ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

[WaveRiders]

Peter,

I think I got your message and I believe we have clarified at least the most important part of our misunderstanding concerning the people of Nepal.

I did not and it was definitely not my intention to insult the Nepalis as persons incompetent or servile or anything like that as a people. Possible issues of the kind of the ones suggested by Nepalese Dr Hemanta Mishra (2010) for a few single individuals did happen, can happen, happen and will happen everywhere in the world, definitely not related to this or that Nation.

 

Now I will go a bit deeper through the specifics of measurements.

 

1.     Your posts on Nepal tigers

I admit that in my recent posts in Carnivora I made a couple of references that I could have avoided.

Specifically the suggested 221 kg adjusted average weight derived from the non-adjusted weight average of 235 kg for N=7 supposedly distinct adult male tigers weighed in Chitawan between 1973 and 1980 by zoologists of the Smithsonian-Nepalese Tiger Project. I may have been unfair in some respect, but you can admit I provided some new light on the matter.

I believe the figure of 7 or 8 or 9 males found gorged / fully gorged was definitely not a major issue for you although on that circumstance I had specifically mentioned your name (now not anymore). I had done because I had absolutely assumed you were definitely fully aware of at least the definitely acknowledged 8th male found gorged embedded inside the book of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar and not appearing in its final tables.

You may also have assumed I also conveyed a message that the info concerning two 272 kg tigers, seemingly man-eaters, allegedly weighed in Chitawan during the 1990s or so provided by @tigerluver should be given a better clarification. I was unable to find any info on them even while searching for it to some extent in Chitawan Park Headquarter at Kasare after 2014 when I read about them (I wrote I could have not been able to interview all the right people for such an inquiry yet). Well, it is for @tigerluver to clarify the issue. He should be aware that following the policy in this particular forum claims of this kind should be supported with at least some sort of evidence. Maybe I missed more of his details, I can’t really be sure of it. From my side it would be more then enough just to let me know if the info has been published or not. After know this it will be up to me to be able to track the source. If not, as it seems, I will keep going try to get this info by other means whenever opportunity will present again to me.

There are some other references. Avoidable, I admit under that context and under a peaceful climate or they could have been done in more appropriated manners.

Overall my posts generated a message that you interpreted as

“In your last two contributions, Nepal tigers and Nepal measurements featured. A response to my posts on tigers in northern India and Nepal? Very likely. Was a message conveyed? Yes. In one post, you presented a researcher who wrote that adult male Nepal tigers average about 400 pounds. In the second, you presented someone with inside information on the habits and motives of nobility in general and Nepal maharajahs in particular. He strongly suggested they couldn't be trusted on measurements. Those they employed knew small tigers resulted in problems (less pay) and big ones in a promotion, if not a bonus. Right.

What to make of that? I'd say you delivered 2 messages. One is that adult male Nepal tigers are not as heavy as I suggested. Two is measurements taken by those employed by nobility in general and maharajahs in particular have to be taken with a lot of salt. What you really did, was you dismissed the information I posted on the size of Nepal tigers. This also means you disqualified the messenger (me)”.

I believe your interpretation that I was disqualifying your posts on Nepal tigers size far exceeds my intention. I can still have some disagreements with you, but I have neither disqualified your information nor I have dismissed you in those very recent posts. We had a harsh contention last year. Let’s put back beyond our shoulders what happened last year hoping we will not reach again that level of exchanges.

Have a thought on the following to realize how easy things can be interpreted in a different way

You wrote “Yes. In one post, you presented a researcher who wrote that adult male Nepal tigers average about 400 pounds”

Mishra (2010) wrote: “The tiger weighed just under 400 pounds – the normal size for an adult male”.

You interpreted 400 lb (181.4 kg) being stated as “THE normal size” means the average size (weight if you like)

I firmly believe as much as you that 181 kg is an (obviously) far too low average weight for adult male tigers in Chitawan particularly for baited tigers (as it was done for that male) who have eaten from the bait significant amount of meat. I therefore interpreted highly respectable Dr Mishra’s “the normal size” as “in the normal size range”. A bit too far in “manipulating” or justifying to me Mishra’s statement you may think, but this is the case for me. Perhaps because I do believe small and/or not well healthy and/or not fully grown baited adult male Nepal tigers can weigh in my opinion as low as 181 kg non-adjusted or even less and 170 kg or even less if adjusted essentially depending how much unhealthy/thin the animal is even when referring to a fully grown adult not really that small in size (just to have it present, Karanth, 2001, provides the minimum of the Bengal tiger weight range at 175 kg as you well know).

In any case Peter, I noticed that after 2013 or so, if my search on the issue was correct, when you mentioned about Dr Mishra’s surprising unimpressive weights of the adult male tigers he captured in Chitawan during the 1980s and reported in his book, you never mentioned again these data. I do not believe a fair point is you do not believe them as fairly representative of adult male tigers in Chitawan. I believe they are within the normal weight range. Remember who is Dr Hemanta Mishra. I believe it is fair to report his data as well and not only the ones from Sunquist (1981), Smith et al. (1983) and Dinerstein (2003).

I also believe in my recent posts I raised a fundamental issue on the sample from Smith et al. (1983).

Furthermore and most important I focused my posts on modern data while you presented the accurate and reliable hunting records of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar (1908 and in Brown, 1893), Hewett (1938), The Maharajah of Bikanir (1922), Smythies (1942), Burton (1917). You could have included a few more samples within Nepal records as for instance at least those from the Royal hunts of the Prince of Wales in 1921 and of King George V in 1911, but it is not me who has to suggest what to include and what not include.

Concerning both categories of data we have recently focused and discussed I believe are both fine, but I do not generally mixed them and not because of a better quality of one of the two. They are just from different worlds.

Concerning my brief digression on hunting records if you read again my post you can better notice that I did write “On the basis of some 85 total lengths over curves ranging from 2743 mm (9.0 ft) to 3353 mm (11.0 ft) of presumably all adult male tigers shot in Nepal during the hunting era with an average falling within 3020-3030 mm I have available and consider I estimate that the average non-adjusted weight of adult male Nepal tigers was most likely within 215-220 kg (474-485 lb) and quite unlikely more then around 225-229 kg (496-505 lb). My most probable figure is ca. 218 kg (non-adjusted).”

You considered 49 adult males from Smythies (1942) averaging 3038 mm (range 2743 - 3277 mm) over curves and a larger sample of 66 animals averaging 3030 mm with same range. I am therefore in very good agreement with you on computing average total lengths over curves from hunting record in Nepal. We may just have a slight disagreement of how to interpret it.

You also suggested “If all immature males would have been removed, the average of the remaining 45 would have been over 10 feet.” I have the feeling that doing this a clear bias for large size would start to be introduced. Remember that we are talking of hunting records where many very large tigers are included. You cannot leave them alone in the sample and then assume the result is an unbiased average of the population unless we have a different understanding of what is the population.

I have a slight disagreement with you on “The average for Chitawan (307,65 cm. 'over curves') is quite reliable (n=23)” because I believe this average is somewhat biased towards large males as Chitawan was more then other areas (as the best closest to Kathmandu) the “private” hunting ground of the Maharajah of Nepal and his personal guests (Kings and other special guests). Maharajahs of Nepal normally granted permission to other personalities (Sir John Hewett, Sir Harcourt Butler and all the others) for districts in the western and central part of the Nepalese Terai also because it was much easier for British, if from the United Provinces, to travel to those regions then to the eastern Nepalese Terai. I have little doubt that every year local shikaris made sure to have available a good stock of large tigers from the area for the Maharajah before the hunting season started.

Concerning average weight for adult males you suggested

"I tried to get to an average of those not weighed by using the details of those weighed. The result was then added to the total of those actually weighed. The average of different attempts ranged between 460-490 lbs. for all males shot in northwestern India in the period 1883-1927. As a hypothesis for now, I propose to take 475.
Nepal male tigers are about 2 inches longer than male tigers in northwestern India. Using the same method as described above, I tried to get to an average for Nepal. Most attempts ranged between 480-500 lbs. For now, I propose to take 490."

and

“Only very few Nepal tigers were weighed. Those that were ranged between 368-705 lbs. If we remove the young male and the giant shot by the Maharajah, the average weight could have been somewhere between 475-500 lbs. This, at least, was the outcome of the attempts I did. All of these were based on total length, because of the strong correlation between length and weight in tigers (in India).”

My "most likely estimate within 474 - 485 lb, with some tangible probabilities up to 496 - 505 lb and quite unlikely more" (as it should be read by words), is well consistent to yours. It is a bit lower as based on a very slightly lower average total length as I included additional animals from other sources (such for instance the ones from the two Royal hunts I mentioned above) obtaining 3020 - 3030 mm vs yours 3030 - 3038 / 3048+ mm (not sure which figure you considered).

Our major disagreement is in adjusting the average weights for stomach contents or not and if we do by how much is most sensible. You presented your case and I presented mine. I can say that I was surprised to have very recently found you to have reverted back over the last couple of months to consider non-adjusted weights as better because they are real scale weights. However I agree with you that adjusting weights when the stomach contents has not been weighed (evidently possible for dead animals only) and estimated only can be subjective. In my opinion it is better do it then not, or at least always specify it and possibly perform an educated guess if the context requires/suggests it particularly when making comparisons. I would not be surprised if, thinking again to the issue, you might go back to your previous conclusions.

 

1.1     A brief remark on Hewett’s and Butler’s hunts in Nepal.

The famous region in Nepal where Sir Harcourt Butler hunted those tigers of particularly large average size in 1918 (or 1919, not clear from Hewett) is specified by Hewett (1938, pag 70-71) to be the Sarju Valley. According to Hewett the Sarju Valley was also knows as the Babai valley in local language (pag 173), reached going from Bichiha, then through Biabaoli jungles to the East up towards Nepalganj (pag 174). By the way, the male weighing 368 lb (166.9 kg) mentioned at pag 171, measuring 2712 mm in total length over curves and possibly an old yearling / subadult animal, was actually shot in the districts of Gonda and Bahrach (most likely Gonda) which are both in Uttar Pradesh, India, and not in Nepal, although very close to the boundary between these two countries.

I can tell you that I have never been able to find the name Sarju and anytime I have been in that region visiting Bardia NP and Banke NP and made inquiries about this name as far as I can remember I never obtained a positive answer. It is known by Nepalis as the Babai Valley (from the Babai River) and it is located in the central-eastern part of Bardia NP.

My understanding is that Sir Harcourt Butler hunted those tigers in an area from the Babai valley in the current central eastern Bardia NP through the current Banke NP arriving close in Nepalganj, which is the major city of the area just south of the latter park. Hewett and his party shot Nepalese tigers in 1909-1910 around Nepalganj (pag 171-172). The Babai valley is located in the same ecoregion of the area surrounding Nepalganj, at least during Hewett’s time.

 

2.     Your posts on North Indian tigers

The other major disagreement concerns your repeated statements of generalization that the technique used by Hewett (1938) and his assistants for which total lengths of tigers measured over curves were just 2-5 inches longer then if measured in straight line between pegs was “the one” used in North India and your suggestion that is was likely the one used in Nepal too.

In my opinion you are likely incorrect for a number of reasons

2.1     There was not a precise “standard method” in North India

2.2     I found nowhere that Hewett’s method was the one mostly adopted

2.3     Hewett (1938) clearly writes that the difference of 2-5 inches occurred WHEN lengths where taken by HIMSELF or UNDER HIS personal observation.

2.4     Evidence from several well respected and known sportsmen, authorities and hunting companies from North India such as Stockley, Champion, Stampe, Corbett, Barrow, Brown (the latter two ones not sure if exactly from North India) and Raj Singh suggest to me Hewett was in clear minority. These authorities provide actual differences of measurements of lengths on specific tigers taken in both ways or provide nearly equivalent info (Corbett for the Bachelor of Powalgarh).

You mentioned this great tiger shot in the United Provinces (North India). Let’s see what Corbett (1944) wrote about it.

“Accompanied by my sister and Robin and a carrying party of twenty men, I returned to where the tiger was lying, and before he was roped to a pole my sister and I measured him from nose to tip of tail, and from tip of tail to nose. At home we again measured him to make quite sure we had made no mistake the first time. These measurements are valueless, for there were no independent witnesses present to certify them; they are however interesting as showing the accuracy with which experienced woodsmen can judge the length of a tiger from his pug marks. Wyndham, you will remember, said the tiger was ten feet between pegs, which would give roughly 10' 6" over curves; and while one shikari said he was 10' 5" over curves, the other said he was 10' 6" or a little more. Shot seven years after these estimates were made, my sister and I measured the tiger as being 10' 7" over curves.
I have told the story at some length, as I feel sure that those who hunted the tiger between 1920 and 1930 will be interested to know how the Bachelor of Powalgarh met his end.”

One more quantitative example other then the ones I already shown in Carnivora forum last year is for instance the largest tiger whose measurement operation F. W. Champion (1927) assisted which was shot by a party of the well known sportsman of the United Provinces W. L. Stampe. That very large tiger taped 10 ft 9 inches round the curves and 10 ft 2 inches in straight line between pegs, a difference of 7 inches (177.8 mm).

There are also the specific data from the well known paper from Stockley (1930) that I mentioned last year.

All those data including Raj Singh’s ones and, possibly, Barrow’s and Brown’s ones too, come from the United Provinces in North India.

Furthermore last year I highlighted that even the differences of measurements taken both ways by modern zoologist V. Mazak are in excellent consistency to the ones provided by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar.

My conclusion is that the differences all the aforementioned authorities or hunters got from actual measurements on specific tigers are in excellent consistency with the measurements taken both ways by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar and his shikaris. Therefore in my opinion there was no difference between Northeastern India, North India and elsewhere in India as a region. It all depended from the operator, his personal technique and repeatability as you reminded, but most widely spread method of measurements over curves among sportsmen appeared as I wrote above to be consistent to the one adopted by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar and his shikaris.

The only authority throughout the whole of British India appearing to be consistent to Hewett (1938) concerning a suggested range of differences of the measurements taken on the same animal between the methods “straight line between pegs” and “over curves” was Brander (1923) from the Central Provinces of India. However Hewett and Brander, no doubt both with excellent and unquestionable reputation, accuracy and reliability, appear to be virtually isolated cases in historical literature and not the norm, meaning they likely were in clear minority.

Therefore I strongly believe that in Nepal it was no different and the most likely way the method over curves was applied appears to me as the one adopted by most sportsmen throughout India and in North India itself. This most widely spread way to apply the “over curves” technique appears to be fully consistent to the one adopted by Maharajah of Cooch Behar and his shikaris. I am obviously considering only accurate and correct application of the method over curves.

Also notice that according to my regression equations currently in use (nearly identical to the ones I showed in Carnivora) the average total length over curves I computed for Nepal adult male tigers at 3020-3030 mm corresponds to ca. 2875-2880 mm in straight line between pegs, which is very well consistent to the one you proposed at the end being conservative in the suggestion that tigers in Nepal were measured like Hewett did in North India.

 

3.     Smythies (1942) and the Hunting Records of the Maharajah of Nepal 1933-1939

In my post of February 2015 I wrote I was “cautious” with “the 705 lb individual and a few other records” reported by Smythies (1942).

I expressed caution (caution, NOT dismisses) specifically for the alleged 705 lb tiger and “a few other records”. Which “a few other records”? I admit I could have been more specific.

The concerns I had/have for other records were essentially related to the alleged total length over curves of the largest leopard of 9 ft 4 inches (2845 mm). This figure in my opinion is very hard to trust unless, perhaps and stretching my imagination to the extreme, measured on an exceptionally large leopard  with an exceptionally long tail. There are one or two other similar total lengths claimed for leopards in hunting literature. In truth I do believe all those kind of total lengths are virtually impossible for modern wild leopards if accurately taken along/over curves, pretty much as I do believe a 12 foot total length along/over curves and more for a wild tiger lived in historical time is virtually an impossible occurrence.

Concerning the alleged 705 lb tiger, the only weight reported in Smythies (1942) I am cautious as it is rather strange that only one animal was weighed out of 433 tigers, 53 rhinos, 93 leopards, 22 bears, 20 crocodiles shot in seven seasons between 1933 and 1939. Did the Maharajah have actually available a scale? Was a portable scale used and was the scale taken from camp to camp or was it a fixed scale? Was the scale accurate enough and at least reasonably frequently re-calibrated (remember Hewett statements on his own scale)? Was instead the 705 lb weight figure just an estimate for instance based on balancing of a number of men in the same way Brander attempted to measure the weight of his biggest tiger when he had no availability of a scale?

There are evidently several unanswered questions. It should also be remembered that no other accurate and reliable wild tiger weights from hunting records come close and no such weights have so far been reported for wild big cats by zoologists. The importance to set the highest possible baseline has therefore a very relevant zoological value even if it is a hunting record. Caution and sensible mind must be used.

Yet depending from the kind of morphometric and statistical analyses I am used to perform on hunting records I generally include this 705 lb record most of the times although with the benefit of a doubt.

Concerning total lengths of tigers just to be clear I have not dismissed and do not dismiss the records of the tiger total lengths reported by Smythies (1942). I believe they are all realistic although a likely moderately higher bias for large tigers appears to be present in this large sample with respect of other most relevant large enough and accurate and reliable samples.

I cannot say with confidence if this my feeling is due to some possible little generosity on occasions in the measurements taken by the Maharaja’s shikaris to make him happier or genuine bias towards prevalently selecting tigers larger then average size (absolutely possible if wanted and asked by the Maharajah in his “private” hunting ground of Chitawan).

I will now explain one more reason for my concern specifically related to the measurements actually reported by Smythies (1942).

The Maharajah of Nepal Juddha Shamsher Jang Bahadur shot 433 tigers in 7 seasons spanning 1933-1939. Smythies (1942) reports 52 lengths of males and 27 lengths of females totalling 79 animals out of 433, by far the smallest percentage (18.2%) compared to the Maharajah of Cooch Behar and Hewett. What about the other 354 tigers? Were all of them cubs / large cubs / yearlings / subadults meaning the Maharajah of Maharajah of Nepal and his guests had so much fun to shoot cubs and young animals as well?

The Maharajah of Cooch Behar shot 365 tigers between 1871 and 1907 (37 years). In Cooch Behar (1908), including the additional 3 specimens described in Brown (1893) only, the Maharajah reports data of 98 male tigers including 4 animals labelled as young, one of which labelled as fine, heavy and with short-tailed, at least 2 more ones that I retain as young, and 1 short-tailed adult animal whose total length and tail length (only 724 mm) I do not include in my respective averages. The Maharajah also reports data for 38 female tigers presumably all adults including one short-tail animal whose total length (the only data reported) I do not account for in my averages. Therefore we have at least a single data for 136 tigers out of 365 (37.3%).

Hewett (1938) 38 presumably all (likely not) adult male tigers for Northern India and 4 from Nepal, 23 presumably all adult female tigers for Northern India and 2 ones from Nepal plus 1 rather small, a few more animals labelled as cubs or large cubs totalling data of over 70 tigers out of 247 stated he shot or saw shot in person (over 28.3 %). I have not included the Nepalese tigers shot by Sir Harcourt Butler in the % calculation as Hewett was not present. If we include those 8 males and 6 females the percentage rises to over 34.0 %.

Based on the percentages calculated and shown above my conclusion that the sample for Nepal provided by Smythies (1942) appears to be a bit more biased for size larger then average then the other ones for North India and Northeastern India in my opinion strengthens.

4.     Hunting Records dismissed by Modern Zoologists

Arguably  some hunting records could even have higher quality then some zoological data (of poor quality), but they are not part of the modern scientific world and generally not part of the bunch of morphological data a scientist can rely to make official scientific investigations and get conclusions affecting his reputation and career. Would you submit a paper in a peer-reviewed publication like the Journal of Zoology having the primary subject a morphological analysis of tiger body size stating that adult male tigers in Chitawan National Park average ca. 3075 mm in total length measured over curves because this is the figure computed from the hunting records of the Maharajah of Nepal Juddha Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana measured by his employed shikaris and reported by his employee Evelyn Arthur Smythies? Would you confirm this figure in such a paper with confidence having available only 2 total lengths of adult male tigers of that area (M102 and M105) from past published zoological studies? Knowing myself many scientific journals and books reviewers I suspect that a paper focusing on such a subject and having those conclusions would be more then likely rejected by any serious reviewer.

Remember to what happened to V. Mazak. Personally I would not risk my professional reputation by relying on hunting records of the past. Should at some point come out one or more relevant records are not accurate or fakes  one would loose his face as all his analyses and results would have to be rejected.

5.     Preferences and bias

In one of your previous posts you stated to feel some people are devoting their efforts to demonstrate the correct rank for tigers in terms of body size is just before Gir lions. You also talked about preferences (in general and concerning animals in particular) and remind the African say that all humans are born with an animal on his/her side. I dare to say that in my case I had probably a little zoo around my birth bed. In this little zoo neither dogs, nor wolves, nor tigers, nor lions, nor bears, nor leopards, nor jaguars, nor wolverines, nor some other animals do come first, but none of them are second to none. I am sure you can understand what I mean.

I definitely accept the evidence anyone can contest to me that I am always highlighting something against tiger size and weight as I am an anti-tiger poster even more then supposedly being a pro-lion or a pro-bear poster. Well, no problem if one considers me as such, but I do not believe to include me in a animal fan-team or in any other fan group is the case. I am definitely not a fan by nature.

My major point is the following.

I have a related background “traumatic” story from when I was a small kid explaining my deep aversion and dislike for (evident) exaggerations in general. The story started when my interest in zoology was born. At that time I was 4 or 5 years old and not even able to read properly. One day my mother after have read the book “The man-eating leopard of Rudraprayag” by Jim Corbett told me about the cunning of this man-eating leopard. I was not scared about the man-eating concept (nowadays they would have probably accused my mother of “cultural violence” on a minor or any other silly accusation like that). I was instead tremendously fascinated and interested. I still remember the first picture of a leopard I saw and I was used to watch for hours. What an animal I thought! I would have given anything to be born a leopard.

Through the years my parents started to buy me books and books concerning animals. When I was probably 7 or 8 years old I received the encyclopaedia “The Little Brehm” as a present and had regular access to the larger Grzimek's one and others. In “The Little Brehm” I came to know for the first time an information concerning the Siberian tiger I did not know before. The info stated Manchurian tigers could grow even 4 meters long tail included. Wow! Four meters!

I am not sure when I learnt to make proportions in math, but I do remember that the first application I made for my personal interests was to compute shoulder heights of the supposedly largest Manchurian tigers based on measurements info on lions and Bengal tigers and the size of the longest  Manchurian tigers provided by  Brehm. As it was normally stated tigers and lions were about 3 meters long including about 1 meter of tail and with shoulder height of 1 meter or 1.1 meters, I estimated a Siberian tiger 4 meters long would have been 1.35-1.45 meter at the shoulder and some 1.70-1.80 meter with head fully erected with an head-and-body length of some 2.60-2.70 meter. And I can guarantee you that I made my dreams on that every single night: what monstrous tigers were roaming in Manchuria, I wanted to transform myself in such a hyper-gigantic Manchurian tiger.

However some doubts started to raise in my head as in any circus or zoo I was visiting when being a young boy any captive animal I met failed to come close in size to any such supposed enormous wild individual. Captive animals unable to grow as large as their wild counterpart was not the convincing explanation I could get to justify my observations. I interviewed my father, talked to friends (who, but a couple of exceptions, knew nearly nothing on animals other then some vague information), read more books, some of which did even actually provide the unrealistic details of head-and-body length of some 2.80 meter or so (the kind of bad info one can still read in a much more modern scientific book on big cats) and slowly I started to understand that something was wrong with the info I had been bringing with me for some years.

I confess it took several years into my teenagerhood and beyond  to realize I had been cheated for years and I therefore realized how bad is not to know or attempt to know the true state of things in nature and not only on that. More, I had been clearly cheated, deliberately or non-deliberately I could not say, by some specific persons because these persons, in spite of writing scientific books of that time, did not raise doubts in their writings that those measurements could have been taken non-accurately, or they were unreliable or from unduly stretched skins or just fruit of pure fantasy.

I can definitely say that the episode concerning the Manchurian tiger size as well as a few others like supposed 1 ton brown bears, 300+ kg lions and so on have developed on me a particular high aversion for evident unacceptable exaggerations or just simple exaggerations granted some amount of variability of considerations, calculations, estimates and so on of course. I therefore do not condone what I retain is bad and/or manipulated info and fight vigorously on that. Now, do not misunderstand me. I can definitely be wrong in many respects when judging information, but I can guarantee that my highest interest is in understanding the nature world and not to make sure the nature world is like I would like it to be whenever I could feel I might have or definitely have preferences (for sure I can realize I like more a dog then a tick).

I have just written somewhere else that “I have a definite feeling that body size and weights of tigers have always been traditionally somewhat exaggerated by a non-neglectable proportion in some historical and modern literature more then for any other large terrestrial carnivores. Sadly even a few scientific books have done it to some extent in relatively recent years and decades. This tendency to non-neglectable exaggeration particularly, but definitely not only, for tigers is going on for over 150 years and does not appear to stop shortly in spite of the efforts and the work performed by some excellent scientists in recent decades with worldwide acknowledged big cats expertize of the kind of Schaller, Bertram, Smuts, Sunquist, Mishra, Karanth, Packer, Miquelle, Goodrich, Yamaguchi, Kitchener, Kerley, Slaght, Turner, Christiansen just to mention a few of them (some slips can occur on occasions for everybody). I am not sure Internet brought a marked benefit in this respect over the last couple of decades if any at all.”

Do I dislike tigers? The answer would be the same if asking me if I want to die right now. The truth is that I am tremendously fascinated by this animal and I can hardly think or find anything better and more heart beating in life other then a sweet and hot company hearing a wild tiger calling at night in the jungle close by. Whenever it happened to me it has been like digesting in one go all the old hunting books we have both read. Anytime it makes me still thinking how much brave men were the kind of Jim Corbett, Kenneth Anderson and few others who hunted man-eating tigers on foot.

Tigers, lions, bears and other animals of which I may have even a higher interest and knowledge in spite of not discussing them all inspire me different emotions. Seeing live a large coalition of male lions roaring or patrolling the African savannah like an army in front of everybody with no fear is very much inspiring as well as the feeling of immense strength and total self-confidence one could get by watching the giant bears at work. Tigers at the same time look so powerful big cats and beautiful that I always had the feeling whenever I encountered wild tigers on foot I could never fly from them because other then let’s say “highly not recommended” I could not because fallen in a nearly complete status of hypnosis.

 

However when I talk scientifically about animals it is different. No emotions, just science.

 

                       WaveRiders

 

Reply