WildFact
›
Premier Section
›
Edge of Extinction
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
Thanks. Can you ask the people, whom you spoke to, the following questions?
1) A 9 ft long tiger, assuming includes the tail, would actually be lower than average for a male tiger. So if he is "not that big", how big is he? Big, average or small? 2) What does an average tiger weigh, according to them? How big were the "bigger tigers they have seen" in terms of length/weight? 3) Have they measured the tiger? If so, what is the actual length of the tiger? 4) Why did the forest department, who captured the tiger, needed to bring a second bigger cage for the tiger? Did they bring a cage designed to fit a leopard for the first time and then realized they were dealing with a tiger? Why did it take 12 people to lift the tiger? 5) What weighing machine did the vet use? Was it calibrated? What was its maximum limit? 6) Has Dr. Brijendra Yadav been misquoted by TOI? Has the story been completely fabricated? 7) In an another thread, you said that most indian scientists and forest dept. doctors were unreliable in your opinion. Why, in your view, are the people who you spoke to, more reliable? 
Length is subject to many factors, how was it measured, etc. I'd be more curious about chest, neck and arm girth if they took those measurements.
@altaican,
The people I talked are friend and colleague of director and dy. Director of zoo. These tigers are not yet allowed for public viewing (And I highly doubt that they will allow). I have a friend on fb who can help me to see that tiger, only if he is available. He is very famous photographer and his father was director in u.p. forest department. He has taken some photos from Dudhawa National Park (Tigers chasing Rhino with a cub). According to the report this tiger has several disabilities and it is also confirmed by them @Shardul I can understand you are very curious, But you have to understand that it is not easy to ask lot of questions and get answer of them, specially if they are people of higher rank officer who are retired. They do not bother much of these type of questions. They are also in my friend list of fb, not my actual day to day friend. I have never met them personally but I follow them on fb since they keep sharing interesting news and information. Though, I will try to ask questions as much as possible. But also it is not 100% confirm that I will see that tiger. Our last question is not for people but for me. I never said scientist and doctors are unreliable, I said the instruments and the way they used to measures are less accurate than those used in other part of words (May be I am wrong) I am not saying they are reliable, but few of them are wildlife photographers who travel various part of India to take images. And I think, sincere photographers who have seen many tigers in personnel are in better position to tell the size (Big or Small) than the person who works with tigers of particular area. The latter, can give you better information of habitat, density, weight and other scientific information of that place, but the former will give you better comparative detail of size.  (09-22-2016, 11:12 AM)sanjay Wrote: @altaican, Here is a much more detailed report of the capture of the Tiger by a Project Officer from Wildlife Trust of India (WTI). The tiger was apparently a young male (from the condition of his canines) and weighed 235 Kg. http://wti.org.in/NewsDetails.aspx?NewsId=1596
@sanjay
The reason I asked that question was that unless we specify what exact method/equipment the Indian researchers use compared to those from other nations, and how and why that is unreliable, judging them like this would be pure speculation. That's why I wanted to know how you reached that conclusion. Regarding photographers, you need to know that they are just people, like you and me, and even the most seasoned photographers will not agree on something like size. For eg, the photographer @Pckts spoke to said that Tadoba tigers were the largest. Some others say tigers from Corbett are the biggest, others will say Kaziranga and so on. Depending on what distance/angle you view a tiger from, your perception of its size may vary a lot. When I saw T-24 from a distance, he didn't look big to me at all, but the second time he was a bit closer and sleeping, I was surprised at how long and massive he looked.
Well, I am not talking about all photographers, But there are many who also notice size and many other attributes and they can be trusted
ALTAICAN
A new member already scoring points is promising. Hope you keep it up and welcome to the forum. The follow-up on the alleged giant man-eater was an interesting read. Here's what I saw: 1 - Many regions in India can be considered as prime habitat for both wild animals and humans. 2 - As a result of 1, competition between both has to be expected. 3 - Big cats (tigers and leopards) and humans living in close proximity is not a good idea. 4 - Those involved in protecting tigers often have to choose between two evils. 5 - Indians are doing a great job protecting wildlife. INDIA India really is a beautiful country, attractive for both animals and humans. As the number of humans has increased considerably in the last century in particular, wild country has rapidly disappeared. When tigers were all but gone in the late sixties of the last century, it was decided to save them. In order to get there, laws were introduced and reserves were created. Almost half a century later, one could sat they did an excellent job. Many regions still have extended forests (the percentage has in fact increased over the last years), the number of reserves is impressive and most of them are well-stocked and healthy. The result is India still has tigers. PROBLEMS There are three big problems. One is many reserves are smallish. When the number of tigers rises as a result of good conditions, there is just no room to accomodate them. Two is many reserves are isolated, resulting in inbreeding. Corridors are needed, that is. Three is most reserves are surrounded by humans. Millions of them. When things go wrong, chances are there will be conflicts. Tigers, and males in particular, need a lot of room. When the population grows as a result of good conditions, there will be conflicts between tigers with a territory and young adults trying to establish themselves. Although many seem to think these clashes are not very serious, statistics suggest they are. If we add that statistics about an elusive animal are anything but reliable, the conclusion is the struggle for space most probably has serious consequences for quite many tigers. MAN-EATERS Although only few tigers unable to establish themselves turn to cattle or man, cattle-tigers and man-eaters still are not uncommon in India. In this respect, India is different from many other countries that have tigers. The most important reason is India is very densely populated. As a result, tigers and humans often live in close proximity. In Russia, Amur tigers face tougher conditions. Crop failures, long and severe winters with deep snow, limited numbers of large prey animals and competition from both hunters and other predators not seldom result in famines and disabilities. Although not a few tigers are severely affected, the number of conflicts between tigers and humans is limited. One reason is Russia has a lot of wild country. Two is the number of people in eastern Russia is limited. I'm not saying it will happen, but Russia has enough room to accomodate a few thousand Amur tigers. The only long-term solution for India, assuming they would be willing to accept a few thousand tigers, is to create similar conditions. At the moment, the Himalayas (from the Terai Arc all the way to the northeastern part of Assam) probably offer the best chance. Southwestern India also is suited. The eastern part of central India could also qualify. The problem is no corridors needed to prevent inbreeding. Based on the situation today, chances are different subpopulations will develop in the near future. SIZE One has to remember a few things when size is discussed: a - An adult male big cat in good health of 200 kg. (442 pounds), no matter what they tell you, is a very large animal. b - Captive big cats don't face tough conditions, like severe cold (Russia), famines (Russia), habitat destruction (Sumatra) and pressure from humans hunters and other predators (India, Russia and Sumatra). They also don't need to hunt and to compete. As a result, many are able to get to their potential. This general observation is more true for lions than for tigers. Much more so, I would say. The reason is lions are social animals allowing for specialisation, whereas tigers are not. A tiger first has to learn how to survive on its own. When established, he or she needs many more years to develop the skills needed to hunt large animals and to deal with large competitors, like other tigers and bears. This is why young adults do not compare to mature and old animals. Those who manage to get to maturity, are the ones who feature in documentaries. We don't see the others, because most of them just don't make it. As this is not the case in captive animals, they, apart from Amur tigers, often are a bit smaller than wild tigers. In India, adult male Indian tigers average 400-410 pounds (181,44-185,98 kg.) in captivity. Wild male Indian tigers today, most probably (there are no reliable data), average over 440 pounds (199,58 kg.). My guess would close to 460 (208,66 kg.), but chances are there are significant regional differences. Himalayan tigers could be the largest and heaviest wild big cats today, but I'm not sure about the Russians for lack of reliable data (the only sample available was small and had both young adults as well as 'problem' tigers). In lions, it seems (watch that word) to be different. Most captive African lions compare to captive Indian tigers (400-410 pounds or 181,44-185,98 kg.). Captive male Amur tigers in European zoos could average 460-470 pounds (208,66-213,19 kg.). I didn't see a lot of difference between captive Indian and African lions. Those from South Africa could be a tad larger, but one has to remember quite many descend from Timbavati lions. Lions from that region produce white lions every now and then. White lions are larger than normal coloured lions. Even normal coloured Timbavati lions often are a bit larger than lions from other parts of Africa. I'm not saying captive lions dwarf their wild relatives, but they do seem a bit more robust and more often exceed, say, 430 pounds (195,05 kg.). Amur tigers compare to lions in that captive born animals are often a bit larger than their wild relatives. Could, at least partly, be a result of the population bottleneck in the early part of the last century (smaller individuals stood a better chance to escape the attention of hunters). As it also is a fact that all captive Amur tigers descended from them, their larger size most probably is a result of better conditions. This means conditions in Russia, although improving, are not yet optimal. Wild male Amur tigers (averaging 430 pounds according to Miquelle, 420 if we follow the table posted by Guate and about 390 if we use the WCS-table, which had both young adults and 'problem' animals) more or less compare to wild male Kruger lions (400 pounds in the southern part of the park an close to 440 in the northern part - this because many lions in the southern part were affected by a disease). In head and body length, the difference is very limited as well. As Amur tigers have slightly longer tails, they most probably have a few inches on Kruger lions in total length. c - Tigers in northern India and, especially, Nepal could be the longest and heaviest big cats today. As the information on size of tigers today is both limited and not always, if not seldom, reliable, we have no option but to use the old samples collected by big game hunters again. A century ago, adult wild males averaged 8.7 in total length (measured 'between pegs') in Nagaland (average of two males 340-350 pounds (154,22-158,76 kg.), 9.0 in southeastern India and the Deccan (average of 11 males 402 pounds or 182,35 kg.), 9.3 in the Central Provinces (average 420 pounds or 190,51 kg.) and Cooch Behar and Assam (average 461 pounds or 209,11 kg.), 9.5 or a little over in northern India (the average of the male tigers shot by Sir J. Hewett was 435-440 pounds, but he couldn't weigh many large animals because the machine he had made in Calcutta broke down time and again - my estimate was closer to 470 pounds or 213,19 kg.) and 9.6-9.8 in Nepal (average of 7 males weighed in Royal Chitwan 488 pounds adjusted (221,36 kg.) and 520 pounds unadjusted (235,87 kg.) according to Sunquist, who was there, and 400 according to Kitchener and Yamaguchi, who were not, but assumed every male had swallowed a complete cow before he was captured in spite of that). Based on what I have, I got to 475-490 pounds (215,46-222,26 kg.) for northern India and Nepal, with Nepal closer to the upper limit. As a result of the problem mentioned above, I'm unable to get to an average of tigers today. If we use a few reliable reports, however, tigers seem to be a bit (5-8%) heavier. The most probable reasons are well-stocked reserves, protection and severe competition. If an adult male averaged, say, 9.3 and 420 pounds (190,51 kg.) a century ago, I propose to use 9.3 (281,94 cm.) and 440-460 (199,58-208,66 kg.) for today. This is without Sunderban tigers. The upper limit is a bit of a mystery, but more than one forest officer reported about individuals well exceeding 600 pounds over a century ago. One of these, estimated at 700 pounds or better, was described as a perfect mountain of fat (see below - k2 and k3). Non-obese males only very seldom exceed 550 pounds (249,48 kg.), but there is no question some did. If tigers today really are a bit heavier, 600 pounds (272,16 kg.) empty can't be excluded. At least two researchers reported about a male exceeding a 600-pound scale in the last decades of the previous century. This in a region (Nepal) that had well below 200 tigers in the days these two were captured and weighed. At least one of them had a collar when he was captured, meaning there was no need to bait him. What I'm saying is tigers in northern India are large animals, with males often exceeding 200 kg. (442 pounds). Even those unable to compete as a result of a disability, a disease or a lack of size often exceed 400 pounds (181,44 kg.). If you, however, read a report about a tiger of 300 kg. (662 pounds), I propose to read it again and contact a few people. WILD TIGERS EXCEEDING 550 POUNDS Although rare even in northern India and Nepal, male tigers reaching or exceeding 9.8 in total length ('between pegs') and 550 pounds have been recorded so often, that many think they are quite common. Not so. Each of the tigers below was exceptional. a - Ajanti, India. This male, fully loaded as you can see, at 10.1 'between pegs', was estimated at 600 pounds. Even if we deduct the cow he had eaten, he most probably was close to 550 pounds empty. It was a very robust male who had killed and eaten more than one villager:  *This image is copyright of its original author b - Northeastern India, close to the Bhutan border. The longest Bengt Berg shot in the twenties and thirties of the last century was 9.7 'between pegs' (292,10 cm.) and 565 pounds (256,28 kg.). Many posters who saw the photograph below thought the tiger was not as large as a decent modern Assam tiger, but Bengt Berg had a lot of experience and he was convinced this tiger was by far the biggest he had seen. He had to be well over 565 pounds, that is. He didn't go for an estimate, but Berg was so impressed that he decided to let him go. Instead of shooting the tiger, he took a few photographs. Meet 'The Killer of Men' from Bhutan:  *This image is copyright of its original author c - Northern India. The male below, also known as 'The Bachelor of Powalgarh', was much sought after by many experienced hunters. All of them failed, but Jim Corbett, convinced he might become dangerous, didn't. Measured three times after he was shot, the Bachelor was 10.7 'over curves', or just over 10 feet straight in total length. He didn't say anything about the weight, but there's little doubt a robust tiger of this size exceeded 550 pounds:  *This image is copyright of its original author d - Northern India. This photograph was posted by Rofl about a year ago. Reliable observers all think Himalayan tigers are larger than anywhere else. Although weights are very difficult to assess from photographs, I'm quite sure this male, very large in all respects, is close to the mark mentioned above, meaby even well over:  *This image is copyright of its original author e - Nepal. Royal Chitwan, to be precise. Prem, a tiger expert, shows the skull of the Sauraha male tiger, who accidentally drowned just after he was darted. A freak accident in which a freak tiger was involved. The Sauraha tiger is one of two Nepal tigers who exceeded a 600-pound scale. Sunquist, after a lot of calculations and deductions, concluded 261 kg. would be close to the mark, but it is a fact the Sauraha tiger had a collar when he was darted the last time. There was no need to bait him, that is. So why was he adjusted? Perhaps Sunquist was thinking of Kitchener and Yamaguchi when he decided to buy a book on wild big cats and deductions? Anyhow. It had no effect, as they were not impressed and decided to write a new one. Using it many years after the Sauraha tiger was weighed, they proudly presented 218 kg. as the most probable weight. This monster deduction (from > 272,16 kg. to 218 kg. = at least 55 kg. or 122 pounds) was followed by a number of firm remarks on the alleged weight of some tigers shot in the past. Apart from the fact they openly doubted not just a beginner, but a peer loaded with experience and quite a reputation (Sunquist), there's a bit more to say about their new, albeit secret, book on deductions and the consequences of what seems to be very close to something Steven-Hamilton considered as 'misinforming the public'. One is the Sauraha tiger bottomed a 600-pound scale, not one of 450 pounds. He was over 272,16 kg. when he was weighed, that is. Not 218 kg. Two is they could and should have known about the difference between gorged tigers and other tigers of similar size, as the Maharajah of Cooch Behar was clear in his book: the difference was a bit over 60 pounds (27,22 kg.), and not a bit over 120 pounds (54,43 pounds). Three is we don't know if the Sauraha tiger was loaded or empty. We do know he had a collar when he was darted, meaning there was no need to bait him. Four is I saw hundreds of lions and tigers myself. Although I weighed and measured 20 captive animals only, it was enough to get an idea about the correlation between length and weight. It also enabled me to learn a bit about optical illusions (referring to the effect of black vertical stripes in tigers and the mane and the upright position of many male lions). The heaviest I weighed (a male Amur tiger) was 9.5 (287,02 cm.) in total length straight and 211 kg. (466 pounds). Apart from that, I saw four adult male lions and tigers who had been weighed in a facility just days before I visited the place. I also saw all tables. A male Amur tiger, a direct descendant of a wild male, was 203 kg. (448 pounds); a white male tiger was 249 kg. (550 pounds); one of the two Timbavati male lions was 230 kg. (508 pounds), and his white brother was 273 kg. (603 pounds). All four were far from obese. I watched them for a long time. Same for the photograph of the Sauraha tiger below. The conclusion was the Sauraha tiger and the monster white Timbavati lion could have been close. The Sauraha tiger seemed a bit longer, but the Timbavati male definitely compared for robustness. I could be wrong, but if the Sauraha tiger really was 218 kg. (482 pounds), even a visit to an eye-doctor would be pointless. Sunquist also was targeted by posters not that long ago. The reason was they wanted to know a bit more about the method used to measure Chitwan tigers. I agree his description of the method used was a bit, ehh, slippery, but his peers also struggled, not to say one of them turned the world upside down. I wasn't surprised, because the method used by biologists today (many measure big cats 'over curves') was considered unreliable a century ago. It still is. I tried it myself more than once and couldn't make head or tails of it. If different people measure a big cat in this way ('over curves'), the outcome of the attempts, without moving the animal, often is close to unpredictable, whereas straight line measurements time and again yielded very similar results. I wouldn't say the differences between different attempts, as Dunbar Brander suggested, were within a quarter of an inch, but it was less than an inch. The reason is the method is easier to apply: you place a marker at the point of the nose, another one at the insertion of the tail and the last one at the end of the last bone of the tail; you then remove the animals and measure the distance in a straight line with a steel tape. I'm not saying easy does it, but it is much easier than running the tape over the skull, neck, shoulders, depressions and other ungulations of the spine and making sure the tape touches the body at all places, as that is asking for trouble. Furthermore, it takes a lot of time as well as different people assisting. All present also need to pay attention all the time. Anyhow. This is Prem with the skull of the Sauraha tiger. Tiger skulls of that size are not seen in natural history museums. I know, because I visited more than one and measured close to 400 big cat skulls. Tiger skulls of that size are in private collections. The second photograph is from 'Tiger Moon' (written by the Sunquists). It shows the Sauraha tiger lying next to a number of people:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author f - Central India. No info on this one, but the hunter who shot him, although positioned up front, is dwarfed by the tiger. Could have been a shortish man, but the head of the tiger is mighty impressive anyhow. Also have a look at the shoulder. There's no question that he was a very robust animal:  *This image is copyright of its original author g - Meet Madla (top) and his opponent Hairyfoot (bottom) from Panna, central India. Hairyfoot didn't feature in the documentary that impressed many, but Madla did. He allegedly was 250 kg. (just over 550 pounds), but the one who had seen both said Hairyfoot could have been a bit larger:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author h - Northern India. This male, a man-eater, was shot in 1937. At nearly 600 pounds, he was as big as they come:  *This image is copyright of its original author i - Southern India before 1910 (the book was published in 1910). Two men employed by H. Wiele, who walked the extended forests in that part of India for weeks without seeing a soul. Watch the size of the rifle:  *This image is copyright of its original author j - Same rifle and big tiger. Wiele didn't say anything about his size, but he was impressed. Those who knew him said he was well over 20 when he was shot. The Luckvalley tiger was real big, but not big enough to displace the big wild boar who had taken his gaur. The boar must have been an immense animal. Over a century ago, India still produced giants of all kinds:  *This image is copyright of its original author k - Three scans from the book of Capt. J. Forsyth, published in 1889. He roamed the forests of central India for many years. In that part of India, big cats were measured 'between pegs'. One of the tigers he shot was 10.1 in total length straight. Forsyth wrote he must have touched 700 pounds. At least. As he really knew about the size of tigers, we have to take him very seriously. The tiger, however, was a mountain of fat. Those who hunted in the Central Provinces well over a century ago (1800-1870 or so), and forest officers in particular, agreed a male tiger in that part of India was 9.4-9.6 in total length straight and 450-500 pounds in those says. Half a century later, Dunbar Brander got to 9.3 and 420 pounds. One could say the old boys didn't know how to measure a tiger. One could also say Dunbar Brander was an accurate observer. My guess is the loss of size was a result of overhunting in a period wild country was quickly disappearing. If we use data from Nepal collected half a century later (male tigers lost about 4 inches in total length in a period of about a decade only), the conclusion is it is more than likely that hunting had an effect on the average size of tigers in the Central Provinces. Hewett, regarding Nepal, agreed. Here's the title page and the two pages about the 10.1 tiger:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author l - Central Provinces. I can't get to the details of this tiger right now, but it was a very large and robust male with quite a reputation:  *This image is copyright of its original author m - Southwestern India. As a result of his size, Old One Eye was known all over India. Many had a go at him, but he was able to outwit them for a long time. Then this American Army officer had a try. He succeeded. The tiger was 11.0 'over curves' and estimated at 700 pounds. Judging from the circumference of his belly, the tiger hadn't been shot after running a marathon. As he was not only estimated but baited as well, I propose to deduct 100 pounds right away. But tigers of that length have been shot in that period and he also was robust. Definitely over 550 pounds empty:  *This image is copyright of its original author n - Northeastern India. This male featured in a shortish documentary. I saw it and also saw the pictures more than once. I was amazed. If Ngorogoro lions top the list of Africa for robustness, Kazirangha tigers do so in India. They also have large and very wide skulls:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author o - If Kazirangha tigers are hulks, Himalayan tigers are athletes. Big athletes, though. A century ago, male Himalayan tigers had 2-4 inches on them (total length, measured 'over curves'). They also were 10-30 pounds heavier than male tigers from Cooch Behar and Assam. The Assam tigers averaged 461 pounds. The photographs and documentaries I saw suggest nothing has changed in the last century. In India, length and weight are strongly correlated. This photograph was posted before, but it's one that illustrates what I mean best. Rajaji National Park, northern India:  *This image is copyright of its original author His pugmarks:  *This image is copyright of its original author p - Northeastern India (Assam), 1954. This tiger also was well over 500 pounds:  *This image is copyright of its original author q - To finish the post, two photographs of male Indian tigers exceeding 200 kg. close to a human. This to illustrate that a tiger (or a lion) of that weight is a very large animal. I'm not sure about the first one (I do know he was killed in a fight), but the second one is a captive male tiger from Dreamworld (Australia). In his prime, he was 440-445 pounds:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
I take Kanwaars word as gospel when discussing the largest tigers. Very few people have had as much experience as him with kaziranga males and corbett males. When he tells me that corbett are as massive as it gets and largest male he has seen was in kazi, that is good enough for me. Then when he tells me that tigers at the base of the himalayas are said to be even larger and the facts tend to back that, I can't help but agree with his and your assessments @peter
A few words:
1. @altaican, welcome to the forum. Great found about the man-eater tiger. 2. @tigerluver, excellent document, I am going to read it right now. It seems very interesting. 3. @peter, like always I support your posts, they are full of truth. However, I still support my point on Dr Sunquist, as I believe, based in his description to me, that his tigers were accurately measured, and taking in count that he don't stretched, nor pressed the tape on his measurements, we can state that the Nepalese tiger measurements are just like the measurements between pegs of any other tiger. The estimation of Kitchener and Yamaguchi, on the Nepalese tiger weights, and particularly the Sauraha male, are ridiculous and without any base, as they ignore the data of Dr Sunquist, Dr Smith and Dr Dinerstein, which actually weighed those tigers and knew the actual food intake and physical condition of each tiger. 4. On this new man-eater tiger, it is the same that the one posted by @sanjay, check the stripes of the right side. A "total" length of 9 ft (274 cm) seems an estimation, but is not out of the possibility, specially if the animal had a short tail. Now, the weight of 300 kg is certainly a misquote or a mistake, that tiger do not weight that. However, the weight of 235 kg seems way more reliable for such an specimen, and should be the real one. We need more verification of it, before to add it to my list, which now summarize 16 males and 28 females from the Indian subcontinent (India and Nepal), only from modern records.
Thank you @peter
I am glad you have posted a tremendous amount of information there. I was looking for something like this. I haven't gone through it all yet, but will definitely go through it. I am looking for weight measurements of wild tigers (and lions). That 461 pound average of Kaziranga tiger, did you get that number from the data of Maharajah of Cooch Behar? I used to post on a forum similar to this about 10-12 years back (it was AvA forum in shark ezboards). Back then the lion-tiger battles on that board were pretty brutal, but it was a lot of fun. This seems to be a very different forum, more mature. An outcome of those AvA battles back then was that I had the pleasure of chatting with eminent Big Cat Scientists (like Dr.Craig Packer, Dr. Mel Sunquist etc.) regarding big cat behavior. When it comes to big cat sizes, it looks like different people have different opinions. Difficult to say anything until we have raw data. Dr.Sunquist had studied tigers in Chitwan (Nepal) & later on in Nagarhole (South India). I think he was one of the first Scientists to radio-collar the Sauraha male tiger. He was just astonished by it's size. He was clearly amazed by how the tiger just flattened out the 500 pound scale as if it was nothing. When I showed him the photograph of Madla (the muscular male from Panna), he wasn't particularly impressed (when in comparison with the Sauraha male). He was insistent that the Sauraha male was bigger. Even when I pointed out that neck girth of Madla was 4 inches more than that of the Sauraha male (90cms vs 80cms), he still wouldn't budge. I recall a 650 pound wild tiger from South India, the measurement was accurate, and the tiger was not particularly full, but the tiger was a cattle lifter. During his study, Dr.Brian Bertram had measured the weights of several East African lions and came up with a correlation between the weight of a lion and it's chest girth. I wonder if any such pattern has been observed in wild tigers. Would you happen to know the actually measured weights (and other measurement data) of any of the recent, famous wild tigers of India (like Jai from UKWLS, or Konda from Kanha or Raja from Bandipur)? I am looking for actually measured weights. I am also interested in dispersal of male tigers (this is absolutely essential for their survival in the wild, promotes a healthy gene pool). In one of the DNA studies (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3819329/), I read that there is genetic exchange between tigers of Central India and tigers in Srisailam forest in South India. That is pretty amazing, considering the distance. 
Yes, 300 kg sounds like an exaggeration to me. 235 kg sounds more realistic, plus it is less of a rounded number which makes me believe it even more. Plus, the article mentioned before was written by someone that actually was there when they captured the animal.
(09-23-2016, 08:04 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: A few words: Agreed on all points, Guate. In this post, a bit more on methods to conclude the debate we started half a year ago. 1 - THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE METHOD USED BY SUNQUIST AND A MEASUREMENT TAKEN 'BETWEEN PEGS' As to Sunquist and his mails on the method he used in Nepal. It's true he was clear in his mails. It's also true the result of a measurement taken in the way he described would be very close to the result of a measurement taken 'between pegs'. I deducted a few inches, because I used his method and the method described in my post myself on a large captive male Amur tiger. This tiger was 298 cm. in total length 'between pegs' and 2-3 inches longer when I used the method described by Sunquist. The conclusion is there is a slight difference between both methods. Measuring a big cat in a straight line with the tape touching (or pressed to) the body at some places (method a) is different from measuring the distance between the markers in a straight line when the cat is removed (method b). The difference between both methods is a result of angles. The moment they are added (like when you press the tape to the body at some places), straight lines start to increase in length. For this reason, method a will produce more inches than method b. The difference between both methods was 2-3 inches in the tiger mentioned above. I used 3-4 inches in my posts in order to prevent a debate, but would agree the real difference is somewhat less. Based on this test, I'd say the Sauraha tiger most probably was very close to ten feet straight. 2 - THE METHOD USED TO MEASURE TIGERS IN RUSSIA (Miquelle), INDIA (U. Karanth) AND NEPAL (Sunquist) - The problem with the method used today is that some applied it in the way Hewett did, whereas others, like Sunquist, did not. One could say Miquelle and his team measured tigers 'over curves', whereas Sunquist and his team measured tigers 'between pegs'. Almost 'between pegs'. This means a 9.8 male tiger measured by Miquelle in Russia would be shorter than a 9.8 male tiger measured by Sunquist in Nepal. But how much shorter? Nobody knows. The result is confusion. One point deducted. - Karanth wrote biologists today all use the same method (...). This means tigers in Nepal (Sunquist), India (Karanth) and Russia (Miquelle), at least in theory, should be measured in the same way. We, however, just established (see above) they were not. At least, not in Nepal (Sunquist) and Russia (Miquelle). More confusion and another point deducted. - As to Karanth. The question is in what way he applied the 'standard' method. Karanth wrote he measured tigers 'over curves', but did he? Sunquist was in southwestern India when tigers were measured. Did he see anything strange? The answer is no he didn't. Are we to conclude tigers in southwestern India were measured in the same way as in Nepal then? Yes, says Sunquist in an indirect way. No, wrote Karanth in his book. So what should we conclude? I don't know. The result is more confusion and another point deducted. - Another question is how long tigers in India, Nepal and Russia are when they would have been measured 'between pegs'. The answer is we don't know. Based on what I read, Nepal tigers could be a bit longer than those in India and Russia, but this only an assumption. Another point gone. - As to sample size, selection and weight. One is that all samples were too small to get to a conclusion. Two is the Nepal sample had at least one male that wasn't fully adult. The Amur sample had more than one. Three is questions about weight were not answered. Miquelle said wild male Amur tigers averaged 430 pounds, but the WCS-table said well below 400 would be closer to the mark. Four is we don't know if the tigers weighed in Russia were adjusted. I'm not sure, but my guess is Amur tigers were not. Nepal tigers were. Sunquist wrote they averaged 520 pounds unadjusted and 488 adjusted. But Kitchener and Yamaguchi didn't believe one word of it. The male Nagarahole tigers also were severely adjusted. Cooch Behar and Assam male tigers described as 'gorged' were just over 60 pounds heavier than similar-sized male tigers that were not, but Nagarahole male tigers apparently were not. We also don't know if they really were gorged or not. Same for Nepal tigers. I really don't know what to make of it. Two more points gone, as they had plenty of time to do it right. - To conclude. Most of those interested in big cat morphology got involved in severe debates after peer-reviewed with measurements were published. The reason is unclear information. Preference had nothing to do with it, that is. - Some years ago, Slaught had a go at historical records of wild Amur tigers. Only very few of them survived the test. The information published by his peers wasn't included. A pity. 3 - INFORMATION ABOUT THE SIZE OF WILD TIGERS Every now and then, one reads a report that has a bit of information about the length or weight of a wild tiger. A closer investigation nearly always results in confusion. At times, the weight was estimated. Sometimes the tiger was weighed, but adjusted later and sometimes it was not. One also reads reports about a 9 foot tiger well exceeding 500 or 600 pounds, only to find out later it wasn't 9 feet. Or 500 pounds. To keep it short. Very often, I don't know what to make of it. This is the reason I decided to call it a day many years ago. The only thing I know is wild male tigers in Nepal and northern and southwestern India are large animals, possibly a bit heavier than a century ago. Wild male Amur tigers seem to be smaller than a century ago, but experienced Russian tiger biologists suggested large individuals are still there. According to them, they are as large as the largest back then (550-650 pounds). Another thing I know is the differences between age-classes are pronounced. They were in leopards (referring to the table about leopards in a region in South Africa) and my guess is it isn't any different in lions, tigers and jaguars. Skulls from two tiger subspecies showed remarkable differences between young adults, mature animals and old animals. 4 - THE ADVANTAGE OF MEASUREMENTS TAKEN 'BETWEEN PEGS' It takes a lot of skill to measure a big cat 'over curves'. This means that those using this method are bound to do it in slightly different ways. Even if only one is measuring a cat in this way more than once, the outcome is different every time. I know, because I tried. If a big cat is measured 'between pegs' by different people, the results, however, are very similar time and again. The reason is this method is easy to understand and easy to apply. Furthermore, the result reflects the true length of a cat. Another advantage is the results of measurements taken in this way can be compared. Some prefer curve measurements over straight line measurements. The reason is they think the last method doesn't do justice to the real size of a big cat. I disagree. If you measure head and body length and total length and add head length, head width, rostrum width, upper canine length, neck girth, chest girth, upper arm girth, lower arm girth, pad width and the girth of the upper part of the hindleg, a very clear picture will emerge. After the measurements have been taken, the cat has to be weighed with reliable (tested) scales. 5 - KITCHENER AND YAMAGUCHI I rewrote part of my last long post. The criticism on Kitchener and Yamaguchi regarding the way they sidelined the weight of the Sauraha tiger is justified, but once will do. Furthermore, Kitchener kindly allowed Tigerluver to post the link to the new (and very interesting) article. As to the size of lions and tigers. I agree lions are a bit larger at the level of species. Tigers, however, show more variation at the level of subspecies. What we have (reliable averages based on decent samples) says Himalayan tigers are the largest wild big cats today. Although I agree there is not enough information on the size of lions to get to firm statements, I doubt if lions in hotspots would produce averages comparable to those in northern India and Nepal. Ngorogoro lions could outweigh tigers in some parts of India, but Assam and Kazirangha tigers seem to be as big, if not more so, and those in northern India and Nepal are unsurpassed. As to length. Male lions in Kruger, Kalahari and Etosha could average 8.10-9.2 in total length in a straight line, whereas tigers in most parts of India could average 9.0-9.4. Male tigers in northern India and Nepal are a bit longer. In freak animals, the difference is more outspoken. The longest male lions max out at 9.9-10.0, possibly a bit more, whereas the longest Indian tigers reached 10.5-10.7. The Sungari River tiger (shot in Manchuria and 11.6 'over curves') could have been 10.10 in total length in a straight line. In captive big cats, the differences are more limited. The longest (captive) male lion measured by Dr. P. van Bree was 216 cm. in head and body and just over 300 cm. in total length (weight 280 kg.). I have more records of captive male lions exceeding 200 cm. in head and body length. Wild lions don't show pronounced regional differences in size. Large individuals can be found everywhere. This observation is confirmed in skulls. The longest skull I measured (408,00 mm. in greatest total length) belonged to a lion captured in what's now Ethiopia a century ago. The biggest skull I saw, however, belonged to a lion shot in Congo before the last war. A well-informed biologist from Belgium told Congo lions were anything but small in those days. (09-23-2016, 08:20 AM)altaican Wrote: Thank you @peter I didn't want to respond by quoting the entire post, but I thought it was the best option because it had a lot of questions. We don't want to force readers to scroll up and down all the time. I'll respond from the top down. In order to get to a bit of clarity, I added stars and numbers in your post. Hope you don't mind. *1 - The Cooch Behar average for male tigers is based on the records in the book of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar. I posted over 20 tables in this thread last winter. If you're interested, I would advice to have a look. This thread, roundabout December and January. *2 - I know the forum you mentioned, but didn't participate. Although some of the debates about lions and tigers produced good information and interesting clashes, most did not. This is why we, regarding this forum, decided to concentrate on info. In the end, this policy will result in more knowledge and more good posters. When we have enough, we could contemplate starting a debate. *3 - I understand why Sunquist was amazed. Big lions are big from the start, but big tigers are not. At least, not always. Sizewise, tiger can be a bit deceptive. When I asked those present in a facility to estimate the weight of two big cats (a male lion and a male Amur tiger), the lion was overestimated, whereas the opposite was true for the tiger. This although the difference between both big cats was quite visible. Most people, so it seems, focus on the front. What they see in male lions is a big skull, a mane, an upright position, robustness and an attitude. Captive tigers have shorter skulls, no mane and black vertical stripes. Furthermore, tigers are elusive animals, not interested in a crowd. They like their privacy. Maybe only those who actually carried and touched dozens of sedated big cats are able to get to an opinion. I don't think there much to choose between both for robustness, but opinions differ. This regarding captive animals. I never saw a wild lion or tiger, but it seems the difference between wild and captive animals often is significant. Captive lions seem a bit larger than their wild relatives. This is what I see and this is what those with experience told me. Wild tigers, on the other hand, often seem larger and a bit more robust than their captive relatives. The reasons have been discussed in my previous post. Tigers who don't establish themselves, often struggle. Those who succeed, continue to develop and to grow. Some think wild male tigers grow until they die. I wouldn't know about that, but it is a fact that the Sauraha male continued to grow after he reached adulthood. He bottomed a 500-pound scale when Sunquist was there, but some years later he bottomed a 600-pound scale. He also added over 3 inches in total length as an adult. My guess is wild male lions thrive in the first stages of adulthood. After reaching 7-8, they often quickly lose condition. A wild male lion of 10 years in good health is quite exceptional. Wild male tigers seem to need more time to mature. I've read plenty of reliable stories about 10-15 year old male tigers in good condition. Today, however, this is no longer the case. Not in India, that is. The reason could be a lack of space and more competition. More competition results in more conflicts, more wear and more injuries. Size can help, but most males in a reserve are quite similar in size these days. The reason is no corridors and, therefore, no new blood. Reliable observers agreed big and small tigers lived in close proximity a century ago, but that was in a period tigers could roam over much of India. Today, that's all but impossible in many parts of India. Wild male lions could be more often involved in clashes, but many of these are quickly decided in that small coalitions usually make way for large ones. If you're part of a large coalition, chances are you can last for quite some time. If not, you got a problem. Males injured or killed in fights often are outnumbered. When both coalitions are similar in size (referring to numbers and combined weight), clashes are either decided by surprise (resulting in local superiority in numbers) or a conference resulting in a new border. One seldom hears about perfectly matched bouts between, say, two coalitions of four going all the way until a decision is reached. I understand, as it wouldn't make sense: total devastation only offers opportunities for a third coalition. When male tigers who compare in size decide for a fight, chances are it could take some time to get to a decision. Based on what I read, saw (documentaries) and heard (trainers), it could even take days, if not weeks. When one of the two decides to call it a day, chances are the match will be resumed later. Not seldom, however, one of the two perishes as a result of injuries. The reason often is small reserves in that the loser has nowhere to go. It's do or die. Over the years, deaths resulting from 'natural causes' (like fights) have increased significantly. One could say wild male lions are more often involved in conflicts and, for this reason, more experienced, but fights between between wild male tigers, for the reason mentioned (no place to go), could be more serious. This would result in less experience, but less experience doesn't equal less ability. Not in an all-out fight. Every all-out is close to unpredictable. There's no such thing as experience in an all-out. What was effective against opponent 1 might prove to be ineffective against opponent 2. If you're unable to solve the problem right away, it could be curtains. In a fight, you need to be healthy, but something else could be more important. Grit, or whatever you want to call it, isn't connected to species and culture. It's an individual thing all the way. Culture is important when you join a team and interact. It won't, however, result in more ability in solving serious problems. For the same token, one could say an animal used to taking decisions on his own and executing them as well could have an advantage. And then, in the end, there's always the banana you didn't see. One could be end of story. Posters discussing the outcome of conflicts often underestimate chance, but it really often is a factor to consider. Same for other small things people tend to overlook. This is why I often go for 'unpredictable'. But I wouldn't mind talking to tiger Raja, who was able to beat 'unpredictable' more than once. Same for the lion Stevenson-Hamilton hunted for so long. He was big and very clever. Good combination. *4 - We're interested in the report about this tiger. A wild big cat hitting 650 is something out of the ordinary. *5 - Based on the tables I posted (see above), one could say there is a connection between chest girth and weight in Indian tigers, but it is not as outspoken as in bears or lions. The relation between total length and weight could be as strong, if not more so. Others thought skull width was the most reliable indicator. I measured a lot of skulls and noticed Indian tigers often have (relatively) wider skulls than other subspecies. Skulls of captive male lions, however, compared. As we know that Indian tigers are heavier than other tiger subspecies and captive lions are a bit bigger than wild lions, one could say skull width could be a good indicator. But we also know that skulls of captive lions often seem to have collapsed: they are not as long and elevated as skulls of wild lions, but much wider. Width, therefore, could be a factor to consider in wild big cats. In captive big cats, other factors could be more important. *6 - I have a number of weights I consider reliable, but the amount is very limited. The reason is one seldom, if ever, knows in what way the weight was taken. Not seldom, published weights later appear to be adjusted in some way. This is the reason weights often result in debates. As the details needed to get to a conclusion often are lacking, I decided to refrain from using them. Same story for length. All in all, I'd say many reports about the size of tigers from India are confusing. The only thing I know is Indian tigers are large animals. If you want to know a bit more, my advice is to ask Guate to help out. *7 - Some time ago, I posted more than once about a tiger called 'Broken Tail'. He was a young guy who who met with faith when he decided to select a path close to a railway in order to avoid humans and to stay cool. There are many stories about young male tigers walking long distances in India when they disperse. Many of them don't make it. The reason is long distances and many humans. In some cases, researchers were able to find the details of the journey. Most of them were quite impressive. 
I don't know if this is the right thread for this article, but i hope that you will find it interesting.
Human Perceptions Mirror Realities of Carnivore Attack Risk for Livestock: Implications for Mitigating Human-Carnivore Conflict Miller, Jhala & Schmitz, 2016 Abstract: "Human-carnivore conflict is challenging to quantify because it is shaped by both the realities and people’s perceptions of carnivore threats. Whether perceptions align with realities can have implications for conflict mitigation: misalignments can lead to heightened and indiscriminant persecution of carnivores whereas alignments can offer deeper insights into human-carnivore interactions. We applied a landscape-scale spatial analysis of livestock killed by tigers and leopards in India to model and map observed attack risk, and surveyed owners of livestock killed by tigers and leopards for their rankings of threats across habitats to map perceived attack risk. Observed tiger risk to livestock was greatest near dense forests and at moderate distances from human activity while leopard risk was greatest near open vegetation. People accurately perceived spatial differences between tiger and leopard hunting patterns, expected greater threat in areas with high values of observed risk for both carnivores. Owners’ perception of threats largely did not depend on environmental conditions surrounding their village (spatial location, dominant land-use or observed carnivore risk). Surveys revealed that owners who previously lost livestock to carnivores used more livestock protection methods than those who had no prior losses, and that owners who had recently lost livestock for the first time expressed greater interest in changing their protection methods than those who experienced prior losses. Our findings suggest that in systems where realities and perceptions of carnivore risk align, conservation programs and policies can optimize conservation outcomes by (1) improving the effectiveness of livestock protection methods and (2) working with owners who have recently lost livestock and are most willing to invest effort in adapting protection strategies to mitigate human-carnivore conflict." |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 28 Guest(s) |