Login

Pckts · 12-16-2022, 01:19 AM

(12-15-2022, 09:25 PM)Apex Titan Wrote:
(12-15-2022, 09:20 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(12-15-2022, 08:02 PM)Apex Titan Wrote: Pug-mark of a huge male tiger from Northeast China:

*This image is copyright of its original author

14cm pugmarks will belong to a cat anywhere from 190-220kg or so.

You think so? Isn't the average pug-mark of a male tiger around 10.5 or 11 - 12 cm? A 14 cm pug-mark should be a large male tiger.

Average male pugmarks are between 14-17cm

*This image is copyright of its original author

These belonged to Jai who weighed 220kg empty.

*This image is copyright of its original author

You can see without the cast embellishment they’d be around 14.5cm or so

peter · 12-16-2022, 08:19 AM

(12-16-2022, 01:19 AM)Pckts Wrote:
(12-15-2022, 09:25 PM)Apex Titan Wrote:
(12-15-2022, 09:20 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(12-15-2022, 08:02 PM)Apex Titan Wrote: Pug-mark of a huge male tiger from Northeast China:

*This image is copyright of its original author

14cm pugmarks will belong to a cat anywhere from 190-220kg or so.

You think so? Isn't the average pug-mark of a male tiger around 10.5 or 11 - 12 cm? A 14 cm pug-mark should be a large male tiger.
Average male pugmarks are between 14-17cm

*This image is copyright of its original author

These belonged to Jai who weighed 220kg empty.

*This image is copyright of its original author

You can see without the cast embellishment they’d be around 14.5cm or so

PC

It isn't about the width of the complete print, but about the width of the pad of the front foot. How find the width of the pad of Jai?

a - Scale to scale

1 - You need 2 scales: the scale in the photograph (right) and a real scale

2 - My scale says the width of the pad of Jai is 19,8 cm

3 - What is 19,8 on my scale compared to the scale in the photograph?

4 - The answer is 7 cm on my scale compares to 4 cm on the scale in the photograph

5 - Using -4-, the conclusion is 19,8 cm on my scale equals 11,3 cm on the scale in the photograph

6 - The width of the front pad of tiger 'Jai' is 11,3 cm

b - Correlation between pad width and weight

Is there a correlation between pad width and weight in tigers? We don't know. We also don't know if a print left in sand compares to a print by the same male left in fresh snow.

We do, however, know hunters in what used to be British India used prints to distinguish between small and large male tigers. We also know male Indian tiger 'Jai' had a pad width of 11,3 cm. At that width, he was 190-220 kg empty. Finally, we know that a large captive male Amur tiger had a print of 14,1 cm. This tiger was 276-277 kg in his prime (more info in the tiger extinction thread).

As to wild Amur tigers. Biologists and rangers in Russia think there's a correlation between pad width and weight. The pad width of an adult male is at least 10,5 cm.

Small and small average males range between 10,5-11,4 cm (140-169 kg), wheras average males range between 11,5-12,4 cm (170-199 kg). Large males range between 12,5-13,4 cm (200-229 kg). The largest prints range between 13,5-14,4 cm (230-259 kg), perhaps even a bit more (apparently up to 270 kg). Assuming the weights (between parenthesis) are close to the real weights, every mm extra in pad width equals about 3,0 kg (just under 7 pounds) at the level of averages. This also means 1 mm in (pad) width, weightwise, more or less equals 1 inch (2,54 cm) in length (referring to a number of tables I posted in the tiger extinction thread some years ago).

Remember all weights relate to healthy males. Males affected by injuries, disease and starvation can be well below 140 kg. In northeastern China and Russia, where severe winters can last for 6 months or longer, tigers, both young and old, can perish as a result of starvation.

Anything known on the correlation between pad width and weight in wild male Amur tigers? Not much. Batalov, who weighed quite a few bears, thought his favourite male tiger was 160-180 kg. In an article I read later, he referred to a male with a pad width of 12,0 cm or a bit more. That male was larger and bigger. The Chabarowski Krai apparently has quite a few large and robust males. One of them had a pad width of 13,5 cm. In northeastern China, a print with a pad width of 14,0 cm was recently found.

c - Conclusion

I did a series about the correlation between pad width and weight (of wild and captive Amur tigers) in the tiger extinction thread not so long ago. The conclusion was there is a correlation, but it's not known if it's as strong as the correlation between chest girth and weight. All I can say at the moment is large prints have been found in regions that have large tigers (Khabarowski Krai and northeastern China). Not a complete coincidence, one would think.

In India, tigers are found in evergreen tropical forest, the highlands of central India, the floodplains in northeastern India, the foothills of the Himalayas and, in Bhutan in particular, at remarkable altitudes. The old hunters distinguished between Bengal (large tigers with small heads and prints), the highlands (average-sized tigers with big heads and big prints) and northern India and Nepal (big-skulled tigers leaving large prints). I never read anything about the prints of tigers in Bhutan, but do know tigers in the Siwaliks, as large or larger, left leopard-sized prints. Typical for tigers living in elevated regions in India? Tigers in southwestern India are quite large as well. In spite of the serious hills in that part of India, they leave large prints.

The landscape in the Russian Far East (and northeastern China) is more uniform. Americans thought it compares to the Appalachians, but I though I saw more hills. A century ago hunters distinguished between Amur (palish) and Korea tigers (more pronounced colours and a bit smaller), but today tigers in northeastern China and most of the Russian Far East seem to be quite uniform in most respects. Footprintwise, I never read anything about differences between regions.

Captive male Amur tigers average 224-225 kg, 303-304 cm in total length (measured 'between pegs') and 102-103 cm at the shoulder (standing). Exceptional males can reach 280-320 kg, 110-112 cm at the shoulder and 320-330 cm in total length. As a general rule, wild tigers are more developed. Same for Amur tigers. Although perhaps a bit smaller than their captive relatives, they seem more robust in the departments that matter (limbs, chest, neck and head).

Wild male tigers in India, the Russian Far East and northeastern China seem to compare in most respects. Same, as far as I can see, for the correlation between pad width and weight. Do Indian tigers need less size to equal their relatives in Russia and China (referring to weight)? Could be, but one has to remember they have a very different way of life. In India tigers live in well-stocked and protected reserves. In China and Russia, tigers need larger territories. Do they need the mass of their relatives in India?

Padwidthwise, wild male tigers in India, Russia and northeastern China range between 10,5-14,0 cm (up to 14,5 cm). Weightwise, they range between 140-270 kg (possibly up to 300-320 kg). Not very different from the tigers shot a century ago. Meaning the old hunters were right.

Is there a correlation between pad width and weight? Yes, but the effect of factors like age, health and local conditions needs to be taken into account.

Tiger 'Tikhon', at 140 kg only, wasn't small, but very old and thin as a rail. He opposed the proposal for a permanent bed and breakfast, but his teeth were gone and winters in Russia are long and severe. Furthermore, according to the representative of the local dogs, problems that can be avoided have to be avoided at all costs. In the end, 'Tikhon' gave in. But a bed and breakfast in a compound is different from a decent walk, fresh air and good connections. He only lasted a few months.

Pckts · 12-16-2022, 05:53 PM

(12-16-2022, 08:19 AM)peter Wrote:
(12-16-2022, 01:19 AM)Pckts Wrote:
(12-15-2022, 09:25 PM)Apex Titan Wrote:
(12-15-2022, 09:20 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(12-15-2022, 08:02 PM)Apex Titan Wrote: Pug-mark of a huge male tiger from Northeast China:

*This image is copyright of its original author

14cm pugmarks will belong to a cat anywhere from 190-220kg or so.

You think so? Isn't the average pug-mark of a male tiger around 10.5 or 11 - 12 cm? A 14 cm pug-mark should be a large male tiger.
Average male pugmarks are between 14-17cm

*This image is copyright of its original author

These belonged to Jai who weighed 220kg empty.

*This image is copyright of its original author

You can see without the cast embellishment they’d be around 14.5cm or so

PC

It isn't about the width of the complete print, but about the width of the pad of the front foot. How find the width of the pad of Jai?

a - Scale to scale

1 - You need 2 scales: the scale in the photograph (right) and a real scale

2 - My scale says the width of the pad of Jai is 19,8 cm

3 - What is 19,8 on my scale compared to the scale in the photograph?

4 - The answer is 7 cm on my scale compares to 4 cm on the scale in the photograph

5 - Using -4-, the conclusion is 19,8 cm on my scale equals 11,3 cm on the scale in the photograph

6 - The width of the front pad of tiger 'Jai' is 11,3 cm

b - Correlation between pad width and weight

Is there a correlation between pad width and weight in tigers? We don't know. We also don't know if a print left in sand compares to a print by the same male left in fresh snow.

We do, however, know hunters in what used to be British India used prints to distinguish between small and large male tigers. We also know male Indian tiger 'Jai' had a pad width of 11,3 cm. At that width, he was 190-220 kg empty. Finally, we know that a large captive male Amur tiger had a print of 14,1 cm. This tiger was 276-277 kg in his prime (more info in the tiger extinction thread).

As to wild Amur tigers. Biologists and rangers in Russia think there's a correlation between pad width and weight. The pad width of an adult male is at least 10,5 cm.

Small and small average males range between 10,5-11,4 cm (140-169 kg), wheras average males range between 11,5-12,4 cm (170-199 kg). Large males range between 12,5-13,4 cm (200-229 kg). The largest prints range between 13,5-14,4 cm (230-259 kg), perhaps even a bit more (apparently up to 270 kg). Assuming the weights (between parenthesis) are close to the real weights, every mm extra in pad width equals about 3,0 kg (just under 7 pounds) at the level of averages. This also means 1 mm in (pad) width, weightwise, more or less equals 1 inch (2,54 cm) in length (referring to a number of tables I posted in the tiger extinction thread some years ago).

Remember all weights relate to healthy males. Males affected by injuries, disease and starvation can be well below 140 kg. In northeastern China and Russia, where severe winters can last for 6 months or longer, tigers, both young and old, can perish as a result of starvation.

Anything known on the correlation between pad width and weight in wild male Amur tigers? Not much. Batalov, who weighed quite a few bears, thought his favourite male tiger was 160-180 kg. In an article I read later, he referred to a male with a pad width of 12,0 cm or a bit more. That male was larger and bigger. The Chabarowski Krai apparently has quite a few large and robust males. One of them had a pad width of 13,5 cm. In northeastern China, a print with a pad width of 14,0 cm was recently found.

c - Conclusion

I did a series about the correlation between pad width and weight (of wild and captive Amur tigers) in the tiger extinction thread not so long ago. The conclusion was there is a correlation, but it's not known if it's as strong as the correlation between chest girth and weight. All I can say at the moment is large prints have been found in regions that have large tigers (Khabarowski Krai and northeastern China). Not a complete coincidence, one would think.

In India, tigers are found in evergreen tropical forest, the highlands of central India, the floodplains in northeastern India, the foothills of the Himalayas and, in Bhutan in particular, at remarkable altitudes. The old hunters distinguished between Bengal (large tigers with small heads and prints), the highlands (average-sized tigers with big heads and big prints) and northern India and Nepal (big-skulled tigers leaving large prints). I never read anything about the prints of tigers in Bhutan, but do know tigers in the Siwaliks, as large or larger, left leopard-sized prints. Typical for tigers living in elevated regions in India? Tigers in southwestern India are quite large as well. In spite of the serious hills in that part of India, they leave large prints.

The landscape in the Russian Far East (and northeastern China) is more uniform. Americans thought it compares to the Appalachians, but I though I saw more hills. A century ago hunters distinguished between Amur (palish) and Korea tigers (more pronounced colours and a bit smaller), but today tigers in northeastern China and most of the Russian Far East seem to be quite uniform in most respects. Footprintwise, I never read anything about differences between regions.

Captive male Amur tigers average 224-225 kg, 303-304 cm in total length (measured 'between pegs') and 102-103 cm at the shoulder (standing). Exceptional males can reach 280-320 kg, 110-112 cm at the shoulder and 320-330 cm in total length. As a general rule, wild tigers are more developed. Same for Amur tigers. Although perhaps a bit smaller than their captive relatives, they seem more robust in the departments that matter (limbs, chest, neck and head).

Wild male tigers in India, the Russian Far East and northeastern China seem to compare in most respects. Same, as far as I can see, for the correlation between pad width and weight. Do Indian tigers need less size to equal their relatives in Russia and China (referring to weight)? Could be, but one has to remember they have a very different way of life. In India tigers live in well-stocked and protected reserves. In China and Russia, tigers need larger territories. Do they need the mass of their relatives in India?

Padwidthwise, wild male tigers in India, Russia and northeastern China range between 10,5-14,0 cm (up to 14,5 cm). Weightwise, they range between 140-270 kg (possibly up to 300-320 kg). Not very different from the tigers shot a century ago. Meaning the old hunters were right.

Is there a correlation between pad width and weight? Yes, but the effect of factors like age, health and local conditions needs to be taken into account.

Tiger 'Tikhon', at 140 kg only, wasn't small, but very old and thin as a rail. He opposed the proposal for a permanent bed and breakfast, but his teeth were gone and winters in Russia are long and severe. Furthermore, according to the representative of the local dogs, problems that can be avoided have to be avoided at all costs. In the end, 'Tikhon' gave in. But a bed and breakfast in a compound is different from a decent walk, fresh air and good connections. He only lasted a few months.

Pugmarks will generally be longer than they are wide but for the most part they’re usually close to the same length and width and usually that’s based off the pads width measurement.
Jai’s original print was take from hard dirt and his cast image has been trimmed to remove the embellishments of the mud pressed outwards away from the cast as best I could. Also note the angle of the cast, when turned completed horizontal instead of diagonal *the way it’s shown* the differences between width and length almost go away.
The Amur Tigers was in soft snow, the pad measured horizontally and is less than 14cm in the interior and if you were to turn the ruler vertical it would be around that same length, slightly more but not by much when going to the toe, which is normal. At best you’re talking about a pugmark of 15/16 cm x 14cm which is standard sized male. With regards to males reaching above 270kg, they don’t have any real measurements for wild Amur’s reaching that size that I recall. Not that they can’t, there’s just nothing in the modern records that that we can compare. We do have those size obtained with Bengals and some times pugmarks to go with it. And we know of a couple of 20cm pugmarks and the weight obtained by one was 288kg “allegedly” and the other was a big male from kanha which we know produces very large tigers.

In regards to your statement about pugmark size increasing in elevation, that actually was the opposite to what was found with Hicks and he’d actually base the direction to track the Tiger from its pugmarks. Smaller they were he would head up and the opposite if they were large although the males he found higher up on the hills were actually the more muscular beasts. This was also noted to me that the Tigers in the Sarhi zone of kanha tended to be larger than the ones lower down although some of the largest males were reported in Mukki which is lower so go figure.

Pckts · 12-16-2022, 08:58 PM

Here is Dr. Feng largest Pugmark measured: 16.5 - 17 cm wide and 15 cm long.

Possibly belonged to T:26

*This image is copyright of its original author

Similar in length to the male shown in the snow. But again both of these are in soft snow or mud and Feng is measuring to the furthest outside point of each paw as it spreads in the mud so length would be a better option.
Most likely very similar in size to Jai's pugmark so realistically probably a 220kg or so cat empty.

Apex Titan · 12-19-2022, 07:16 PM

Male tiger 'Thunder' :

*This image is copyright of its original author

The young tigress T-80F from Land of the Leopard National Park, marking her scent:

Apex Titan · 12-27-2022, 06:51 PM

Amur tiger and Brown bear:

"Approximately 360 species of vertebrates live in the reserve, among which 61 species are mammals, 244 are birds, 40 are fish, 8 are reptiles, and 7 are amphibians. But the ruler of the Far Eastern taiga, of course, is the Amur tiger."

*This image is copyright of its original author

http://www.anuika.ru/index.php/kultura/k...a-i-slovar

Apex Titan · 12-29-2022, 11:19 PM

Tigers from the Anyui National Park: (Khabarovsk territory)

*This image is copyright of its original author

georgegram · 01-14-2023, 08:15 AM

Leo sighted!

Apex Titan · 01-19-2023, 08:54 PM

Adult male tiger (Image: Sergey Gorshkov)

*This image is copyright of its original author

georgegram · 01-23-2023, 07:32 PM

Amur male:

Apex Titan · 03-02-2023, 07:04 PM

Male tiger: (Russia)

*This image is copyright of its original author

Apex Titan · 03-07-2023, 06:37 PM

200 kg male tiger captured

“Catching by the paw with special traps, although it is the safest way, can still injure the animal. The tiger is over 5 years old and weighs 200 kg, which is more than average. With such dimensions, the risk of injury when falling into a trap increases. With this in mind, it was decided to examine the paw, including using x-rays. Examination showed that the paw was without damage, the edema, which is inevitable during catching, was asleep and everything returned to normal. No other injuries or diseases were found, - clarifies Sergey Aramilev . — Such healthy, literally and figuratively, tigers have never been delivered to a rehabilitation center. For adult animals, getting into an aviary is always a risk, so it was decided to release it back into the forest.”

Read the full report here:

http://amur-tiger.ru/ru/press_center/news/1820/