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.
06-16-2020, 06:28 AM( This post was last modified: 06-16-2020, 07:24 AM by peter )
SULLY
Good contributions! Much appreciated. As it's likely most of our readers lack the time to watch the documentary on genetic diversity (post 2,493), I'll post a summary soon.
ALL
This winter, I ordered a number of tiger books. Some of them are (reprints of) classics, but not all. I also read online versions of a few books published well before 1900. All books will be discussed in some time.
Here's a few books I recommend. If you have the opportunity, my advice is to buy them. Apart from a few, most books, considered as 'culturally important', are relatively cheap.
1 - 'The highlands of Central India', Capt. Forsyth (J), London, 1889. I have the reprint.
2 - 'Thirty-seven years of big game shooting in Cooch Behar, the Duars, and Assam - A rough diary', the Maharajah of Cooch Behar, Bombay, 1908 (461 pages, including the Appendix). The reprint (Wolfe Publishing Company, 1993) is excellent.
3 - 'Wild animals in Central India', Dunbar Brander (AA), London, 1923. The Natraj Publishers reprint (2018) is ok.
4 - 'Call of the tiger', Col. Powell (ANW), London, 1957. I have the reprint of Sagwan Press.
5 - 'Big game hunting in Manchuria',Baikov (N), London, 1936.
6 - 'Tigerland - Reminiscences of forty years' sport and adventure in Bengal', Gouldsbury (CE), London, 1913. I have the 2019 reprint of Alpha Editions.
Naren Malik talking about Kanha *Mukki Zone Tigers* and the Tiger fights he's seen, Pugmark Differences, etc.
Funny enough, all Tiger fights he's seen has involved Umarpani male.
Pugmarks "10 month old Tiger cubs are equal to Leopard Pugmarks"
Driver talking about when Yuvraj killed a Bison.
"He jumped on him, injuring his hind legs and incapacitating him. The Gaur herd came and he charged at them to run them off then went back to attacking the Bison."
The driver is the perfect example of who the true experts are, no offense to anyone who studies these animals, they contribute immensely to the conservation of big cats but it's these guys who know everything there is to know. They are the ones that drive every day with these cats and it would truly be a treasure trove if they all got together and started documenting their stories.
09-24-2020, 12:55 AM( This post was last modified: 09-24-2020, 01:32 AM by Shadow )
(09-22-2020, 04:29 AM)Pckts Wrote: Naren Malik talking about Kanha *Mukki Zone Tigers* and the Tiger fights he's seen, Pugmark Differences, etc.
Funny enough, all Tiger fights he's seen has involved Umarpani male.
Pugmarks "10 month old Tiger cubs are equal to Leopard Pugmarks"
Driver talking about when Yuvraj killed a Bison.
"He jumped on him, injuring his hind legs and incapacitating him. The Gaur herd came and he charged at them to run them off then went back to attacking the Bison."
The driver is the perfect example of who the true experts are, no offense to anyone who studies these animals, they contribute immensely to the conservation of big cats but it's these guys who know everything there is to know. They are the ones that drive every day with these cats and it would truly be a treasure trove if they all got together and started documenting their stories.
Then we have zoologists, like Joseph Vattakaven and these other two men here, who have spent a lot of time on the field making first hand observations. Like 4 years of time spent (Vattakaven) to study tigers hunting success rates mentioned on the video. From 2:40-3:40. 1/25 stalks lead to success, means 4 % success rate. I think, that there are no-one with better knowledge than he has concerning it, even though these safari guides see a lot.
Also people like Karanth, Vattakaven, Schaller, Sankhala and many other zoologists have spent days and nights and long periods of times in the forests to get first hand experience, not just sitting behind the desk in the office.
For sure these guides see a lot, but I still think, that experts are experts for a reason. They know without a doubt many stories from guides too, but they also know very well themselves too, how things are in reality. While safari guides can put some extra to some stories to entertain visitors, people like Karanth and other experts have to be more down to earth.
Things are seldom black/white, but there are reasons why some people are considered as experts and are widely respected for their knowledge and experiences.
The following 1 user Likes Shadow's post:1 user Likes Shadow's post • peter
(09-22-2020, 04:29 AM)Pckts Wrote: Naren Malik talking about Kanha *Mukki Zone Tigers* and the Tiger fights he's seen, Pugmark Differences, etc.
Funny enough, all Tiger fights he's seen has involved Umarpani male.
Pugmarks "10 month old Tiger cubs are equal to Leopard Pugmarks"
Driver talking about when Yuvraj killed a Bison.
"He jumped on him, injuring his hind legs and incapacitating him. The Gaur herd came and he charged at them to run them off then went back to attacking the Bison."
The driver is the perfect example of who the true experts are, no offense to anyone who studies these animals, they contribute immensely to the conservation of big cats but it's these guys who know everything there is to know. They are the ones that drive every day with these cats and it would truly be a treasure trove if they all got together and started documenting their stories.
Then we have zoologists, like Joseph Vattakaven and these other two men here, who have spent a lot of time on the field making first hand observations. Like 4 years of time spent (Vattakaven) to study tigers hunting success rates mentioned on the video. From 2:40-3:40. 1/25 stalks lead to success, means 4 % success rate. I think, that there are no-one with better knowledge than he has concerning it, even though these safari guides see a lot.
Also people like Karanth, Vattakaven, Schaller, Sankhala and many other zoologists have spent days and nights and long periods of times in the forests to get first hand experience, not just sitting behind the desk in the office.
For sure these guides see a lot, but I still think, that experts are experts for a reason. They know without a doubt many stories from guides too, but they also know very well themselves too, how things are in reality. While safari guides can put some extra to some stories to entertain visitors, people like Karanth and other experts have to be more down to earth.
Things are seldom black/white, but there is are reasons why some people are considered as experts and are widely respected for their knowledge and experiences.
100% but at the end of the day after they finish their research, they leave. These guides don't they continue to work there for years and years. They are locals who lived there and any research done cannot be done without the help of these drivers/locals.
In E. Africa, your guide is going to be tribesman from one of the 4 major tribes most likely, they are going to not only have years of experience tracking these animals but their ancestors will have years of experience living side by side with these animals, the same goes for India.
Next is the fact that these researchers like Joe, study many animals and since they have the resources to do so, they divide their time between places, for most of the guides they don't get that luxury, the are forced to stay in one place and again that leads to more experience.
These researchers may perform studies for years on end and learn a ton but they do so with the help of these guides who were there before them and will be there after them.
"Experts"
The term "expert" is vague, what exactly makes an expert?
Are you saying schooling is what makes an expert?
In that regards, these guides cannot hold a candle.
Or, are we talking about experience?
In that regard, no zoologist or biologist can compete.
(09-22-2020, 04:29 AM)Pckts Wrote: Naren Malik talking about Kanha *Mukki Zone Tigers* and the Tiger fights he's seen, Pugmark Differences, etc.
Funny enough, all Tiger fights he's seen has involved Umarpani male.
Pugmarks "10 month old Tiger cubs are equal to Leopard Pugmarks"
Driver talking about when Yuvraj killed a Bison.
"He jumped on him, injuring his hind legs and incapacitating him. The Gaur herd came and he charged at them to run them off then went back to attacking the Bison."
The driver is the perfect example of who the true experts are, no offense to anyone who studies these animals, they contribute immensely to the conservation of big cats but it's these guys who know everything there is to know. They are the ones that drive every day with these cats and it would truly be a treasure trove if they all got together and started documenting their stories.
Then we have zoologists, like Joseph Vattakaven and these other two men here, who have spent a lot of time on the field making first hand observations. Like 4 years of time spent (Vattakaven) to study tigers hunting success rates mentioned on the video. From 2:40-3:40. 1/25 stalks lead to success, means 4 % success rate. I think, that there are no-one with better knowledge than he has concerning it, even though these safari guides see a lot.
Also people like Karanth, Vattakaven, Schaller, Sankhala and many other zoologists have spent days and nights and long periods of times in the forests to get first hand experience, not just sitting behind the desk in the office.
For sure these guides see a lot, but I still think, that experts are experts for a reason. They know without a doubt many stories from guides too, but they also know very well themselves too, how things are in reality. While safari guides can put some extra to some stories to entertain visitors, people like Karanth and other experts have to be more down to earth.
Things are seldom black/white, but there is are reasons why some people are considered as experts and are widely respected for their knowledge and experiences.
100% but at the end of the day after they finish their research, they leave. These guides don't they continue to work there for years and years. They are locals who lived there and any research done cannot be done without the help of these drivers/locals.
In E. Africa, your guide is going to be tribesman from one of the 4 major tribes most likely, they are going to not only have years of experience tracking these animals but their ancestors will have years of experience living side by side with these animals, the same goes for India.
Next is the fact that these researchers like Joe, study many animals and since they have the resources to do so, they divide their time between places, for most of the guides they don't get that luxury, the are forced to stay in one place and again that leads to more experience.
These researchers may perform studies for years on end and learn a ton but they do so with the help of these guides who were there before them and will be there after them.
"Experts"
The term "expert" is vague, what exactly makes an expert?
Are you saying schooling is what makes an expert?
In that regards, these guides cannot hold a candle.
Or, are we talking about experience?
In that regard, no zoologist or biologist can compete.
I gave an example with Vattakaven. No-one can convince me, that some safari guides would know better tigers hunting success rates than him. There are many other things which zoologists study with time and fully aware of stories from locals and guides etc. These zoologists also without any doubt notice if there are contradictions or exaggerations, like there are time to time.
I posted my posting, because it´s not that simple that people should believe too blindly what guides tell. They know a lot, but there are many things in which they can make only guesses like others, while people like Vattakaven can say, that they know because they used a lot of time and effort to learn.
I pointed out another point of view. This is how I see this and I trust more to information from zoologists. Naturally other people decide themselves which sources they see most reliable. But many zoologists are really determined and spend a lot of time to learn how things really are.
(09-22-2020, 04:29 AM)Pckts Wrote: Naren Malik talking about Kanha *Mukki Zone Tigers* and the Tiger fights he's seen, Pugmark Differences, etc.
Funny enough, all Tiger fights he's seen has involved Umarpani male.
Pugmarks "10 month old Tiger cubs are equal to Leopard Pugmarks"
Driver talking about when Yuvraj killed a Bison.
"He jumped on him, injuring his hind legs and incapacitating him. The Gaur herd came and he charged at them to run them off then went back to attacking the Bison."
The driver is the perfect example of who the true experts are, no offense to anyone who studies these animals, they contribute immensely to the conservation of big cats but it's these guys who know everything there is to know. They are the ones that drive every day with these cats and it would truly be a treasure trove if they all got together and started documenting their stories.
Then we have zoologists, like Joseph Vattakaven and these other two men here, who have spent a lot of time on the field making first hand observations. Like 4 years of time spent (Vattakaven) to study tigers hunting success rates mentioned on the video. From 2:40-3:40. 1/25 stalks lead to success, means 4 % success rate. I think, that there are no-one with better knowledge than he has concerning it, even though these safari guides see a lot.
Also people like Karanth, Vattakaven, Schaller, Sankhala and many other zoologists have spent days and nights and long periods of times in the forests to get first hand experience, not just sitting behind the desk in the office.
For sure these guides see a lot, but I still think, that experts are experts for a reason. They know without a doubt many stories from guides too, but they also know very well themselves too, how things are in reality. While safari guides can put some extra to some stories to entertain visitors, people like Karanth and other experts have to be more down to earth.
Things are seldom black/white, but there is are reasons why some people are considered as experts and are widely respected for their knowledge and experiences.
100% but at the end of the day after they finish their research, they leave. These guides don't they continue to work there for years and years. They are locals who lived there and any research done cannot be done without the help of these drivers/locals.
In E. Africa, your guide is going to be tribesman from one of the 4 major tribes most likely, they are going to not only have years of experience tracking these animals but their ancestors will have years of experience living side by side with these animals, the same goes for India.
Next is the fact that these researchers like Joe, study many animals and since they have the resources to do so, they divide their time between places, for most of the guides they don't get that luxury, the are forced to stay in one place and again that leads to more experience.
These researchers may perform studies for years on end and learn a ton but they do so with the help of these guides who were there before them and will be there after them.
"Experts"
The term "expert" is vague, what exactly makes an expert?
Are you saying schooling is what makes an expert?
In that regards, these guides cannot hold a candle.
Or, are we talking about experience?
In that regard, no zoologist or biologist can compete.
I gave an example with Vattakaven. No-one can convince me, that some safari guides would know better tigers hunting success rates than him. There are many other things which zoologists study with time and fully aware of stories from locals and guides etc. These zoologists also without any doubt notice if there are contradictions or exaggerations, like there are time to time.
I posted my posting, because it´s not that simple that people should believe too blindly what guides tell. They know a lot, but there are many things in which they can make only guesses like others, while people like Vattakaven can say, that they know because they used a lot of time and effort to learn.
I pointed out another point of view. This is how I see this and I trust more to information from zoologists. Naturally other people decide themselves which sources they see most reliable. But many zoologists are really determined and spend a lot of time to learn how things really are.
And how exactly would he come across a Tigers hunting success rate?
Then what does it matter the success rate in which a single Tiger hunts in for a specific period of time?
For one, he'd have to study with the guides as they would be the ones driving him, tracking the tigers and telling him which tigers are which.
The fact that he specifically studies the success rate means little to the driver as that isn't their goal, their goal is tracking the Tiger. So when it comes to knowing real facts about the animal like: It's sex, age, lineage, preferred territory, prey preference during which time of year, how they smell, when and where a kill has been made, what the seasons contribute to the tigers behaviors, how terrain effects the animal etc. It's the tracker that would have the researcher outclassed.
I'm not sure what example you can present of people "believing a guide blindly" nor am I sure where you can present a single instance of that somehow coming back to bite anyone?
And while Vattakaven has put a lot of time in, he hasn't put nearly as much as the guides I'm referring too.
Lastly, trust who you wish but my point is that because they don't publish a paper that they are somehow not as knowledgeable as a researcher is wrong. From my first hand experience there is no one that knows the nuisances of these big cats better. And I'd bet good money that if you spoke with any of these researchers you named, they'd give credit right away to these guides and trackers they work with.
(09-22-2020, 04:29 AM)Pckts Wrote: Naren Malik talking about Kanha *Mukki Zone Tigers* and the Tiger fights he's seen, Pugmark Differences, etc.
Funny enough, all Tiger fights he's seen has involved Umarpani male.
Pugmarks "10 month old Tiger cubs are equal to Leopard Pugmarks"
Driver talking about when Yuvraj killed a Bison.
"He jumped on him, injuring his hind legs and incapacitating him. The Gaur herd came and he charged at them to run them off then went back to attacking the Bison."
The driver is the perfect example of who the true experts are, no offense to anyone who studies these animals, they contribute immensely to the conservation of big cats but it's these guys who know everything there is to know. They are the ones that drive every day with these cats and it would truly be a treasure trove if they all got together and started documenting their stories.
Then we have zoologists, like Joseph Vattakaven and these other two men here, who have spent a lot of time on the field making first hand observations. Like 4 years of time spent (Vattakaven) to study tigers hunting success rates mentioned on the video. From 2:40-3:40. 1/25 stalks lead to success, means 4 % success rate. I think, that there are no-one with better knowledge than he has concerning it, even though these safari guides see a lot.
Also people like Karanth, Vattakaven, Schaller, Sankhala and many other zoologists have spent days and nights and long periods of times in the forests to get first hand experience, not just sitting behind the desk in the office.
For sure these guides see a lot, but I still think, that experts are experts for a reason. They know without a doubt many stories from guides too, but they also know very well themselves too, how things are in reality. While safari guides can put some extra to some stories to entertain visitors, people like Karanth and other experts have to be more down to earth.
Things are seldom black/white, but there is are reasons why some people are considered as experts and are widely respected for their knowledge and experiences.
100% but at the end of the day after they finish their research, they leave. These guides don't they continue to work there for years and years. They are locals who lived there and any research done cannot be done without the help of these drivers/locals.
In E. Africa, your guide is going to be tribesman from one of the 4 major tribes most likely, they are going to not only have years of experience tracking these animals but their ancestors will have years of experience living side by side with these animals, the same goes for India.
Next is the fact that these researchers like Joe, study many animals and since they have the resources to do so, they divide their time between places, for most of the guides they don't get that luxury, the are forced to stay in one place and again that leads to more experience.
These researchers may perform studies for years on end and learn a ton but they do so with the help of these guides who were there before them and will be there after them.
"Experts"
The term "expert" is vague, what exactly makes an expert?
Are you saying schooling is what makes an expert?
In that regards, these guides cannot hold a candle.
Or, are we talking about experience?
In that regard, no zoologist or biologist can compete.
I gave an example with Vattakaven. No-one can convince me, that some safari guides would know better tigers hunting success rates than him. There are many other things which zoologists study with time and fully aware of stories from locals and guides etc. These zoologists also without any doubt notice if there are contradictions or exaggerations, like there are time to time.
I posted my posting, because it´s not that simple that people should believe too blindly what guides tell. They know a lot, but there are many things in which they can make only guesses like others, while people like Vattakaven can say, that they know because they used a lot of time and effort to learn.
I pointed out another point of view. This is how I see this and I trust more to information from zoologists. Naturally other people decide themselves which sources they see most reliable. But many zoologists are really determined and spend a lot of time to learn how things really are.
And how exactly would he come across a Tigers hunting success rate?
Then what does it matter the success rate in which a single Tiger hunts in for a specific period of time?
For one, he'd have to study with the guides as they would be the ones driving him, tracking the tigers and telling him which tigers are which.
The fact that he specifically studies the success rate means little to the driver as that isn't their goal, their goal is tracking the Tiger. So when it comes to knowing real facts about the animal like: It's sex, age, lineage, preferred territory, prey preference during which time of year, how they smell, when and where a kill has been made, what the seasons contribute to the tigers behaviors, how terrain effects the animal etc. It's the tracker that would have the researcher outclassed.
I'm not sure what example you can present of people "believing a guide blindly" nor am I sure where you can present a single instance of that somehow coming back to bite anyone?
And while Vattakaven has put a lot of time in, he hasn't put nearly as much as the guides I'm referring too.
Lastly, trust who you wish but my point is that because they don't publish a paper that they are somehow not as knowledgeable as a researcher is wrong. From my first hand experience there is no one that knows the nuisances of these big cats better. And I'd bet good money that if you spoke with any of these researchers you named, they'd give credit right away to these guides and trackers they work with.
You can watch that video and see what he says. I believe naturally, that he knows better what he is talking about than you or me. These zoologists have way more first hand experience than you will ever have. They also have met more these safari guides than you and hear more stories from them than you. So you can count on it, that I trust to them more, when talking about certain things, like weights, success rates and so on. It´s simply not possible to be at same level when experiencing things only as a tourist. I think, that people like Vattakaven and Karanth are way more competent to estimate what stories are reliable and what aren´t.
So this isn´t a debate really. I just showed, as I said, other side of the coin so to say. I happen to know how good story tellers some guides are, when they are with tourists. Without modern science and objective zoologists there would be a lot of rubbish told as real things.
I will like to make a little remark in the estimation of hunting success. Actually, the often quoted figures are not accurate and are mostly guesses. Vattakaven present his opinion, but it will be interesting to see which is his database, after all a true estimation of the success percentage depends of several factors and cuantitative information, not just plain observations (check the study on lions in Etosha, for example). Other example of high success rate are the tigress from Pench in the documentary "Tiger spy in the jungle" which had a success of 1 in 3 attempts (33%) and the tiger "Genghis" from Ranthambore which had a high success huting in the lakes (sorry, I don't remember the % of success at this moment, but was high).
So, this thing of hunting success is very relative on tigers, as at this moment there is not a good study about this in India. Check what the experts says:
Sunquist, 2010:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Karanth, 2013:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Just my two cents, now you can continue with your debate.
(09-24-2020, 08:16 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Short note: hunting success.
I will like to make a little remark in the estimation of hunting success. Actually, the often quoted figures are not accurate and are mostly guesses. Vattakaven present his opinion, but it will be interesting to see which is his database, after all a true estimation of the success percentage depends of several factors and cuantitative information, not just plain observations (check the study on lions in Etosha, for example). Other example of high success rate are the tigress from Pench in the documentary "Tiger spy in the jungle" which had a success of 1 in 3 attempts (33%) and the tiger "Genghis" from Ranthambore which had a high success huting in the lakes (sorry, I don't remember the % of success at this moment, but was high).
So, this thing of hunting success is very relative on tigers, as at this moment there is not a good study about this in India. Check what the experts says:
Sunquist, 2010:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Karanth, 2013:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Just my two cents, now you can continue with your debate.
No debate here. I already wrote what I had to say and why. I´m also aware of those things you shared. As I told, I just showed other side of the coin and same time I told how I see things. Someone else can see it differently. So I consider as the most reliable sources of information zoologists, who do field research. If someone else chooses to believe more some other people, it´s their choice. There is nothing to debate for me since I already know, how I think and now I told it to people who read this thread and it doesn´t change if I repeat it 1, 10 or 100 times. That´s all what I had to say and hopefully now it´s more clear if there was some misunderstanding before.
If someone haven´t watched this conversation/interview, I recommend to watch it. For some reason voice of Karanth comes and goes demanding to focus when listening, voice of Miquelle is ok all the time. A lot of interesting things concerning tigers. It takes over an hour but worth it, imo.
The following 1 user Likes Shadow's post:1 user Likes Shadow's post • peter
(09-22-2020, 04:29 AM)Pckts Wrote: Naren Malik talking about Kanha *Mukki Zone Tigers* and the Tiger fights he's seen, Pugmark Differences, etc.
Funny enough, all Tiger fights he's seen has involved Umarpani male.
Pugmarks "10 month old Tiger cubs are equal to Leopard Pugmarks"
Driver talking about when Yuvraj killed a Bison.
"He jumped on him, injuring his hind legs and incapacitating him. The Gaur herd came and he charged at them to run them off then went back to attacking the Bison."
The driver is the perfect example of who the true experts are, no offense to anyone who studies these animals, they contribute immensely to the conservation of big cats but it's these guys who know everything there is to know. They are the ones that drive every day with these cats and it would truly be a treasure trove if they all got together and started documenting their stories.
Then we have zoologists, like Joseph Vattakaven and these other two men here, who have spent a lot of time on the field making first hand observations. Like 4 years of time spent (Vattakaven) to study tigers hunting success rates mentioned on the video. From 2:40-3:40. 1/25 stalks lead to success, means 4 % success rate. I think, that there are no-one with better knowledge than he has concerning it, even though these safari guides see a lot.
Also people like Karanth, Vattakaven, Schaller, Sankhala and many other zoologists have spent days and nights and long periods of times in the forests to get first hand experience, not just sitting behind the desk in the office.
For sure these guides see a lot, but I still think, that experts are experts for a reason. They know without a doubt many stories from guides too, but they also know very well themselves too, how things are in reality. While safari guides can put some extra to some stories to entertain visitors, people like Karanth and other experts have to be more down to earth.
Things are seldom black/white, but there is are reasons why some people are considered as experts and are widely respected for their knowledge and experiences.
100% but at the end of the day after they finish their research, they leave. These guides don't they continue to work there for years and years. They are locals who lived there and any research done cannot be done without the help of these drivers/locals.
In E. Africa, your guide is going to be tribesman from one of the 4 major tribes most likely, they are going to not only have years of experience tracking these animals but their ancestors will have years of experience living side by side with these animals, the same goes for India.
Next is the fact that these researchers like Joe, study many animals and since they have the resources to do so, they divide their time between places, for most of the guides they don't get that luxury, the are forced to stay in one place and again that leads to more experience.
These researchers may perform studies for years on end and learn a ton but they do so with the help of these guides who were there before them and will be there after them.
"Experts"
The term "expert" is vague, what exactly makes an expert?
Are you saying schooling is what makes an expert?
In that regards, these guides cannot hold a candle.
Or, are we talking about experience?
In that regard, no zoologist or biologist can compete.
I gave an example with Vattakaven. No-one can convince me, that some safari guides would know better tigers hunting success rates than him. There are many other things which zoologists study with time and fully aware of stories from locals and guides etc. These zoologists also without any doubt notice if there are contradictions or exaggerations, like there are time to time.
I posted my posting, because it´s not that simple that people should believe too blindly what guides tell. They know a lot, but there are many things in which they can make only guesses like others, while people like Vattakaven can say, that they know because they used a lot of time and effort to learn.
I pointed out another point of view. This is how I see this and I trust more to information from zoologists. Naturally other people decide themselves which sources they see most reliable. But many zoologists are really determined and spend a lot of time to learn how things really are.
And how exactly would he come across a Tigers hunting success rate?
Then what does it matter the success rate in which a single Tiger hunts in for a specific period of time?
For one, he'd have to study with the guides as they would be the ones driving him, tracking the tigers and telling him which tigers are which.
The fact that he specifically studies the success rate means little to the driver as that isn't their goal, their goal is tracking the Tiger. So when it comes to knowing real facts about the animal like: It's sex, age, lineage, preferred territory, prey preference during which time of year, how they smell, when and where a kill has been made, what the seasons contribute to the tigers behaviors, how terrain effects the animal etc. It's the tracker that would have the researcher outclassed.
I'm not sure what example you can present of people "believing a guide blindly" nor am I sure where you can present a single instance of that somehow coming back to bite anyone?
And while Vattakaven has put a lot of time in, he hasn't put nearly as much as the guides I'm referring too.
Lastly, trust who you wish but my point is that because they don't publish a paper that they are somehow not as knowledgeable as a researcher is wrong. From my first hand experience there is no one that knows the nuisances of these big cats better. And I'd bet good money that if you spoke with any of these researchers you named, they'd give credit right away to these guides and trackers they work with.
You can watch that video and see what he says. I believe naturally, that he knows better what he is talking about than you or me. These zoologists have way more first hand experience than you will ever have. They also have met more these safari guides than you and hear more stories from them than you. So you can count on it, that I trust to them more, when talking about certain things, like weights, success rates and so on. It´s simply not possible to be at same level when experiencing things only as a tourist. I think, that people like Vattakaven and Karanth are way more competent to estimate what stories are reliable and what aren´t.
So this isn´t a debate really. I just showed, as I said, other side of the coin so to say. I happen to know how good story tellers some guides are, when they are with tourists. Without modern science and objective zoologists there would be a lot of rubbish told as real things.
When did I say that you or I or any tourist has as much knowledge as the researchers mentioned?
I said the guides/locals. But we've made our points, time to move.
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
