There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
A couple of things I found to be inconclusive about your post
"At about similar body length, Amur tigers are more athletic than Assam tigers. Male Assam tigers are built like tanks, but male Amur tigers seldom exceed 210 kg. Assuming male Amur tigers fight dangerous opponents more often than male Assam tigers (other male tigers as well as bears and wild pigs) and apparently have just about what it needed to survive, the conclusion is a fighter in the world of big cats isn't built like a tank."
I definitely do not agree with this, since there is absolutely no way to determine which is more athletic. I have seen a Assam Tigress leap out of 6ft high, dense grass, to the top of a full grown elephant just to attack a FG.
I have seen a massive male tiger chase down cattle through 2+ feet of water and grass like it was nothing while making sharp cuts.
So obviously the massive cats of Kaziranga (assam) are every bit as athletic as Amurs.
The next is this
"WATER
I read nice stories about swamps, big cats and immense muscles in order to move and hunt in a way enabling a decent income.
While it is true Okavango lions and Assam tigers seem extra large, Sunderban tigers are the smallest today. The Vietnamese swamp tigers in Cochin-China a century ago also were smaller than tigers in other parts of Indochina. Sumatra also has very swampy regions, but the tigers making a living over there were not as large as those in other parts of Sumatra.
The conclusion is water apparently isn't a drive for size in lions and tigers. Maybe swimmers are a bit more robust at times, but they are not larger. There are other factors and these seem more important."
You must remember, trying to compare Kaziranga to SUmatra or China is incorrect, since both live in the most densly human populated and deforested areas in the world. They have no true prey to hunt with any real mass and are having less and less room to raom. Especially in Sumatra since I don't know enough about Vietnamese swamp tigers, but I do know that in old hunting images, I saw some massive vietnamese tigers and heard a few stories about their massive size.
But sumatra has been completely destroyed, check out the "hands on thread" where I posted the people of green peace motorcycling all through Sumatra showing you just how bad it is.
So I do think Water is a huge factor, but so is lots of territory, prey densisty and unmolested forrests. But of course water is going to play a huge role, it is the bringer of life. All animals seek it out, and start famililes around it.
WATER
You wrote comparing Kazirangha with Sumatra, the Sunderbans and Cochin-China (the old name for the southern part of Vietnam) isn't correct regarding tigers and size.
It is, however, a fact that Kazirangha has very large tigers living in swampy conditions, whereas tigers living in similar conditions in the Sunderbans, Sumatra and the southern part of Vietnam (a century ago), sizewise, are right at the bottom. This means water in itself has no effect on the size of tigers. You confirmed in that you introduced human disturbance, deforestation and prey size as factors that could have more impact. Meaning you acknowledged swampy conditions in itself are not. Which was my point to begin with.
After confirming my conclusion in the way described, you decided it was incorrect anyhow. Right.
ATHLETICISM
I said Amur tigers appear more athletic than Assam tigers. You introduced a tigress attacking a mahout and a male tiger running down a smallish cow in swampy conditions to conclude Assam tigers seem every bit as athletic.
My conclusions on athleticism are not only based on numerous accurate and lengthy descriptions of fights between tigers and bears and fights between tigers and wild boars. I also saw documentaries on Amur tigers in which they showed remarkable skills. Skills that underlined they, more so than other subspecies, combine strength with agility, endurance and coordination.
I saw a lot more and everything I saw was confirmed in the books I read. I also talked to trainers about the things I had observed. They acknowledged everything.
Apart from that, I saw four fights. A fight between two male Amur tigers, a fight between a male Amur tiger and a male Indian tiger, a fight between three male Sumatran tigers and a mock fight (there were bars between both animals) between a male Amur tiger and a male lion. What I saw, confirmed what I had concluded before I saw the fights.
The Amur males I saw were 440-460 pounds, maybe a bit more. They moved with great agility, speed, coordination and skill, anticipating movements of their opponent and adjusting with lightning speed. The outcome of fights, all other factors equal, usually is a result of mass, but athleticism and speed are very important in that they enable initiative and a good position. In similar-sized opponents, it is about creating opportunities and the way mass is used.
Would they, athleticwise, outperform larger males (different species included), I asked. Yes, the trainers said. Large animals do not have the ability of less robust, but muscular and fit animals. When a big cat is over 500 pounds empty, weight often (but not always) becomes an issue. That's why trainers prefer smaller animals over giants.
Than you introduced a tigress attacking a mahout and a male tiger running down a cripple in swampy conditions in order to conclude Assam tigers are every bit as athletic. Ok.
CONCLUSIONS
1 - Water. First you acknowledged water in itself has little or no effect on size in that you introduced factors that probably have more impact. After that, you conclude I was incorrect (...).
2 - Athleticism. My conclusions regarding Amur and Assam tigers are based on numerous reliable descriptions, documentaries, personal observations and interviews with trainers and keepers. You introduced an angry tigress and a male chasing a clumsy animal in order to conclude there´s no difference. I really don´t want to invest any time in an answer.
3 - Respect. This thread is about reliable observations and peer-reviewed documents on wild tigers. Information, that is. Not debates. We have a special department for debates. In spite of that, you used this thread to start a debate on collars, which, partly as a result of your attitude, resulted in insult, deletes and a mess. I invested time in a pm. It was on the purpose of debating and the disadvantages of fundamentalism. I also said I want this site to be a good one. You said ok.
You then discredited a peer-reviewed document on the activity pattern of a collared tigress in central India, again provoking a debate in a thread intended for information. After that, you dismissed a conclusion you had first acknowledged. Finally, in order to get the hang of it, you used two observations only to sideline a conclusion on athleticism between different subspecies based on a lot of reading, viewing and talking.
4 - Attitude. After everything discussed above, I get to talking before thinking, zero self reflection, posting against yourself, polluting a thread intended for information, provocative posts and consuming a lot of time. That is without double standards and inconsistency. Yes, I was referring to ridiculing an attempt to discuss unexplained phenomena because of a lack of peer-reviewed documents (scientific confirmation) on one hand and dismissing peer-reviewed documents in favour of opinions in a different thread on the other hand. That was when it suited you, of course. Like in collars and tigers.
This is the second time I'm investing time in a poster apparently not that interested in rules, a good climate, a good site and good advice. It´s also the last time. I hope you are willing to consider the arguments mentioned above and the advice offered this time.
CONTINUATION
This post will remain here, because it underlines this thread is about information, not debates. If you want to reply, ask Tigerluver, Apollo or Sanjay to move a copy of this post to the debate thread. Don´t expect me over there to reply. I made my point and will leave it at that. My goal is good information and a good site.
~~Would they, athleticwise, outperform larger males (different species included), I asked. Yes, the trainers said. Large animals do not have the ability of less robust, but muscular and fit animals. When a big cat is over 500 pounds empty, weight often (but not always) becomes an issue. That's why trainers prefer smaller animals over giants.
I agee completely. There is an optimum size for big cats. The larger , bulkier monsters sacrifice athleticism and speed for size.
Simple concept, lean muscle trumps bulk.
Amur and Kaziranga Tigers - Habitat and Prey Analysis
