ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - B - THE LION (Panthera leo)

[peter]

(11-14-2016, 12:04 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: @peter @GuateGojira @tigerluver

I want to know your feedback about Waverider's investigation on the alleged 272 kg Kenyan lion.

http://carnivoraforum.com/topic/10364052/7/

ABOUT THE SERIES ON THE KENIAN LION

When riding the waves, he is at his best. When not, it's very different. WaveRiders doesn't understand that energy invested in degrading others can only backfire. I'm not the only one who got to this conclusion (referring to Chui), but it had no effect. WaveRiders isn't interested in interaction. His department is judgement.  


THE KENIAN LION SHOT IN 1993

A year ago or so, one of our members posted about a captive male lion of 252 kg. (557 lbs.). I wrote about a male of similar size in Berlin a few years ago. Some decades ago, Dr. P. van Bree measured a captive male. He was 280 kg. (618 lbs.) and 300,7 cm. in total length in a straight line (head and body 216,7 cm.). Dr. van Bree told me it was a giant in all respects. And then there is the white Timbavati male I saw in a Dutch facility a decade ago or so. He was 273 kg. (603 lbs.). Both giants were as fit as they come. In short: there's no question that some captive male lions can be very large.

Can wild lions reach a similar size as some of their captive relatives? Stevenson-Hamilton saw a wild male of exceptional size and V. Mazak ('Der Tiger', third edition, 1983, pp. 196) reported about a male of 583 pounds shot in South Africa in 1865. Animals of that size, as V. Mazak stated, are few and far between. I've plenty of books written by experienced hunters. Only very few of these exceeded 9.6 (289,56 cm.) in total length (measured in a straight line) and, say, 500 lbs. (226,8 kg.). Tables published by biologists confirm that a male lion exceeding that mark is exceptional.    

As to the Kenian lion. The work he did was great.  

   
WAVERIDERS

I know you read all my posts. This paragraph is for you. My advice is to read it well. I'll start with the criticism on this forum typical for many of your posts in your Carnivora thread.

a - In your series about the Kenian lion, you wrote the owners of WildFact offered preferenced moderators, and one in particular, a stage to misinform the public. It is true Guate expressed doubts regarding the large Kenian lion. The reason is the same as the reason Stevenson-Hamilton mentioned in his book: 

" ... Possibly the extinct lions of the Cape and of North Africa may have a attained a much greater size, but I must say that today, without ruling out the possibility, I should regard any African lion which fairly measured between uprights from point of nose to end of tail anything over ten feet as something so remarkable as to demand more than a mere newspaper photograph ... " (Wild Life in South Africa, Panther edition of 1957, pp. 149).

His book was first printed in 1947. Today is 2016. I propose to substitute 'anything over ten feet' for 'very large' and 'a mere newspaper photograph' for 'detailed information'. What Stevenson-Hamilton said was any male lion over 9.6 (289,56 cm.) in total length and 500 pounds (226,8 kg.) was out of the ordinary in his day. So much so, he would demand more than a report only. This from a man who had measured about 150 lions himself.  

The question is if the information about the Kenian giant met the threshold. Apart from the fact that it was delivered by someone with a degree, the answer is no. This means that those interested in measurements had the right to question the information about this particular lion. You answered most of the questions. Does this mean that those who asked questions 'misinformed the public'? The answer is no. Guate did what any researcher should do. Same for the forum owners.  


b - Now for something different. About 6 weeks ago, a forum member told me you were at it again in that you targeted the owners of WildFact for spreading misinformation about the size of lions and tigers. They were, in fact, dismissed as 'deliberate cheaters': 

" ... but if an animal forum owner ... claims ... that his website reports ... accurate information only, ... while this is clearly not to be the case ... this forum owner ... is a deliberate cheater ... (from a paragraph called 'Historical and sometimes still present misconceptions concerning body size and weight comparisons between tigers and lions).

In that paragraph, you also wrote " ... In general Peter and GuateGojira have a tendency to bend statements by scientists, misunderstand or misinterpret statements by scientists ... ".

Initially, I intended to respond. Later, I decided against it. The reason is I didn't want to contribute to what I saw: a prime example of self destruction. What you have to remember is it isn't about proving that 1 and 2 are equal. What readers, your supporters apparently included, see foremost is a man adding new dimensions to what has to be quite a grudge. My guess is they also saw preference, double standards, logic working in one direction only and, foremost, a total lack of control and overview.

The preference part is clear. Same for the result (unsound conclusions). As to the double standard department. Here's two examples.

One. You and Warsaw moved heaven and earth to prove that Amur tigers, Indian tigers and Nepal tigers are measured 'over curves' and not 'between pegs'. Fact. The information on the size of wild Amur tiger, as a result, was adapted. In WildFact. Fact. But not in Carnivora. Fact. Every time the Amur tiger is introduced for a new contest, one can read that wild Amur tigers are measured in a straight line (...). My advice is to contact your boss.    

Two. You wrote we have the tendency to bend statements of scientists. Any details? Yes. It apparently had something to do with Sunquist, Kitchener and Yamaguchi. Talking' Chitwan tigers here. For those unfamiliar with the story: 

Mel Sunquist was in Royal Chitwan to study tigers in the seventies of the last century. Seven males averaged 235 kg. (520 lbs.). Some time later, they were adjusted to 488 lbs. (221 kg.). One of them, the Sauraha tiger, bottomed a 500-pound scale. After Sunquist had left, the Sauraha tiger was weighed again. That time, he bottomed a 600-pound scale. Sunquist later wrote he was at least 261 kg. (576 lbs.). Many years later, Kitchener and Yamaguchi wrote the Sauraha tiger might have been 218 kg. (481 lbs.) only (...). 

This means that a tiger bottoming a 600-pound scale was reduced to 481 pounds (a). It also means Kitchener and Yamaguchi reduced, if not dismissed, a peer in a peer-reviewed document (b). Did they have a sound reason? The answer is no.  

How did the poster who accused others of bending statements, cheating and misinforming react? The one who raged for many pages about a biologist who was questioned by posters? You, I mean. The answer is you didn't care one bit about Sunquist. In fact, you used Kitchener and Yamaguchi to underline your point about tigers. Meaning it wasn't about a principle after all, was it?  

A few pages further on, you wrote that the two Nepal tigers who bottomed a 600-pound scale could have been weighed with the bed equipment (...). What's next, WaveRiders? A post of 9 pages about a researcher stepping on the scale when the Chitwan tigers were weighed?                 
                           

c - When you joined WildFact, I wrote you could be an asset. I didn't change my opinion, but it's clear you need to solve a few, ehhh, problems. When you join a forum, you do so to interact. Every time you decide for a crusade, you destroy a lot more than your credibility.   

My advice is to start posting about your experience. You could also do something with the information on size. Last but not least, you have to remember everything we do is about the natural world. Not us. Wild animals need all the help they can get. What they don't need, is a free for all between those interested in them. Reply