn't overpowering an Alpha bull with a bite to the back of the neck." Again, you are just putting excuses, Dr Schaller explained the evidence found and even if this was an small bull (about 600 kg) and a large tigress (about 170 kg), this was an impressive feat (predator to prey ratio 1:4). So if a tigress can kill a bull of four times her weight, why a male tiger can't weight a bull gaur with the same ratio of predator to prey? You say: "Yes several sized Gaurs, no mention of a big Bull other than the one that killed him." And where it says that a bull gaur killed that tiger? Like @Roflcopters said, in that moment the tiger "Dasha" already lost part of his territory and probably was old, so any miscalculation, even with a female could be fatal. You say: "And I'm happy to show that people are so desperate to embellish predatory feats that they are willing to make claims and accept them without proper evidence to back them. I'll take a healthy Skepticism over a blind acceptance any day of the week." Embellish? Embellish will by to say that tigers normally kill adult rhinos and elephants (and impressively, according with some claims and evidence, these hunts sometimes happens). But to say that a tiger can kill a gaur is not to "embellish", is just a fact, accepted by experts and proved by the people that actually saw the carcasses, that measure and weighed them and that collected a series of evidence to prove it. Again, you say that we are willing to "make claims", but in fact nobody here is making "claims" except you, which are denying every single report just because you don't want to believe it. I mean, you complain that we have not shown evidence of predation, but the fact is that you have not shown a single evidence to prove that the study and the results of Dr Karanth and Dr Sunquist are wrong. In fact, I will like to see evidence, real evidence of your claims, and I will like to see modern and verified reports saying that tigers can't kill bulls of 1000 kg. You say: "And yet again, show me a single Gaur carcass that weighed 1000kg. Show me one excerpt where they state "this carcass was weighed and it weighed 1000kg and was killed by a Tiger" It is incredible! Karanth and Sunquist showed this many times in the study, not just a single bull of 1,000 kg but several bulls of 1,000 kg:  *This image is copyright of its original author Do you know what means "several"? Read it again, it says "This sample included several gaur weighing 1,000 kilograms". What more do you need?  Now, what is interesting is that you did not make a single complain about the tiger predation of adult rhinos, in fact, you have a huge series of post in this topic when you discuss with Shadow about this: https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-predati...umentation So, if you complain about tigers killing gaurs of up to 1,000 kg, BUT you defend tigers killing adult rhinos of the same size (or more), something is not correct with you. And if you are going to say that gaurs are more aggressive than rhinos, don't do it, because then you are going to have a biiiiiiig trouble trying to prove it.  I guess you are just discussing here because you don't want to lose, just like in the other topic with Shadow. (04-18-2020, 07:53 AM)peter Wrote: ALL Actually that is my other point with @Pckts. I mean, he complained about the information of tigers killings gaurs but he did not complained about the tigers killing rhinos, which are bigger, stronger and, from my point of view, a true challenge for any predator. However, in the topic of tigers hunting rhinos (I put the link in my previous post) he defended the possiblity agains Shadow, even when rhinos are by no means a regular prey for tigers, not even the calfs. Other thing is that they forgot the lion. Sadly I don't have much information of lion predation like I have of tigers, but certainly it will be good to discuss if a lion can kill a bull African bufallo of up to 900 kg alone. After all, the topic was for both species. Maybe a lion-supporter will have more data about this.
Everything posted is the same old back and forth, weights are estimates and you have no actual data on which carcasses were weighed, what they weighed, what state they were found in and so on.
In regards to the Rhino predation you again are misrepresenting the discussion. We were talking about a calf vs a sub adult. And just like Gaur, Rhino come in many different sizes. No Tiger is killing an adult Rhino without some extroidanary circumstances going on. And Shadow, Pantherinae and I have all gone back and forth on Big Bull capes as well. I've stated the same and shown examples of the differences between a Bull and a big alpha bull. Maybe you should review those discussions to get a better understanding of the differences between the two. (04-18-2020, 08:34 AM)Pckts Wrote: Everything posted is the same old back and forth, weights are estimates and you have no actual data on which carcasses were weighed, what they weighed, what state they were found in and so on. That is the problem with you in this case dude, you say that we don't have actual data but when I put the tables, the pictures, the books, where it shows the state, health and age status of the carcasses, plus the fact that the weights were not simple "estimations" but the result of real carcasses weights plus the amount ate by a tiger (which is no more than 140 kg for a tiger eating 35 kg for a period of 4 days) you just ignore them and your only excuse is YOUR opinion. Like I told you before, you have not provided any evidence to proof that Dr Karanth and Dr Sunquist are incorrect, or to actually show that tigers can't kill bull gaurs up to 1000 kg, you only put your opinion, respected but incorrect. Also, like I say, I don't have to much information about lion predation, so I can't say anything about it, but I will like that other poster can provide usefull data, not only "opinions". I allready read the entire topic of tiger predation on rhinos, and you defended that the rhino was subadult and Shadow that was a calf, but at the end is the same thing, you don't complain about a tiger predating a huge rhino, you accepted those records, so I don't understand why you don't do the same with gaurs?
Ok, here it is, the comparative image of the Bengal tiger and the Indian gaur, with measurements "between pegs" for both species":
 *This image is copyright of its original author The image have the largest specimens recorded, as the request was made. We can see what it looks a tiger of 221 cm in head-body and 114 cm in shoulder height, and also we can see how it looks a gaur of 291 cm in head-body and 192 cm in shoulder height (204 cm up to the hump). Please take in count that in the tiger side I only used the body mass of the mainland specimens, Sundarbans was excluded as gaurs do not live in this region. This relation of sizes remind me this image:  *This image is copyright of its original author Certainly the gaur is big and massive, but is not out of the range of the Bengal tiger. In the case that the record tiger (272 kg) hunted the record gaur (1106 kg), the relation of "predator:prey" will be of 1:4, and remember that some tigresses (average of 138 kg) had been recorded killing bull gaurs, and an average one (837 kg) or even the smallest one (588 kg) may represent a relation of "predator:prey" of 1:6 and 1:4 respectivelly, still a great feat! (04-18-2020, 09:21 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Ok, here it is, the comparative image of the Bengal tiger and the Indian gaur, with measurements "between pegs" for both species": The Sauraha male has a 197 cm body, did you use a different Tiger? Also which one had a 114cm shoulder height? Is the Gaurs dimensions you used have a weight attached? If so, was the 1106kg or a different amount? Thanks for doing it btw. Quote:Also, like I say, I don't have to much information about lion predation, so I can't say anything about it, but I will like that other poster can provide usefull data, not only "opinions".The other stuff will be the same answers but the things quotes I'll respond to: In regards to the Lions, we posted many videos of predation attempts on Bulls and big alpha ones for comparison. The best we can do, but being the open plains of africa the footage is more abundant. The Rhino claim was a 600kg animal possibly more but still a sub adult, not a prime Bull that is full of testosterone and another 300-400kg more at max. A Bull that size has lived through all the tests that come from the wild, its fought many battles unlike a young, untested rhino sub adult. The large male that died with the Rhino was killed by a 20 year old female, still extremely impressive for a Tiger to also kill the Rhino dont get me wrong, but it died in the process. (04-18-2020, 09:47 AM)Pckts Wrote: The Sauraha male has a 197 cm body, did you use a different Tiger? Yes, Sauraha was 197 cm in head-body, but we must take in count that the biggest tiger ever recorded was of 221 cm in head-body "between pegs" (Brander, 1927). The shoulder height of 114 cm came from two tigers, one measured by the Maharaja of Cooch Behar and the other from Mr Fred Shillingford, both taken "between pegs". The tallest tiger recorded by Brander was of 112 cm. Some of them had, but only shoulder heights, and other only horn spread. For example, the heaviest bull recorded (2438 lb - 1106 kg) only shows a the horn spread, which was of 36 inches (91.4 cm), but no other measurement was available. It seems that only the Maharaha of Cooch Behar measured his animals but he did not weighed them. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |