Maximum size of prey that a single male lion or tiger can kill

[GuateGojira]

@Pckts, there is a known say: "There is no worst blind that the one that don't want to see". I think that this applies to you now. So, let's continue with this nonesense.



You say: "Between your lines are not mine."



Sorry dude, but anyone can interpret that from your posts about Karanth and Sunquist, after all, your complains had been specifically about that study of 1995 and they are the authors.

You say: "In that exact study I posted they made 0 mention of weighing any prey."

In that case you must learn a little of history, because the paper of 2000 that you post and the paper of 1995 are of the same study made in Nagarahole.

You say: "Like I've already shown, carcasses get preyed upon by many scavengers and far more than what a tiger can eat at one sitting can be removed from a carcass."

Well, in that case the figure of 1,000 kg will be an underestimation, which means that some of the bulls could weight more than the stablished figure.

You say: "Next is that you cannot show me a single weight of a carcass can you? You cant present me a single Gaur that was killed by a tiger and weighed? You can show a picture of one being weighed but you have no weight to add to the image or any other Gaur for that matter."

And the point is? Karanth and Sunquist already showed that the carcasses are up to 1,000 kg including all the prey recorded. They did not published single weights but is logic to see that if there are bulls of up to 1,000 kg surely they were killed by a tiger, not by a leopard or a pack of dholes, but by a tiger. Is simple evidence, plus the fact that the bulls had evidence of struggle and injures. So, there were some bulls of 1,000 kg according with them and all of those bulls were obviously killed by tigers. Simple as it is. If there are single weights is irrelevant. And again, you twist the point of the picture, which was to show you that kills were actually weighed, something that you denied several times, don't forget that.

You say: "To what extent are these cases known? Carcasses found, fine heads, predations seen? All of those need to be determined before it's case closed account."

Thank you for proving my point, like I told you, you will complain about those cases, BUT you quote one single case of a bull killing a "tiger" (sex not stated in the image that you posted) but you don't complain about it. So, according with you if the tiger win the account is false/incorrect/not-corroborated but if the tiger loose is correct/corroborated/factual???

You say: "Like we've already gone over, the older the bull the larger the horns. Was this bull old and on its last legs, did it die from natural causes was the carcass intact?Again, these are question you cannot answer because these details are missing and they're the most important ones to know for this debate."

The same thing, did you know the same details in the single account of the gaur and tiger fight to the death? According with you the bulls gaurs are just dead in the park and tigers, for unknown reasons attack the carcasses and bite them and scratch them! The known fact is that the large bull, with record horns, was killed by a tiger, and if Dr Schaller said that is probably because they had evidence for that. If not, why they will risk his reputation for saying nonsenses? That is a point that, like a professional, we can't ignore.

You say: "Once again, carcass found at a stream bank. Do I need to bring up again the multitude of sizes in "bulls" and a Tigress certainly isn't overpowering an Alpha bull with a bite to the back of the neck."

Again, you are just putting excuses, Dr Schaller explained the evidence found and even if this was an small bull (about 600 kg) and a large tigress (about 170 kg), this was an impressive feat  (predator to prey ratio 1:4). So if a tigress can kill a bull of four times her weight, why a male tiger can't weight a bull gaur with the same ratio of predator to prey?

You say: "Yes several sized Gaurs, no mention of a big Bull other than the one that killed him."

And where it says that a bull gaur killed that tiger? Like @Roflcopters said, in that moment the tiger "Dasha" already lost part of his territory and probably was old, so any miscalculation, even with a female could be fatal.

You say: "And I'm happy to show that people are so desperate to embellish predatory feats that they are willing to make claims and accept them without proper evidence to back them. I'll take a healthy Skepticism over a blind acceptance any day of the week."

Embellish? Embellish will by to say that tigers normally kill adult rhinos and elephants (and impressively, according with some claims and evidence, these hunts sometimes happens). But to say that a tiger can kill a gaur is not to "embellish", is just a fact, accepted by experts and proved by the people that actually saw the carcasses, that measure and weighed them and that collected a series of evidence to prove it. Again, you say that we are willing to "make claims", but in fact nobody here is making "claims" except you, which are denying every single report just because you don't want to believe it. I mean, you complain that we have not shown evidence of predation, but the fact is that you have not shown a single evidence to prove that the study and the results of Dr Karanth and Dr Sunquist are wrong. In fact, I will like to see evidence, real evidence of your claims, and I will like to see modern and verified reports saying that tigers can't kill bulls of 1000 kg.

You say: "And yet again, show me a single Gaur carcass that weighed 1000kg. Show me one excerpt where they state "this carcass was weighed and it weighed 1000kg and was killed by a Tiger"

It is incredible! Karanth and Sunquist showed this many times in the study, not just a single bull of 1,000 kg but several bulls of 1,000 kg:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Do you know what means "several"? Read it again, it says "This sample included several gaur weighing 1,000 kilograms". What more do you need? 

Now, what is interesting is that you did not make a single complain about the tiger predation of adult rhinos, in fact, you have a huge series of post in this topic when you discuss with Shadow about this: https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-predati...umentation

So, if you complain about tigers killing gaurs of up to 1,000 kg, BUT you defend tigers killing adult rhinos of the same size (or more), something is not correct with you. And if you are going to say that gaurs are more aggressive than rhinos, don't do it, because then you are going to have a biiiiiiig trouble trying to prove it.    I guess you are just discussing here because you don't want to lose, just like in the other topic with Shadow.

Reply