WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Puma
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Cougars
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Cougars
|
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Cougars
|
72.5 kg tom from Colorado
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Source: https://coloradooutdoorsmag.com/2014/03/...tain-lion/
89 kg male from Washington state:
"Wildlife biologists caught and tagged a massive 197-pound cougar on Monday. “This guy was unreal,” said Brian Kertson, a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife carnivore research scientist. “I wish more people could have seen him firsthand because the pictures don’t do him any justice.” Kertson is a big guy — 6-foot-2 and roughly 260. But he said the tom cat’s forearms made his arms look puny. The cat was so muscular the first tranquilizer dart that Kertson shot at him popped out as the cat flexed its muscles. The cougar is the largest captured in Washington as far as Kertson knows. “He was a monster,” he said. “A cougar that pushes 200 pounds I don’t care where you are in the world that’s pretty extraordinary.” The cougar’s head measured 56 centimeters in circumference. The animal was 9 years old. According to Bart George, a wildlife biologist for the Kalispel Tribe, the cougar was eating mostly elk."  *This image is copyright of its original author "Kertson has caught a number of cats that weighed more than 170 pounds. On average, tom cougars weight between 150 and 155 pounds (68-71 kg). This animal was different. “He almost looked cartoonish he was so big,” he said. “Like how a little kid would draw a cougar. Just extra swollen, I guess.” The second largest cat that Kertson has ever caught was 185 pounds (83 kg). That cougar was caught in western Washington." Source: https://www.heraldnet.com/northwest/unco...iologists/
@peter @Pckts @Dark Jaguar @epaiva and others, I have some interesting news. So I asked Wayaja Vargas who is a researcher of cougars from Torres del Paine National park in Chile if he knew of ant captures that had occurred in the area, this was his answer:
 *This image is copyright of its original author "In the year 2008 of 2009, I don't remember well, a male of close to 110 kg was captured and collared, and a female was captured as well in the Cerro Guido reserve, ever since we haven't done more captures" I then asked him if he knew of cases of cougars killing adult wild horses and he said he does, but that cougars will only target horses in areas were guanacos are scarce. This is amazing information because it confirms some of our guesses that these cougars are some of, if not the biggest, population in the world. The horse feats are also the first recorded on adult individuals, predation on wild horses in North America and Los Llanos has been documented but only on foals and sub-adults.  (08-04-2020, 06:24 PM)Balam Wrote: @peter @Pckts @Dark Jaguar @epaiva and others, o have some great news. So I asked Wayajapuma who is a researcher of cougars from Torres del Paine National park in Chile if he knew of ant captures that had occured in the area, this was his answer:@Balam Thanks a lot for your valuable information, they grow huge in Chile for sure 
@Balam
I knew these wild Pumas could reach and surpass the 100 kg range and it can be much more common than many think.  (08-03-2020, 02:47 AM)Balam Wrote: 89 kg male from Washington state:Yea those forearms look huge! Cougars should be considered big cats . If cheetahs aren’t even Panthera but they’re considered big cats because of their size then a cougar should definitely be considered a big cat especially when they’re the size as a leopard.
@Stripedlion2 that's right, I consider cougars to be big cats, not being able to roar is a completely different adaption that is entirely dependant on the voice box of an animal and has nothing to do with their size. Snow leopards who are Pantherines cannot roar, and some extinct genuses of felids such as the Machairodontines (sabertooths) are not known to have been able to roar either, it's debatable, yet some Machairodontines represented some of the biggest cats to have ever lived.
The classification of a big cat being dependable on its ability to roar is, in my opinion, outdated and inaccurate. Cougars being 4th largest felids are definitely big cats. (08-11-2020, 06:04 PM)Balam Wrote: @Stripedlion2 that's right, I consider cougars to be big cats, not being able to roar is a completely different adaption that is entirely dependant on the voice box of an animal and has nothing to do with their size. Snow leopards who are Pantherines cannot roar, and some extinct genuses of felids such as the Machairodontines (sabertooths) are not known to have been able to roar either, it's debatable, yet some Machairodontines represented some of the biggest cats to have ever lived.I definitely consider them big cats . They even have the hunting capabilities too.
@Balam @Stripedlion2
Guys after many years I thought I was the only person in the world with that thought. I've never understood the reason a Puma is not a Pantera cat. This roaring thing is an absurd in my opinion and the rest you guys already mentioned, ''Big cat'' the name already says its about size, Its not ''Roaring cat'' haha. I never got the reason Pumas aren't big cats, for me they're the 4th largest cat regardless of what the ''science entity'' says is right. So count me in on that boat. (08-11-2020, 07:31 PM)Dark Jaguar Wrote: @Balam @Stripedlion2 My only question is who’s larger the cougar or the leopard they’re very close in size I do know that cougars reach the larger weights like 75,80,90, and 100kg more often than leopards but I heard the record leopard is heavier than the record cougar so I don’t know. We would have to look at how their skulls,teeth,and claws compare to each other and their length and shoulder height and overall their dimensions maybe male cougars are a tad bit larger than male leopards but female leopards are larger than female cougars idk. There will be a lot of overlapping between the two and it would be interesting to see which region has the largest cat and which region has the smallest out of the two . I know it would definitely be a lot closer than the jaguar/leopard size argument someone made here once .
@Stripedlion2 based on the data that I have seen, cougars definitely grow bigger in the absolutes, although for the most part they overlap in size more often than not. The heaviest weighed leopard was an specimen from West Africa who yielded 96 kg (unknown amount of stomach content), and recently we have seen some males from Iran surpassing 90 kg in weight, with one topping at 95 kg, Persian leopards, in my opinion, being the heaviest and largest population.
For cougars there are more confirmed weights of animals surpassing 100 kg, and we have posted a few records on here. Based on the data I have seen, I personally believe that Patagonia cougars (especially those from Torres del Paine National park) are the heaviest and largest population, and males from that area should be between 85-110 kg in weight. Followed closely are cougars from northern western North America, including Washington state, British Columbia and Alberta. Males there should be around 70-100 kg in weight, for mature individuals. (08-11-2020, 08:10 PM)Stripedlion2 Wrote:(08-11-2020, 07:31 PM)Dark Jaguar Wrote: @Balam @Stripedlion2 @Stripedlion2 The thing is who will keep its weight in the 100's kg range in its natural habitat more often and on higher weight. Even with a record size higher I think reaching higher weights more often would be more important if you ask me. When I mentioned the larger I meant in weight/mass of the biggest MORE OFTEN, Both species overlap in size, Leopards are larger than Pumas on a few aspects such as the Head, Canines length, Neck, Skull ( dewlap might increase a little bit the neck girth but its up for debate ) The Puma got impressive Forearms, Hind legs, Front Paws imo. I also think the Puma got longer claws too if I am not mistaken. However when it comes to mass in general of the largest individuals the Puma is the bigger cat more often imo and as you can see Balam posted above a male Puma close to 110 kg in the Patagonia, Patagonia is a place that Pumas have been monitored but very rarely captured and now we got a clue on how big a large male Puma can get in those areas and it can happen more often than we imagine, the pics of large male Pumas in Patagonia is a proof. There's also males verified in North America very close or slightly above the 100 kg range. On the Leopard Side we got Congo/Savanna/Persian as the largest populations, despite some impressive looking individuals I've seen from Congo captured by camera traps, I am not sure if they're 100 kg, but they could be close, only the real captures will tell. I heard somewhere of a male Leopard I think of around 113 kg if I am not mistaken which is very impressive. About the females, the female Pumas could be small and so are leopards. About the smallest of the 2, on the Pumas side I think Caatinga Pumas can be a very good candidate and o the Leopards side maybe Cape Leopard or Arabian Leopard. One thing for sure is that its a close match and we need enough captures and datas collected from the largest of both species and from individuals to unravel how often they reach their largest sizes ( and how large ) to know it for real. So far It will definitely take personal opinions to decide if record sizes is more important or if higher sizes more often ( even if bellow the record size ). But the truth is both species overlap in size and one will be more impressive than the other on a few aspects. And even if the Leopard somewhat turns out to be the largest more often with higher weight it wouldn't take away our thought of the Puma not being a Pantera cat. Thats my opinion. About the Jaguar and Leopard size comparison, Its not a close match though. (08-11-2020, 09:44 PM)Dark Jaguar Wrote:(08-11-2020, 08:10 PM)Stripedlion2 Wrote:(08-11-2020, 07:31 PM)Dark Jaguar Wrote: @Balam @Stripedlion2 The 113 kg leopard was debunked some time ago, it was a man water who was killed after badly clawing the face of a man and had plenty of stomach content. Someone also said that the scale in which it was weighed was defective which affected the accuracy of results. I also do not believe Central African leopards to be among the biggest populations. There have been two captures of two males who were in somewhat of a dire state, and neither surpassed 50 kg in weight. Even if healthy, 50 kg is a far cry from the 100 kg estimated I have seen some suggest for those leopards. The biomass they consume is lower than that of savanna leopards, and the argument I often hear mention is that they have big and heavy skulls which could suggest a large body mass, but as @peter said recently, skull length is not the best determinant to gage body mass, and in my opinion, prey biomass is a more important factor.
@Balam
Oh really? so the 113 kg male Leopard wasn't accurate? So the largest ones would be the ones you mentioned right?? The Congo Leopards being smaller than Savanna ones is interesting, but Congo ones are yet quite muscular. About the Skull yeah I also don't think skull sizes would be decisive factor for the weight of the animal, if that was the case I would say the Leopard would be the larger of the 2 in my previous post. I also think claws sizes length is really important too and not many people make such a comparison I don't know why. But I take claws sizes serious. So overall it only proves my point on the Puma being the larger one more often in its natural habitat.  Quote:The heaviest weighed leopard was an specimen from West Africa who yielded 96 kg (unknown amount of stomach content), and recently we have seen some males from Iran surpassing 90 kg in weight, with one topping at 95 kg, Persian leopards, in my opinion, being the heaviest and largest population. The heaviest leopard, at this moment, is a 96kg male leopard from Valencia, Namibia (from The Hunter or the Hunted: An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy). Not sure where you got that West African specimen from. This, of course is if we exclude the 115kg injured Persian leopard and the Indian leopard Balaji (116kg when captured). Quote:The 113 kg leopard was debunked some time ago, it was a man water who was killed after badly clawing the face of a man and had plenty of stomach content. Someone also said that the scale in which it was weighed was defective which affected the accuracy of results. Not entirely true. While I too question the leopard's weight, it wasn't a man-eater. Link to event (from Landmark Leopard & Predator Project - South Africa): https://www.facebook.com/LandmarkFoundation/posts/another-leopard-has-been-killed-in-the-eastern-cape-by-predator-hunters-in-alice/1441037779263823/ Quote:I also do not believe Central African leopards to be among the biggest populations. There have been two captures of two males who were in somewhat of a dire state, and neither surpassed 50 kg in weight. Even if healthy, 50 kg is a far cry from the 100 kg estimated I have seen some suggest for those leopards. Those were 2 leopards caught in snares and therefore in bad condition, they were far from healthy and below 50kg. Also are you aware that these countries are in conflict with poachers and bushmeat hunters? There are leopard populations in Gabon who have to coexist with bushmeat hunters (who target the same prey i.e. duiker & red river hogs). Luckily there are area's where they are undisturbed and this is where you can find healthy leopard populations. Quote:the argument I often hear mention is that they have big and heavy skulls which could suggest a large body mass, but as @peter said recently, skull length is not the best determinant to gage body mass, and in my opinion, prey biomass is a more important factor. What @peter also mentioned, is that their skulls are heavier (heavier teeth too) and more robust compared to other leopard populations. So you do acknowledge that Persian leopards are one of the larger leopard subspecies/populations but Central African leopards somehow are smaller than savannah leopards (ca.60-65kg) despite having skulls as large as Persian leopards? I'm not just talking about skull length FYI. Also, skull measurements are more reliable than body weight (e.g. stomach content), especially with dead animals. Based on videographic footage (camera traps etc) and skull data, they're most likely the largest leopard population. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |