A Discussion on the Reliability of Hunting Records

[Pckts]

@WaveRiders writes
"Or you want me to believe that the Maharajah Juddha Rana of Nepal went in Chitawan for his first hunt  as a Maharajah after 4 months to shoot small tigers?"


"I do not think it was any difficult to locate in the Chitawan ecosystem of the early 1930s encompassing a few thousands square kilometres less then a dozen adult male tigers larger then average to make the Maharajah more then happy for his first hunt as a Maharajah and everybody be rewarded."

"Note that the 3rd male tiger shot by the Maharajah (the 6th tiger included females) is the one measuring 10 ft 9 inches (3277 mm) and allegedly scaling 705 lb (319.8 kg), a weight I am cautious to accept for a number of reasons I partly already explained.

No male tigers are reported by Smythies (1942) shot in Chitawan from 22nd January 1933 till 5th December 1938 (the 6 males shot in December 1938 ranged 3023 – 3251 mm) and in the last Chitawan hunt at the end of January – mid-February 1939 the 8 males shot ranged 3048 mm to 3251 mm.

All in all I believe there was plenty of room particularly, but not only, for the shikaris of the Maharajah of Nepal to select tigers for size larger then average. No doubt Nepal was a paradise for large tigers particularly before WW2. "


Ok, lets begin.
The hunters don't get to choose what they shoot, they shot what was available. And if you think it's "not difficult to locate" tigers, then you obviously haven't read about tigers. They are shy, elusive creatures that travel vast distances over terrain unsuitable for many creatures, especially human beings.
And my point wasn't that they didn't shoot large tigers, it was that once the largest tigers in the areas are shot, it takes time before another tiger equal of age and dominance can take over. We aren't just talking about 1 4 month hunting expedition, where only 6 tigers were killed, we are talking about the entire hunting records posted by @peter, where double, even triple digit tiger numbers were hunted. Add on the fact that they begin to get desperate to shoot a tiger, any tiger, and you get the functional extinction of that species in these areas. This can be seen with massive decrease in tigers all over the world. There isn't a never ending supply of mature, breeding adult males, you start to get rid of them and you must wait until their juvenile cubs grow to maturity before they can take over. It's not debatable, it's proven time and time again, it's why tiger numbers are down so much now a days.




"If you want to inflate tiger weights significantly more than any other big cats you can do it, but your results, comparisons and conclusions will be incorrect.

Non-adjusted scale weights of Bengal tigers from hunting records as well as from modern zoological studies (at least those of Chitawan tigers, those of Nagarahole tigers and Madla male from Panna) are clearly more inflated upwards on average due to stomach contents then for any other big cats species sample. We know the reason for it (tigers very often baited or located close to a large kill).

Karanth adjusted the weights of the adult male tigers he weighed in Nagarahole NP, India, by nearly 29 kg on average for good reasons. These adjustment have been made for each single individuals (21 kg, 30 kg and 35 kg) based on his experience. If you want to question his experience, this is another story and your problem. Adjustments by authorities with huge field experience are not made randomly. They are based on quite solid background. For lions Bertram (1975) established a belly size index. This “belly size scale” has been used for decades till nowadays by professional zoologists.

When I talk about adjusting average weights (not single individual weights) I have nearly invariably talked of adjustments on the average weight of samples. In a sample of adult male tigers much prevalently baited my best estimates generally range within 14-20 kg, not your alleged 30 kg. Concerning single individuals with no detailed information I agree it can be incorrect if not pure speculation, but assuming the heaviest individuals were most likely at empty stomach or close is foolish in principle."



There is no "inflation" going on, that is the real weight. If you want to only adjust for tiger and no other cat then your results are going to be bias. As to the fact that every other big cat hunts on a regular basis, some are baited others are on kills and some are empty.
Your claim on chitawan tigers being inflated in unfounded as well.

*This image is copyright of its original author

In regards to karanth, he says tigers CAN eat that in a sitting, so the time between meals makes a difference, which is the same for any big cat.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Now, I'd like to see this "belly scale index" you speak of, and if you're arguing that lions and tigers are the same, then lions would be able to gorge themselves the same way and thus the same deduction should be taken into account. But since obtaining a gorged deduction isn't scientific and I can show you numerous experts giving different weights to adjust, it is merely a speculation. Lastly, assuming a tiger or any big cat sits at a bait for 6 hours and consumes X amount of meat is wrong. There are far to many extenuating circumstances that will play a huge roll in what that animal actually consumes in one sitting.
Let also not forget that you're willing to deduct weight but when an animal bottoms out a scale, Like M105, I don't see you adding weight to their total.



"1% of world population (including children, females and elder people) over 7'? Over 700 millions p live?eople over 213 cm high? Where do you live"
70 million actually, and it was simple used an example of the rarity of that occurring in any species, thus being a "freak specimen"

"I also believe you should deeper reflect on the fundamental difference between a freak human that can live with plenty of assistance and become a basket superstar with respect of a freak tiger that must still hunt by himself and eat within quite a difficult environment and mostly nimble preys. In the wild if you do not fit your requests you die."

I think you need to reflect on the morphology of a 7' human being or a 700lb tiger.
7' human beings can play sports, be agile and survive in any environment a 6' person can.
So, if a 600lb tiger can survive in the wild, what makes you think 100lbs more is to much?

Bears far exceed that weight, prehistoric cats did as well, right? So why would you think that is the limit? Obviously you need proper prey base and maybe you're suseptable to a shorter life span since you need more prey to survive and you might struggle with eating enough to sustain your body size, but that would just mean a shorter life span, not a less effective one.

"Should I have time I may post at some point in Carnivora a detailed probabilistic calculation of weights and lengths and how it reflects in the population and any subpopulations of tigers, lions, brown bears and possibly other species of animals. It is not difficult to make such kind of estimates."
I will not read it on carnivora since Taipan decides to ban anybody who disagrees with him. You should post it here if you'd like the ones you're debating with to have a chance to rebuttal.


"Based on historical records pre-1970s and under a few straightforward sensible statistical assumptions I estimate the most likely theoretical probability of occurrence of an adult male Bengal tiger measuring 11 ft in total length over curves (properly measured) at one animal every 120-200 adult males"
First that is a huge gap, second, you'd need to show 120-200 adult male tigers to actually back that claim, 3rd you'd need to prove they were measured the same way (over the curves) and in the same process, which of course is impossible.
Lastly, what tiger locations are you including?


I'm not sure what response you're looking for in regards to tail size? Tails have little barring on tiger weights, some heavy males have notoriously short tails or vice versa, tails can be cut, broken or just short as well. From what I see, 3' seems to be fairly reasonable for a male tiger tail.

"Based on (non-adjusted) historical weight records pre-1970s I estimate the theoretical probability of an adult male Bengal tiger weighing 705 lb (319.8 kg) non-adjusted to be one animal every approximately 20000 (twenty thousands) adult males. Assuming in the early XX century there were 50000 Bengal tigers in India, Nepal, Bhutan, and Bangladesh, there were no more then approximately 7000-10000 adult males at any time, meaning that there could have been one 705 lb non-adjusted adult male Bengal tiger living for one year every approximately 2-3 years on average. If one limits the calculation to North India and Nepal the theoretical probability raises to one animal every approximately 7000 adult males,"

Your demographic numbers are off.
Per @Drpanthera

Resident males per population          0-15%          Mean 7 %
Resident females                             23-67%        Mean 35%
Cubs                                              0-65%          Mean 30%
Large Cubs                                     0-55%          Mean  18%
Transients ( pre and post-territorial)  0-40%          Mean  10%


"Let’s assume that the average amount of stomach contents in historical adult male tiger records pre-1970 is 6% of the empty stomach average weight or some 11-12 kg (my average non-adjusted weight of adult male Bengal tigers Naga hills and Sunderbands excluded is quite consistent to that suggested by GuateGojira at 204 kg). Let’s also assume the exceptionally big 705 lb tiger shot by the Maharajah of Nepal was fully gorged with 40 kg of meat in the stomach and the supposed hyper-gigantic Hasinger tiger with 50 kg of meat. Under this scenario the probability of occurrence in the old days of a nearly 280 kg tiger at empty stomach would be 1 animal every somewhat over 1000 adult males, while the one for a nearly 340 kg tiger at empty stomach would still be as low as approximately one every approximately 10 millions adult males!

One may also argue to narrow the probabilistic calculation to the Bengal tiger subpopulations of presumed largest/heaviest body size (for instance grouping together North India and Nepal as I briefly shown for one example). I also made this calculations and the theoretical probabilities of occurrence of extremely large / heavy animals in some cases raise, but not always when data are quite less spread in a smaller sample in spite of a higher average, actually reducing the probability of occurrence. Furthermore the smaller population number implicates at the end the actual occurrences may not markedly change within a more limited number of individuals."

Once again, you can't have a 1 in X number without having a total number to go off of.
How many Male, adult tigers have been weighed?
From which locations?
What weights in each location?

If you're saying that a smaller population may not contribute to a smaller weight or larger weights being a more common occurrence, that may be true, but it also is deeply flawed.
What contributed to the smaller population?
Was it prey depletion, habitat loss, poaching, sickness, etc.
Because all of those factors will absolutely contribute to smaller sized tigers or less likely to find larger tigers in said locations.
Amur tigers and the sunderbans come to mind.

"You should reflect a bit more on the percentages I calculated of the tigers whose measurements have been reported by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar (1893, 1908), Hewett (1938) and Smythies (1942) compared to the total tigers shot/seen shot by each of them."

Not sure what you're getting at? Your calculated numbers hold no weight over the numbers posted by Peter of all the individuals shot and measured. Which are the only numbers that matter, since they are what we are specifically discussing. Your claims have already been shown to have flaws and the means you go about calculating them are very bias in terms of taking in to account factors that need to be accounted for.


 

"Dr. Packer qualitatively already stated quite a lot and it is not difficult to get to some qualitative conclusions."
I have specifically spoken to Dr. Packer about the crater lions, he only mentions chest girth and says there is no weight of any of them nor does he think serengeti lions are particularly large lions and since the crater lions are from the serengeti, they can only gain so much size. Add on the fact that they were severely inbred and had most of their numbers decimated at one point, shows that there really can't be so much of a difference. It hasn't been enough time for the evolutionary changes needed to create a "super cat.''
What I want to see is the same post on measuring a tiger in a straight line or over the curves done for lions that were hunted or measured. I'd like to see the same scrutiny on whether they were baited, gorged, measured over the curves etc.


Reply