WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
Maximum size of prey that a single male lion or tiger can kill
Maximum size of prey that a single male lion or tiger can kill
|
Maximum size of prey that a single male lion or tiger can kill
|
  (03-22-2020, 04:47 AM)Pckts Wrote: Guategojira I almost forgot to answer this: The use of scats is not related with the calculation of weight, so what is your point? Scats are used to get what species are predated and, IF posible they can try to check the age of the species based in the color of the hair, but that is all. In Schaller (1967) and Karanth & Sunquist (1995) they clearly explained that to get the weights, age and health status they checked the carcases and they WEIGHED them, so your complain about the use of scats is irrelevant in this point. Second, you complain that they weighed the carcasses after the tiger already ate them, but check that the carcasses were no more than 2 or 3 days old and how much meat do you think that a tiger can eat in 3 days? Based in Sunquist (1981) a tiger (male/female mixed) can eat about 46 kg in three days or 15.3 kg per day, but as there is a maximum of about 19 kg for large males, we can see that the amount eat for 3 days will be about 57 kg. And even if we especulate that the tiger ate up to 35 kg per day, the amount will be of 105 kg in the three days (very unlikle). In this case, if the carcasse weighed about 850 kg and they estimated the other 100 kg of more to get the 1,000 kg, they still recorded that tiger do killed male gaurs of over 800 kg, which is a big feat, but this is just a guess and we need to trust these men (Schaller/Karanth/Sunquist) that clearly explained the method that they used and that I clearly showed to you the details, so I don't see the reason why you still complain for they results. You ask for the methods that they used to obtain the data of kills, please check my post again because I put the part where they explained that. You say that "kills are not winessed here", so based in you logic the big bulls of 1,000 kg were just magically dead there every couple of days and the tiger saw them and grab it in the trouth and/or nose and scrach they back just for fun???? Dr Karanth found evidence of strugle and even one of the tigers they they studied died hunting a gaur. The range of 500-1000 kg is about the two sexes, so you can't use it to claim that there are "alpha" bulls and "normall" bulls (a concept that do not exist in sciencific litterature about gaurs). Also I already clearly showed the health status and the age of the prey hunted by tigers, especifically of males, so I am surprised that even after all the evidence you simple ignore all these details. I already showed to you the evidence, the details of the study and serious scientists like Dr Karanth are not going to state something that is not based in real evidence, specially when they actually recorded it. So my vote is for the people that actually saw the events and not the claims of a person that make personall "guesses" about what he/she think that could happen. I think that if after the data showed there are still complains about it, you should contacte them directly. (04-01-2020, 09:38 PM)Pckts Wrote: From Kailash Sankhala And the points is? Shankala do not say that tigers do not kill bull gaurs, he just say that tiger will try to kill the calves, which is logic and was confirmed by Dr Karanth too. The case of the buffalo and the tiger, as far I know it was a tigress and even if she died at the end, she manage to kill the big bull too, which is also incredible. Interestingly Shankala in page No. 97 mention a case of a bull gaur killed by 3 tigers, a tigress and her two adolecent cubs, still a big feat as the effect of the two tiger cubs was probably minimum and was the tigress the one that also probably give the final letal blow, we are speaking of an animal that weight an average of about 130 kg killing a bull that probably weighed 700-800 kg, a relation of 1:6! Shankala did not go deeper in that point, so his observations in the book at least, are limited and of second hand. Now, let's check Schaller and he describes in pages 290-291 this incident: "One tigress at Kanha apparently jumped on the back of an adult bull gaur from a stream bank, bit him in the back of the neck, bearing him to the ground, and then grasped his throat, a reconstruction based on te tracks at the side and the tooth maks of the dead animal". This is a more reliable record as was investigated by Dr Schaller himself and again a tigress (average 130 kg) killed a bull gaur that can weight between 600-1000 kg. He also mentioned a case of a gaur cow that died from injures of an unsuccesfull hunt performed by a tiger (no sex stated). So previous to the study of Dr Schaller and Dr Karanth (in the time of Perry and Sankhala and even before them, for example), very few information existed about the predation of tigers and bull gaurs and although mayority of opinions were in those early days that a tiger was not a match for a bull gaur, except if the great cat hamstrung the big bovid, there were reports of tigers killing big gaurs (posted by @peter). After the study of Schaller and Karanth, scientist discovered that tigers predate on gaurs, that they are biased toward young specimens but that a good percentage included bulls that weighed about 1,000 kg (Karanth & Sunquist, 1995; Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002; Karanth, 2013).
I read Karanth's study, he bases age and health off of tooth ware found in scat and bone health found at kill sites, hardly a conclusive finding.
The arbitrary 1000kg number I assume is actually from Kailash Sankhala book in which he states a "fine bull Gaur can reach 1000kg" and since Schaller worked with Kailash, it's probably fair to say that's where it came from. This is also an example of what I'm considering an "alpha bull." In regards to page 97, he mentions nothing about the adolescent cubs contributing minimum amounts and we've already seen the benefit of having cubs contribute to a kill in Tadoba for instance. (04-05-2020, 06:51 PM)Pckts Wrote: I read Karanth's study, he bases age and health off of tooth ware found in scat and bone health found at kill sites, hardly a conclusive finding. Tooth ware is not found in scats but in the kills. If you think that the methods used by them are "hardly conclusive", then we can see that whatever evidence that we present, you are going to reject it arbitrarily just because, for reasons that I don't understand, you try to deny a fact that is accepted and proved by scientists in the field. The status of the bones, teeth and carcase itself is the best form to get the health and age status of a prey that is already dead, this method was used by Schaller in Kanha, Sunquist in Chitwan and Karanth in Nagarahole and there are other studies in India that used it too. So how is that now, this method widely used by scientists in the field are now "hardly conclusive" based on you? Now I really doubt that you are speaking seriously here. The number of 1,000 do not came from Sankhala, in fact Schaller used a maximum figure of 2,071 lb (940 kg) and you should know that. So the figure of 1,000 kg is not an arbitrary figure, but a calculation using the big bulls found plus the amount that the tigers probably ate, this type of calculations are just like the ones used with the Nepalese tigers that botomed the scales of 600 lb in Nepal or the polar bears that bottomed scales of 800 kg. This are reliable calculations and we know that gaurs can reach and at least in one case, surpass the 1000 kg. So now your excuse is that the figure is arbitrary.  Other thing, Schaller did not worked with Sankhala, in fact, now that you have the book you should know that Sankhala disproved Schaller at any oportunity, so other point against you. Finally, I never said that Sankhala mentioned that cubs did not contributed, that was my assumtion and I clearly said that. Other thing, if the cubs made or not a contribution may be important with the bull reported by Sankhala but you must not forget the tigress that killed the bull in Kanha reported by Schaller, no cubs/subadult/male was present to help her and still she manage to hunt it. Even if we guess (like you do) that this was a small bull of just about 500 kg, if that was an average tigress (130 kg) the relation between predator and prey could be of at least 1:3.8 and if this was a big tigress (170 kg) the relation could be of 1:2.9, still a big feat and certainly we can also guess that the gaur was a big one of over 900 kg if we want, just like you do, so the predator:prey relation could be of 1:6.9! At the end, even if you still denied this fact, scientists in the field already proved that tigers can and do kill big gaurs of at least 1,000 kg, it is not the must common prey but they do it and there is evidence of that. If you don't to accept it, it doesn't matter, as the real experts already done it. Quote:Tooth ware is not found in scats but in the kills. If you think that the methods used by them are "hardly conclusive", then we can see that whatever evidence that we present, you are going to reject it arbitrarily just because, for reasons that I don't understand, you try to deny a fact that is accepted and proved by scientists in the field. The status of the bones, teeth and carcase itself is the best form to get the health and age status of a prey that is already dead, this method was used by Schaller in Kanha, Sunquist in Chitwan and Karanth in Nagarahole and there are other studies in India that used it too. So how is that now, this method widely used by scientists in the field are now "hardly conclusive" based on you? Now I really doubt that you are speaking seriously here.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author So tell me exactly how any of that is "conclusive?" It's estimates based off of Scats *which make up the majority of kill samples and Kills" And Page 441 specifically talks about basing age and species off of Scat such as "hair, bones, hooves, teeth and quills" It also mentions femur marrow fat and tooth ware for 4 different studies as well from kills too. These are estimations based off of extremely interpretive data, trying to determine the weight or health of an animals based off of bones and teeth is loose at best. Quote:The number of 1,000 do not came from Sankhala, in fact Schaller used a maximum figure of 2,071 lb (940 kg) and you should know that. So the figure of 1,000 kg is not an arbitrary figure, but a calculation using the big bulls found plus the amount that the tigers probably ate, this type of calculations are just like the ones used with the Nepalese tigers that botomed the scales of 600 lb in Nepal or the polar bears that bottomed scales of 800 kg. This are reliable calculations and we know that gaurs can reach and at least in one case, surpass the 1000 kg. So now your excuse is that the figure is arbitraryAnd did Schaller witness a Bull of 940kg being killed by a Tiger? Quote:Other thing, Schaller did not worked with Sankhala, in fact, now that you have the book you should know that Sankhala disproved Schaller at any oportunity, so other point against you.Both were part of tiger research in Kanha, Sankhala was a few years later but I recall him mentioning a discussion they had in the book, I'd have to search through it again to be certain. He only disproves Schaller in regards to Leopards not being around when Tigers are present, which of course he is correct. He also mentions that Schallers studies were mostly based on a family of Tigers that had been conditioned by baits for more than a year and a half. The group included only 1 male and was confined to a small area of 10-15 sq km. Sankhala also found that natural kills gave no answer to actual cause of death as during he subsequent dragging multiple injuries occur and the real cause is difficult to locate. Quote:Other thing, if the cubs made or not a contribution may be important with the bull reported by Sankhala but you must not forget the tigress that killed the bull in Kanha reported by Schaller, no cubs/subadult/male was present to help her and still she manage to hunt it. Even if we guess (like you do) that this was a small bull of just about 500 kg, if that was an average tigress (130 kg) the relation between predator and prey could be of at least 1:3.8 and if this was a big tigress (170 kg) the relation could be of 1:2.9, still a big feat and certainly we can also guess that the gaur was a big one of over 900 kg if we want, just like you do, so the predator:prey relation could be of 1:6.9!And once again, did Schaller witness this kill or did he come across a carcass? Quote:At the end, even if you still denied this fact, scientists in the field already proved that tigers can and do kill big gaurs of at least 1,000 kg, it is not the must common prey but they do it and there is evidence of that. If you don't to accept it, it doesn't matter, as the real experts already done it.And do we have a single 1st hand account of a Tiger killing a Bull weighing near 1,000kg? I'm not neglecting the fact that Tigers have killed Bull Gaurs but I've seen nothing that shows they have killed big Alpha healthy ones. A carcass doesn't tell the whole story and neither does Scat, but as of now there has never been a witnessed account. Animals get injured in the wild, sick and die, just like anywhere else. Not all carcasses are killed by a tiger, I'd imagine that most animals die from natural causes than the other way around. (04-08-2020, 11:58 PM)Pckts Wrote:Quote:Tooth ware is not found in scats but in the kills. If you think that the methods used by them are "hardly conclusive", then we can see that whatever evidence that we present, you are going to reject it arbitrarily just because, for reasons that I don't understand, you try to deny a fact that is accepted and proved by scientists in the field. The status of the bones, teeth and carcase itself is the best form to get the health and age status of a prey that is already dead, this method was used by Schaller in Kanha, Sunquist in Chitwan and Karanth in Nagarahole and there are other studies in India that used it too. So how is that now, this method widely used by scientists in the field are now "hardly conclusive" based on you? Now I really doubt that you are speaking seriously here. Let me explain to you, again. Scats are used to get the type of prey that the predator hunt, normally are not used to get the weight or anything like that. The weight was obtained from the animals that they actually weighed, like I showed to you before two times. The scat was only used to see the age of the prey taken based in the color of the hair, but normally the age is taken from the kills, like I told you before. So if most of the sample was kills of baits is irrelevant, as the point of this discussion is to prove if tigers can kill bulls of 1,000 kg and they prove it, because they found bulls of that weight killed by tigers. So I don't understand why you complain and discredit the work of Dr Karanth and Dr Sunquist, two of the top tiger experst, just because you want to disprove that tigers can and do hunt big bulls? I simple don't understand your attitude. You say: "And Page 441 specifically talks about basing age and species off of Scat such as "hair, bones, hooves, teeth and quills"" Are you kidding? Page 441 do not say that, the page 441 clearly says that they used the kills to go the age of the prey, not the scats. Read it again! Also you say: "These are estimations based off of extremely interpretive data, trying to determine the weight or health of an animals based off of bones and teeth is loose at best." That is YOUR interpretation, not the real thing. This is not extremely interpretative data, these are the proved methods to get the date from the field, ask to any Biologist and they will explain to you. Just because you don't want to belive it that doesn't mean that they are innacurate. This methods to get the age and health are proved by many Biologists in the field, it is very silly to try to disprove it, I dare you to prove, with scientific evidence that these methods are just "extremely interpretative data". You complain if Schaller saw the hunt, but you already know that this type of kills had not been witnessed. In fact, we don't even have to many videos to be sure if tigers hunt young gaurs but you don't complain about that. If you are unbiased, you will see that the few videos of tigers killing gaurs shows young specimens, but the sample shows that they are biased to yearlings, so just because we don't have a video or because someone had not saw tigers killing yearling gaurs that doesn't mean that they don't to it, the same happen with adult male gaur. You say: "He only disproves Schaller in regards to Leopards not being around when Tigers are present, which of course he is correct." Incorrect, Sankhala disproved Schaller in many points, directly or indirectly, like the use of stripes to indentify individual tigers and the territoriality of the tigers. I created and entire post about the missconceptions that he created and that modern Biologist disproved based in reliable methods. You dobt in the record of Schaller of the bull gaur killed by the tigress and your excuse, been honest is patetic. I mean, based no you, tigers only eat dead bull gaurs that they found int he forrest. Do you see how silly is this claim? Again, I ask you, why a tiger will scratch, bite in the nose and throat if the animal is allready dead? Why a scientists will put his reputation in doubt claiming things if he don't hae evidence of that? Dr Karanth saw the bulls killed, he measured and weighed the bulls, he saw the marks of the figths and the outcomes (even one tiger died because of those fights), he saw the health status of those bulls based in the carcass. This is not a matter of "scats vs kills" or the use of "arbitraty" methods according with you. Again, here are the pictures:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author So, the claim that tigers can and do kill bull gaurs of up to 1,000 kg is not based in scats, is not based in bones, it IS based in the actuall carcasses found with signals of strougle and the outcome is real. If you want to disprove the study of Dr Karanth and the observations of Dr Schaller is up to you, but is really weird that you are lock with this debate and the only thing that you have done in your last posts is disproving the studies of scientists in the field! (04-09-2020, 01:11 AM)Pckts Wrote: A couple of Bull Gaurs running off two big Kanha Males Disdain? Since when the animals have human emotions? Gaus like any prey are afraid or at least worried of the predators. In this case, the bull have done exactly what any powerfull prey animall will do, which is attack the predator, he have saw that with African buffaloes before. The tiger done exactly what any predator will do if is confronted by a bigger animal, which is to move away and avoid unnecesary confrontation, we have saw that with lions and other predators, that are not huting, before. So, what is your point here? This image and this video did not disprove the reports of Dr Karanth and Dr Schaller, for the contrary, it only shows that normal behavior of a predator and a big prey under circunstances that are not related with an actuall hunt.
Once again, kill weights were estimated and not only that but Tigers feeding on kills were almost 2 per kill which could mean cooperation.
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Also showing no avoidance between leopard and tiger hunting times which is what Sankhala specifically disagreed with Schaller about.  *This image is copyright of its original author Where exactly are you coming up with Karanth seeing Bulls killed? And this carcass below  *This image is copyright of its original author Its stuck in deep mud, mass amount of flesh is missing and how in the world would you be able to determine cause of death let alone a weight or health of that animal? Like Sankhala notes in his book, kills are fed on by many animals and Tigers will leave kills for long periods of time after full and Hyena, jackal, vulture, jungle cat, leopard and many other predators will eat at that carcass while they're gone. (04-11-2020, 10:31 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(04-09-2020, 01:11 AM)Pckts Wrote: A couple of Bull Gaurs running off two big Kanha Males What it shows is a lack of fear from Bulls towards large males. Is it a rule that all Tigers will run from all bulls, no. But those are 2 huge male tigers right there and they give way to Bulls, Im not saying if the Male Tigers weren't hungry and they had the cover of night or element of surprise that the tigers wouldnt try them out, but I'm not sure how successful they could actually be and at what cost. 
To be fair @Pckts, I have seen a group of smooth coated otters chase away a relaxing tiger from a pond. So, a gaur doing so is no surprise. Why would a tiger engage a gaur if it doesn’t want to kill it? Even when they hunt animals like Gaur, tigers don’t do it head on. We saw how Raja employed his tactic of hiding in deep hedges and ambushing from the side. I am guessing it’s along those lines for most with slight variations of their own as opposed to a frontal showdown.
It’s a very much a risk-reward calculation they adhere to. In the video instances above, there is no reward and major risk, so why would they stand their ground? (04-12-2020, 12:39 AM)Ashutosh Wrote: To be fair @Pckts, I have seen a group of smooth coated otters chase away a relaxing tiger from a pond. So, a gaur doing so is no surprise. Why would a tiger engage a gaur if it doesn’t want to kill it? Even when they hunt animals like Gaur, tigers don’t do it head on. We saw how Raja employed his tactic of hiding in deep hedges and ambushing from the side. I am guessing it’s along those lines for most with slight variations of their own as opposed to a frontal showdown. No disagreement on my end but to give otters some credit, Pantanal Jaguar's proceed with caution and will usually not follow them into the water when being harassed. They are devilish little creatures for sure.
Well, it makes sense. Even though they are on absolutely opposite sides of the planet, the smooth-coated otter and giant otter are closest living relatives of each other. So, harassing big cats is a shared trait, I guess.
I had conversation with an onfield tiger expert. He told me gaurs are killed easily within way less than 5 minutes. The tiger jumped on to the back of gaur or will try to get on top when they face off. Then it will bite top portion of gaurs neck probably crushing the vertebrae killing it instantly. In this video you can clearly see those words coming true. The top of the neck is severely bitten inflicting deep wounds to the upper neck with high chances of damage to vertebrae. He also told me rhinos and elephants, though rare, ARE targeted AND KILLED by tigers.
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |