Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers

[Roflcopters]

@GuateGojira 

I hope you are doing well my friend, It's been a while since i took any interest in these type of debates. there are a few things that i wanted to address. 

Quote:This male tiger and other two females of 110 kg and 160 kg each (link: https://borneobulletin.com.bn/bhutan-con...esa-tiger/) are the first weights reported from Bhutan. The figures shows animals of normal size, and somehow remind me when the first weights from Amur tigers started to arise. Take in count that the weight of 160 kg includes, apparently, stomach content.

I just wanted to talk about a few things that you consider normal and also the stomach content argument that you always bring up, which i feel for the most part is irrelevant.
first, I am going to talk about the male tiger of 6-7 years of age. there's nothing normal about him to begin with, he went on a long term cattle killing spree and he killed 18 cattles to be exact in a one year span. there is a high chance that he was unfit to survive in the wild and was unable to hunt his normal prey item (reasons unknown), perhaps he was pushed out by the more dominant males and was struggling to get by. in India, at least. any male that that has resorted to killing cattle for long term survival was either old, beaten or had a permanent injury of some sort. the 3 year old sub-adult female of 110kg should classify as a normal animal and the 160kg adult female is certainly a big girl. 

Quote:Now, while I am going to focus in these three figures in order to get corroboration of them, I have doubts about all the other figures of measurements and weights presented here. In an old post @Dr Panthera said something very important: most of these "modern" weights are not corroborated by scientists in a document, they are only reports in news papers, webpages or even facebook conversations, which decrease its credibility.

tiger dynamics are very different from every region, for example. India is very involved with tigers in general. there's tons of pages on facebook alone. vast majority of them run by people in the field. for example, Tigers of Kanha, Tigers of Tadoba, Tiger protection society, Tigers of Central India, Claw - Conservation lenses & Wildlife and many others. you can find many park directors, including tiger experts working in the field, chief conservators of the forest among many others. the platform going on is a very idealistic approach where we not only follow tigers on day to day basis but we also learn everything about individual animals. I personally know of more than half a dozen organizations that follow wildfact anonymously. Wildlife Institute of India, WCS India, WCS Russia, WWF, IFAW etc etc. I think it's a very arrogant statement that you made in regards to the credibility of these sources. you don't always need something on a pdf file for you to freely open for it to be true, i think your opinion of credible differs from the rest of us. you can't discredit the hard work of people that go out of their way to reach out to people in the field and provide answers to us. that's not who we are, we're a forum of tiger enthusiasts that are directly involved ourselves. we are the voices of today and will always remain that way but in order for us to survive. we can never discredit our sources. personally I don't think you should be touching the tiger weight charts if you are going to be selective about it, you can't cherry-pick what you see as credible. just my two cents. 

Ciao Reply