WildFact
›
General Section
›
Debate and Discussion about Wild Animals
A Discussion on the Reliability of Hunting Records
A Discussion on the Reliability of Hunting Records
|
A Discussion on the Reliability of Hunting Records
|
Hunting records have been regarded controversially since the dawn of the "scientific" era. Many doubt whether a sport whereby larger game is desired can produce accurate figures.
At the same time, the "scientific era" has failed to provide morphological information on many species, such as tigers, lions, bears, elephants, and bovids, in an amount as great as records of past hunters. It leaves us with the difficult question on whether or not to accept hunting records. To best answer this question, this thread is for the discussion of different hunting records of any species. You are welcome to discuss specific records as well as general ideas regarding this topic. 
I agree, the old records have a great value. Some modern scientists do not share the same idea on them (Yamaguchi and Karanth, among others), but they can't discard them because they also don't know how they were taken and they would be assuming things that do not happened.
Records like those of Brander, the Maharaha of Cooch Behar, Hewett, Hunter and Burton, among a few others, are highly reliable sources, very accurate, and has been well documented. @Pckts, correct me if I am wrong, are this weighs the ones that you quote? 1. Ustad - 240 kg. 2. Jai - 220 kg. 3. Sariska-1 (male) - 220 kg. 4. Gabbar - 185 kg. Could you post the email about the weight of Jai? It will be used for the reference of the weight in the tables.  (11-04-2015, 11:46 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: I agree, the old records have a great value. Some modern scientists do not share the same idea on them (Yamaguchi and Karanth, among others), but they can't discard them because they also don't know how they were taken and they would be assuming things that do not happened.Most scientists will not accept hunting records for the following reasons: 1- Old records with varied methods that could not be verified, and are prone to individual errors. 2- The absence of peer- review or independent verification by a third party , a hunter could exaggerate the size of its trophy and who is there to verify? 3-When royalty and nobility were members of the hunting party the records , the local ruler/governor/maharaja/chief attempted to please their guests by exaggerating the size of the animals they shot. So yes scientists will have issues with records of 390. Kg tigers and 384 kg lions..these animals do not exist ..they would not be able to hunt...when the record is almost twice the known size of the animal it is definitely not likely to be true. Having said that some hunting records are more reliable and can provide a general idea and guide lines when no scientific records exist, the tranqualization and collaring of animals and subsequent measurement taking is not without danger, some animals die of over dosing with the tranquilizer/ hypnotic medication, others of hypothermia or hyperthermia, one tiger even drowned when was semi tranquillized so some governments banned that practice or restricted it ( India ) . I have seen Ngorongoro crater lions with my own eyes and have seen videos of Assam tigers and both are massive but sadly no records or few records mean that nothing becomes a scientifically accepted fact before it is measured, demonstrated, proven, and reviewed.
@Dr Panthera
Respectful rebuttals to your points. 1- The method problem department really stops at length. There's only one way to weigh something. 2- Modern peer-review process doesn't care about the data points either. It's the entire scope of the work reviewed, not whether you weighed your cat perfectly. 2 and 3- @peter also has thoroughly touched on how hunters had a lot to lose if they were caught exaggerating records. In such a competitive sport, the big ones would be questioned by your competitors. Also note that hunting record tigers are on average lighter than our modern records. So I wouldn't think much tampering had been done. The only hunting record regarding tigers that is questionable is the 384 kg specimen. A 320 kg tiger of Smythies is very possible, albeit the very high end. Keep in mind that in Smythies' tiger's region, in scientific record, we have 2 +/- 270 kg tigers, if what I learned about Nuna and Island Bhale is true, make that 4. Same for lions, we have a few cases of ~250 kg cats, 300 kg would eventually be reached by the freakishly large one. 3- Tigers and lions (cave lions) well of 400 kg existed and were morphologically viable. If you mean the prey base wouldn't be enough, for one specimen it would be, but not for a whole population. Yes, for a modern tiger 380 kg is insane, but once every thousands of generations, it isn't out of the question, like a 8 foot human isn't out of the question. (11-06-2015, 05:30 AM)tigerluver Wrote: @Dr Panthera Sorry I was not clear there, yes of course only one way of determining mass ( weighing the animal, versus determining length over the curves versus between pegs ) what I mean is that the scales , their accuracy, and calibration showed a huge degree of variation , in the 19th century as far as I know there was no standardization of equipment, even in the same hunter book he would use different types of scales at different times. A peer review of any scientific work will question data that may seem novel, unclear, or contrary to previous finding, of course with the emphasis on the entire thing. I will not paint all hunters with same brush some were men of integrity and their records seem reasonable others were dubious, most hunters though selected for large specimens ...at that time if you could shoot a 500lb tiger or more would be a better trophy than a 400 lb , so hunting records are biased towards larger animals when selection was an option and can not be taken to represent the whole population, a simple example: in the area where I live in Canada the average weight of white tailed deer bucks killed in traffic accidents is around 150 lbs...those who are killed by hunters 225 lbs ...in Niassa the radio collared male leopards were significantly smaller than the trophy hunted leopards. Historically when both lions and tigers numbered in the hundreds of thousands massive cats were more likely than nowadays, the reduction in all resources favor more adaptable smaller size and we see that in the sundarban and indochina. How many 8 foot humans have you met? Exactly!!! We may also see a few seven foot tall guys out there but an average tall guy will be 6 to 6'4" , this is like bringing the average height of the NBA players and say this is the average American . Of course possible but highly selective and not representative of the whole population. I totally understand the scientific community reluctance of accepting hunting records, at the same time I do not discount these records as fabrications they can provide important historical data and can help with the study and conservation of animals particularly when modern scientific data are limited. As you mentioned when hunting records and modern data show similar sizes for Bengal tigers now and then ( and the same with African lions) but the same records show higher historical sizes for Amur and Indochinese Tigers and Asiatic lions than we can deduce and consider the genetic factors and environmental factors that caused that and so on. Finally I thank you for your input and interest
I agree that pre-20th century data are likely iffy. However, the 1900s are quite close to us in methodology. They had fully functioning cameras, scales, and a sense of uniformity when providing data.
The hunter bias is a possibility, but it goes back to the my original point. Hopefully, in a sample of say 10 cats, one can hope only 1 has been tampered with. Again, hunted Bengal tigers actually seem a bit smaller, so I don't think it is an issue. The Amur database was around 7-9 I believe in Kerley et al., so any tampering would hurt there. However, these researchers were okay with such records. No where did I insinuate that the extreme freaks are representative of a population. Really, what do we consider "representative" of a population when an average cat is more of an ideal type than a reality anyhow. The idea of an average is very much just to give us a new measure of the world in a sense. Our lack of experience with an 8 ft. human does not change the fact that they did exist. The ticket to the modern king of giants in cats has probably already been used for the next generations in our lifetimes, so we'll never see it, but back to the aforementioned point. The reduction in felid population is an interesting one in terms of size. The relationship between size and density is a strong one, as a well as a resources cofactor. For most endangered, the density is likely lower than before, so the relationship would predict an increase in size, however, you're right that the resources would likely change that. We could separate this discussion into a new thread, as I think we're getting off topic now. Let me know if you guys would like to start a new thread on the validity of hunting records. (11-06-2015, 04:28 AM)Dr Panthera Wrote: Most scientists will not accept hunting records for the following reasons: In fact, I think that some scientists, not all, don't accept the hunting records because they have that "professional jealous" to they job too. After all, they also have a little pride on they work as it takes time and consume resources. About the points here, I will focus on the few reliable sources that I quoted, which are Brander, Hewett, Cooch Behar, Hunter and Burton. This doesn't mean that other sources are not reliable, but this ones quoted here is regarded as the highest reliable in the zoologist documents of the first part of the past century. 1. Yes, there are several methods to measure cats, but the reliable sources clearly stated the methods used and even the difference between them. Is very important to state that even among modern scientists, there are variations on they methods to measure cats, some of them following a complete straight line (Sunquist and probably Karanth) and others presing the tape in some points (Miquelle). 2. Yes, some sportmen could exagerate they records, but his is very doubthfull for the sources that I quoted before. Why? Well, they have large samples of specimens and if we read they documents, we can see that they hunt the first tiger that they could get, they did not select specimens and they also included not-fully-grow tigers in they samples, which cause a decrese in the figures. The peer-review process, like @tigerluver stated, is somewhat biased more to the form and not to much to the content. I have saw many mistakes in peer-review documents, so I ask myself, what are these people reading? Please, don't get me wrong, peer-review is the basic process for scientific papers, but it is not 100% free of mistakes. 3. It is a common idea that specimens hunted by the royalty are exagerated per se, because they want to please they guesses. This could be true in many cases, but in the case of the sources quoted by me, they just hunted the first tiger they could get, they don't use baits and finally, they present animals that altough large in some cases, are by no means exceptional (I don't see any 11 ft tiger in any of them records). It is sad that for a few cases of fraudulent measurements, now "all" the records are labeled like that. Using all the sources quoted above, we get records of weights "not baited" of up to 259 kg (at least two estimated at 272 kg, sadly not weighed) and head-body lengths of up to 221 cm between pegs (total length up to 313 cm between pegs). I guess these are the largest reliable sources and the modern scientific papers show the same weight (two of 272 kg in Nepal actually weighed, estimated at 261 kg with equation "empty") although somewhat shorter (204 cm in head-body in Nagarahole, but up to 311 in total length), but we most remember that measurements of other large males like Madla, ar not known yet. So, I think that at least those selected sources are very reliable and came from people with great reputation, Dunbar Brander was fellow of the Zoological Society of London, the Maharaja of Cooch Behar is the main source of anatomical data in old litterature and widely quoted (only the Siberian Tiger Project have data like that of him), John Hewett is also regarded as someone of great reputation and reliability and is quoted by modern autorities. Captain W. H. Hunter makes a great account of his figures and explain what methods he used and Reginal Burton is practically an expert in wildlife in Southern India, and present some of the most reliable and accurate figures. There are other few very reliable figures over there (like Campbell or Morris), but at least these ones are classified by me as the "Great Five" of the old tiger records. Finally, on the extreme figures, I think that the tiger of 320 kg reported by Smythies seems the largest reliably recorded, although certainly it had a serious amount of food; as far I know, most of the Nepal hunts used baits to lure tigers. Sunquist (1981) found that the amount of food that a tiger (male and female) eat in 24 hrs range between 14-19 kg, with one exceptional case of 35 kg reported by McDougal (1977). This suggest a weight as low as 285 kg for the large tiger of Smythies, or between 301-306 kg if it had a normal meal. Specimens like the giant Bachelor of Powalgarh suggest that weights of c.290 kg "empty" could be reachable by particularly giant specimens, these were by no means the norm, but definetly not imposible. (11-07-2015, 12:08 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(11-06-2015, 04:28 AM)Dr Panthera Wrote: Most scientists will not accept hunting records for the following reasons: We also have to say that before the 1960's there was little scientific research done in the wild and most of what was in the literature came from the experience of hunters, but since then there were some great works by Schaller, Sunquist, Seidensticker, McDougal, Dinerstein, Karanth, Bertram, Packer, Hunter, Balme, Rabinowitz, Miquelle, and many others that separated facts from tales. I do agree that records from the twentieth century are more accurate than earlier ones, and the hunters you mentioned have done a good and diligent job in collecting and presenting their records but hunters when tigers and lions were common were selecting the larger specimens, definitely not freakish or highly exceptional but certainly not representative of the whole population, no randomization...I am here to shoot a trophy lion or a tiger...I need to kill a big boy..a territorial male I am not gonna bother with the smaller ones, the past prime members or the young adults....etc. This does not say that all hunters did that, some hunters shot any tiger they saw and had a larger more representative sample that included more tigers than the 10% percentile or so. The good thing is that the averages of the better records for Bengal tigers and African lions is not much different from the averages of prime aged animals measured by scientists nowadays , the staggering differences that we notice with Amur tigers and asiatic lions is likely to be that these two were almost extinct and all the members now are the descendants of less than twenty females. And the discrepancy with the indochinese tigers is probably due to the decline of large ungulates.
The thread is created. Bring whatever records you'd like, and let's examine their reliability.
This was my first topic in the forum: http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-brander-...he-records
Here is summarized the records of three of those "giants" of the old figures of sizes and weights.  Pckts A few comments on your remarks of my post to get to conclusions from my side. Pckts wrote:
“I have a bit of a disagreement with this, how can you assume that all tigers hunted were of the larger size?
To me it makes no sense, once you have a couple of "hunting seasons" the dominate males would most likely be removed. They are the most bold and their territories must be patrolled making their patterns more predictable. After a few seasons you would essentially remove all the dominate males and no longer have any full grown males to impress others.
Essentially, any area hunted can only provide a small % of large males, after that, you will be hunting females, sub adults and the elderly.” The Maharajah Juddha Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana ruled from from 1 September 1932, when 57 years old, to 29 November 1945. His hunting feasts are narrated by Smythies (1942) starting from January 1933, four months after he became the Prime Minister of Nepal (I remind that Nepal was a kingdom till 2008, but the King counted nothing and basically lived imprisoned in his palace since 1846 when the Rana family took power till 1951 when King Tribhuvan was able to escape to India and helped by the newly established Indian government disposed and exiled the Rana family). His predecessor Bhim Shumsher Jung Bahadur Rana ruled from 26 November 1929 to 1 September 1932 taking power when 64 year old. The predecessor of Maharajah Bhim, Chandra Shumsher Jung Bahadur Rana ruled Nepal from 27 June 1901 to 26 November 1929 when he died at the age of 66 years.
For sure Maharajah Chandra loved hunting a lot, not so sure, although presumably yes, about Maharajah Bhim. It could have happened that just in the years preceding 1933, tigers in most Nepalese jungles were not much disturbed if not nearly undisturbed.
If that was the case there is a realistic possibility that the 12 male tigers reported by Smythies (1942) shot in 1933 (9 ones in Chitawan) could have been somewhat selected by the Maharajah shikaris for large size (on average) and not only those ones. In my opinion this sounds logical: I am the just established Maharajah of Nepal since a couple of months, organize my first hunt as a Maharajah, I want to impress and all my shikaris, servants and entourage want me to impress to celebrate my greatness (see comments by Mishra, 2010). Add pristine jungles in Chitawan probably nearly undisturbed for years and the result is that selection for large size male tigers was favoured. 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?
From Mishra (2010)  *This image is copyright of its original author Note that the 8 male tigers shot between 14 January and 20 January 1933 in Chitawan measured between 3000 mm to 3277 mm in total length over curves, the last male shot in that hunt on 22 January 1933 in Chitawan measured 2845 mm, and the 3 ones shot elsewhere (in N. Muluk) on 24, 26 and 29 December 1933 measured 2743, 2819 and 2845 mm. 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.
Pckts wrote:
“So, I am all for using the un-adjusted weights for any cat, over subtracting an inconsistent poundage based on our own interpretations. If one wishes to note that the cat ate very recently or not, that is fine but it shouldn't automatically be used to subtract 30 kgs for every cat weighed or measured.”
If you want to inflate tiger weights significantly more then 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 talked / talk about adjusting weights I have nearly invariably primarily talked of adjustments on the average weight of samples and not on the weight of single individuals. 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 even pure speculation, but assuming the heaviest individuals in particular, but not only, were most likely at empty stomach or close is foolish in principle.
In my previous post I reported the following excerpt from Corbett (1944)
“Wyndham, you will remember, said the tiger was ten feet between pegs, which would give roughly 10' 6" over curves; and while one shikari said he was 10' 5" over curves, the other said he was 10' 6" or a little more. Shot seven years after these estimates were made, my sister and I measured the tiger as being 10' 7" over curves."
Pckts wrote:
“A tiger can grow quite a bit in 7 years.”
Any possible growth of the Bachelor in those 7 years has no relationship with the sentence I put in bold black (now underlined) and related to the contest I wanted to highlight: you only need to read “Wyndham, you will remember, said the tiger was ten feet between pegs, which would give roughly 10' 6" over curves”.
Pckts wrote:
“There are 7 billion people in this world, probably 1% are over 7' and less than that have reached 7.5' or more. Just because these "freak" specimens don't occur in bulk they still occur. A 700lb tiger is certainly not some mythical weight for an animal that averages 470lbs, its very possible and has occurred already. Whether you're willing to accept that or not is a different story.”
1% of world population (including children, females and elder people) over 7'? Over 70 millions (EDITED) people over 213 cm high? Where do you live?
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.
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.
For now I can anticipate you that in the last 200 years since the very beginning of the 1800s I estimate less then 4-6 millions wild tigers in the whole of Asia reached subadulthood and adulthood including males and females. This would translate in less then one million adult male tigers of the 4 largest subspecies to be existed in the last 200 years, meaning no more then half a million in India, Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh.
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 (not including Sunderbands and Naga Hills). This probability is low although still quite realistic and can raise some excitement if not knowing some basic concepts of statistics and probabilistic calculation in mathematics: the theoretical probability I can compute drops to one animal of 11 ft 6 inches every 3500-7000 adult male Bengal tigers. Guess how much would be the theoretical probability of an animal of 12 ft? One every some 300000-800000 (300-800 thousands), which probably cover more then all Bengal, Amur, Caspian and Indochinese wild adult males existed in the last 200 years. And one Bengal adult male tiger measuring 12 ft 6 inches in total lengths over curves (properly measured)? One every some 50-300 millions, clearly statistically meaning that such a tiger did theoretically not even exist during the whole of the 10000 years of Holocene anywhere. If I have to add any comments, in my opinion all the above indicative theoretical probabilities are if anything likely even optimistic.
Based on ecological and biomechanical constraints the reality is that I believe a 11 ft 6 inches over curves wild tiger has a very much unlikely / non-realistic probability to have existed in Holocene (when properly measured in the flesh as they laid according to the methods of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar, Corbett, Hewett, Brander, Stockley, Champion and so on) if not under an exceptional combination of an absolutely extremely long head-and-body such as the one of the Brander’s largest tiger (theoretical probability 1 individual every ca. 700 to over 25000 adult males) and an exceptionally long tail. No reliable reports of such a combination exist to my knowledge.
You may know about the Vietnamese monster tiger shot by Baze weighing 570 lb (258.5 kg) and measuring over curves 11 ft 6 inches (3505 mm) in total length, 7 ft 2 inches (2184 mm) in head-and-body and 4 ft 4 inches (1321 mm) in the tail. As I do know that a few other very large Vietnam tigers have been reliably and accurately measured (the largest from White measuring 10 ft 7 inches, 3226 mm, in total length over curves with a massive skull given at 15.5 x 11.5 inches, 393.7 x 292.1 mm), I am inclined to consider and have always considered in principle acceptable the head-and-body length of the largest Baze tiger. As far as the total length and tail length are concerned I do believe that accepting these figures would include in the statistics a clearly spurious data. Which other tail comes just reasonable close to such a tail length? Absolutely nothing. Again I can suggest that on the basis of existing hunting records in which tail lengths appear generally significantly shorter then what modern scientists are measuring on wild tigers of equivalent size (I already highlighted this issue of much likely inconsistent tail root definition last year in Carnivora forum and likely elsewhere previously), the probability of occurrence of a tail measuring at least 1321 mm in a tiger population of Bengal tiger body size is one every some 500000000 (five hundred millions) adult males. My conclusion on the tail and consequently the total length of the largest Baze tiger? Inevitably rejected also because the probability would still be as low as 1 every some 4 millions or so adult males on the basis of Bengal tiger tail lengths measured by modern scientists (significantly longer).
I give you some more headaches.
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, but the population number approximately halves or more. In Central India the theoretical probability drops to one every some half a million and in Southern India even quite less then that. I believe such an unbalance was unlikely and it is possible that the probability in North India and Nepal could actually be lower while the ones in Central and Southern India higher. You may like to know how much is the theoretical probability of occurrence of the weight of the wild tiger shot by D. Hasinger allegedly claimed 857 lb (388.7 kg) non-adjusted? One animal every at least one billion and more then likely a few billions adult male Bengal tigers!
Let’s assume that the average amount of stomach contents in historical adult male Bengal 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 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.
Bear in mind that my probability calculations could inevitably be somewhat revisited as dealing with tiny fractional probabilities within an inconsistent, non-homogeneous and possibly not particular accurate and reliable sample is difficult. However I believe any re-computation would not affect the qualitative meaning of the results and the conclusions one can extract.
Pckts wrote:“I see nothing you posted that would back this claim.” 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. Pckts wrote: “The reason one might consider this is due to your history, the scrutiny you put on these measurements would be fine if you put the same scrutiny to lions. From what I see, you never question a lion weight or length, never dive into what should be considered valid and who nor do you ever question the hunters of them. At least from what I have seen that is.” What do you want me to question about morphological or ecological data of lions, bears or other animals? Feel free to ask. Did I state something somewhat unrealistic on lions, bears or other animals? Feel free to let me notice that. The only major topic I cannot discuss in details is the Ngorongoro Crater lions body size (chest girth) and estimated weight and I already explained why several times: virtually all data (chest girths) are unpublished and I cannot release those info and data I have in my possession. However Dr. Packer qualitatively already stated quite a lot and it is not difficult to get to some qualitative conclusions. Pckts wrote: “Many captive big cats weigh right in the prime range of their wild counterparts. You should know as well as anyone, tigers and lions have a large variation of weights even with in the same territories.” I meant another thing, which is myself wondering when a small child why I could not see anywhere a living tiger measuring any close to 4 meters. The answer is obvious. WaveRiders 
@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.
The move is done. Be civil and no insults, please.
@Pckts, @WaveRiders, tagging you two so you guys specifically know where to look for your posts. Peter, Tigerluver and Pckts
I thank you for the opportunity, but it was not at all my intention to start a lengthy debate. In my post dated 31 March 2016 I wrote to Peter “So here I am after over one year, briefly as an intention, as not wanting to disturb your thread and the flow of the information you are posting.” My by far major aim was to clarify from my side the issue concerning Nepalese people.
In my last post moved to this thread “A Discussion on the Reliability of Hunting Records” I wrote I was going to make conclusions from my side with some comments to Pckts’s previous post. I could have possibly done the same with respect of Peter’s previous post replying to me. Not really necessary.
I have clearly been wrong and/or unsuccessful in regarding anticipating possible conclusions discussing with Pckts. I am afraid this could, to a different extent and partly for different reasons, be the same if replying to Peter. I could not be myself blameless, but I noticed in the replies either lacking full understandìng of several of the concepts I expressed (not necessarily a blame on anyone when just unaware of what I am talking) and/or circling the clear points I raised, not answering straight to them or bending them to some extent. I understand this can be part of the game, but I am not interested and have time for it and this kind of debates. I will never be. This can only produce unnecessary lengthy, exhausting and boring debates in which I do not want to take part.
I have nothing more to add, at least for now.
WaveRiders
WaveRiders
I thought I saw a bit of disappointment in your last post and decided to respond in order straighten things out. Here's a few points that need to be remembered. 1 - The responses to the tables in my posts on tigers in northern India and Nepal were appreciated I had two reasons to post the tables. The first reason was to contribute to the exchange of information. This is one of the great advantages of the internet. It's so important, I decided to post information I intended for the book. The second reason was my interest in feedback. It is a fact you responded in detail. In this respect, I most certainly wasn't disappointed. This is important to remember. Same for PC. 2 - There were good reasons to conclude the debate on Nepal tigers in the tiger-extinction thread When I started on the extinction-thread on tigers some years ago, the aim was to create a place where those interested in wild tigers would be able to spend a few hours. In order to get there, the focus had to be on tiger ecology. The best way to get to decisions on what should be in and what not is to read. Every now and then, I enter the thread somewhere and start reading. I'm quite happy about the result so far, but it is a fact that debates at times resulted in loss of focus. Discussions should be to the point and short. After arguments have been presented, one should move forward. As to the debate on Nepal tigers. You confirmed the conclusion on total length measured 'over curves', but added the tables could have been somewhat distorted as a result of selection and also had some doubts on the 705-lbs. tiger shot in Chitawan. You presented your arguments and I responded. We didn't get to a conclusion, but this was to be expected. An opinion generally is a result of hard work. For this reason, it is not easy to convince those who invested time. I don't consider it a problem. The thing to remember is we did enough to enable readers to get to a conclusion. 3 - There are good reason to continue the debate Although it may seem different, I think the debate on methods and measurements is interesting. Digging in often produces good results over time. Here's what was achieved so far. 3a - All involved in the debate now know biologists measure big cats 'over curves' and not 'between pegs'. 3b - It's also clear that the method used to measure big cats can be applied in slightly different ways. The result is confusion. One could debate the issue, but one could also conclude the method used today, as was concluded a century ago, is unreliable. 3c - Although biologists seem to disagree, the debate on methods strongly suggests measurements of today's big cats can be compared to measurements taken in the same way a century ago. The advantage is insight. 3d - Today's tigers, although maybe a bit shorter than a century ago, could be as heavy, if not heavier. The question is why. One factor could be protection. 3e - The information provided by Smythies and a few others suggests male Nepal tigers could have been the longest big cats about a century ago. The large size of Nepal tigers was confirmed by Sunquist half a century later. He added that Chitawan male tigers averaged about 235 kg. (520 lbs.) unadjusted and 221 kg. (488 lbs.) adjusted. One could discuss different issues, but one could also conclude that the information provided by Smythies and Hewett was largely confirmed by recent data. The main problems are sample size and adjustment. 3f - Another issue discussed was maximum size. The Hasinger tiger shot in northern India in the sixties of the last century, at 10.7 'between pegs' and 11.1 'over curves' in total length, might have been the longest in the last 5 decades. What to say about reports of longer tigers shot 1-2 centuries ago? If tigers like the one Hasinger shot existed in a period when they were on their way out, it's very likely there would have been more a century ago. Would these exceptional animals have been longer and heavier as well? My take is some of the tigers shot in the period 1750-1850 roughly could have ranged between 11-12 feet in total length 'over curves'. There was a marked decline in size between 1860-1900. This regarding India and Nepal. Annam also produced tigers of exceptional size and there are many records of Amur tigers exceeding even 12 feet in total length 'over curves'. Although all reports were dismissed, it doesn't mean tigers of exceptional size never existed. The problem is there is no way to get to confirmations good enough to meet the threshold of today. Your conclusion on tigers exceeding 11 feet 'over curves' are based on data that meet the threshold of today. The problem is the database is very small. Another problem is it doesn't have information on tigers shot 2 centuries ago, as all old records were dismissed by biologists. What I'm saying is your computations can only result in a confirmation of the message that has been broadcasted over and over in the last decades. It's the same message most hunters had a century ago regarding shorter (10 feet) tigers. There is, however, no question that tigers of 11 feet 'over curves' and slightly over have been shot in the period 1900-1940. Assuming the decline in size started after 1860, one could just as well make a case for longer tigers in the period they were hardly hunted. Also remember that larger populations produce relatively more, and more pronounced, exceptions. 4 - A debate can only be productive if those opposing each other remember debates shouldn't result in animosity Those interested in debates would sign a contract with this message in order to participate. The problem is living up to it when it matters. Many debates derail as a result of resentment, accusations and all the rest of it. When debating, preference and clashes just can't be avoided. One has to learn how to deal with it. The point to remember is it is about the result in the end, not personality. The rest will be forgotten. I propose to continue the debate. If we focus on arguments, results no doubts will be produced. In the near future, I will post a few tables with the largest tigers shot in India and Nepal. If we go over all individuals, chances are we will get to a few conclusions. Guate has been busy, but he is interested and will no doubt participate when he has finished reading. Others interested in (the reliability of) hunting records are invited as well. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |