There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
(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.
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.
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.
Maximum size of prey that a single male lion or tiger can kill
