Tiger Predation

[peter]

(06-07-2021, 02:55 AM)Apex Titan Wrote: @peter 

Quote:Indian tigers, apart from specialists involved in large herbivores (wild buffalo and gaur), are mainly deer hunters (cheetal and sambar).

I'm not trying to start a debate, so don't take my words the wrong way, or take this personal, but this statement is clearly incorrect. Tigers preying on large herbivores like gaur and wild buffaloes has nothing to do with individual "specialists". Tigers as a species are big game hunters. Numerous studies on tiger predatory behaviour ( Seidenstecker, Karanth, Schaller, Sunquist etc ) and habits consistently show that tigers always go after the largest prey animals. i.e. Gaur, Banteng and wild buffalo, wherever their abundant. - General tiger predatory behaviour.

Even the small Javan tigers weighing only 100-140 kg regularly preyed on banteng and killed huge banteng bulls weighing 800 - 825 kg. ( Seidenstecker )

The only reason why most tigers are "mainly deer hunters" is because majority of tiger reserves are devoid of large herbivores like gaur and wild buffalo, and in some reserves the populations of these bovines are very low making them insignificant, so tigers then have to settle for smaller prey like deer and wild boar. But wherever large herbivores like gaur and wild buffalo are abundant, tigers ( Bengal and Indo-chinese tigers ) routinely hunt and kill the adults of these wild bovines.

I have the sources and evidence if you want to see it?   

@tigerluver 

I have 4 PM messages but I can't read them because I don't have access to them. Why is this?

From the bottom up.

The reason you can't read PM's is you're on the list. You can contact Rishi to fix the problem, provided you promise to quit making your point in the way above. I'm referring to using extra black and interacting by using statements only. You're not dealing with dogs, morons, half-wits and rookies. This way of interacting can only result in a yes-no/black-white/agreed-disagreed type of communication. The most likely outcome of interacting in this way is animosity. We don't want that over here and you know. When interacting, you use arguments, logic, reason and good information. 

Example. If you would have said wild tigers today hunt small animals only because of a lack of large prey animals, I would have agreed immediately. If you, however, dismiss research out of hand (I'm referring to the fact that tigers, as a result of 'empty' forests and poaching, often have no option but to hunt smaller prey animals in quite many regions in southeast Asia) and add a serious poster and co-owner of a forum only watches pics to get to an opinion, you can expect trouble, if not an outright ban. 

Something else. The Amur tiger thread has reopened. Our member 'Nyers' said he succeeded in contacting Alexander Batalov. He added he's prepared to translate questions into Russian and send them to Batalov. Quite an opportunity for a member referring to Batalov all the time to get to general conclusions on tigers and bears in the Russian Far East, I'd say.

There's a hidden message in the last sentence. Did you see it? Yes, I was referring to you moving from specific to general in tigers and bears. Avoid stepping into the same pitfall as those who said Siberian tigers are very much 'overrated' and those who stated bears are 'too risky' to attack. I'm not referring to posters, but to biologists who have produced quite a few peer-reviewed documents. The advice is to sell your preference and to focus on good info and, in particular, sound reasoning. If you go for fundamentalism and 'educating' those who (seem to) disagree, chances are you'll end up swimming in circles and talking to yourself. 

You got extra credit for finding good info on tigers and bears in the Russian Far East, but remember this already is the second time you was offered good advice on how to interact on a public forum. Meaning the credit was spent. From now on, you're on your own. Good luck. Reply