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.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---
WildFact Lost one of the best poster and a true mod, Ezequiel Almada. You will be missed Tshokwane for ever.

  • 12 Vote(s) - 3.83 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

Finland Shadow Offline
Moderator
*****
Moderators

Here is lecture of Dale Miquelle from November 2015. His part starts from approximately 2:35. This takes time to watch, but very interesting for people who are really interested about tiger conservation and of course conservation overall. 


"Tiger and Wildlife Conservation in Russian Far East
by Dr. Dale Miquelle,
a director of Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Russia
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Thailand joined a special lecture, “Using science to inform conservation of the Amur tiger”
at Sanga Sabhasri Auditorium, 60th Anniversary Building, Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University on November 13, 2015."





3 users Like Shadow's post
Reply

India parvez Online
Tiger Maharshi
*****

Genetics of central Indian tigers,

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://insa.nic.in/writereaddata/UpLoadedFiles/IJHS/Vol51_2016_2_2_Art10.pdf
Wisdom of third eye
5 users Like parvez's post
Reply

Guatemala GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
( This post was last modified: 03-06-2020, 11:57 PM by GuateGojira )

I found this information about the predation of tigers in large ungulated in Thailand.

The first document says that 11 mammalian species were identified from skeletal remains or hair samples and that Sambar (Rusa unicolor), banteng (Bos javanicus), and gaur (Bos gaurus) composed 95.1% of tiger prey biomass. There is more information in the document: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10...2917719000

Now, the other study is still ongoing and there is still no document published yet, but check the abstract:

"The primary prey of tigers across much of Southeast Asia has been depleted, reducing the ability of already limited habitat to support tigers. To better understand the extent to which the tiger’s two largest prey species, gaur (Bos gaurus) and banteng (Bos javanicus), contribute to the tiger’s diet, we estimated the average size of these species killed by tigers. This information is needed to correctly estimate biomass of these species in tiger diet and to devise strategies to increase tiger carrying capacity where habitat is fragmented and limited in west-central Thailand. We used temporally clumped locations of 24 satellite radio-collared tigers to identify their kill sites and obtained mandibles from 82 gaur and 79 banteng. Kills were aged by teeth eruption sequence, sectioning the M1 molar and counting cementum annuli. Of all gaur killed, 45.2% were adults; of all banteng killed 55.7% were adults. The smaller proportion of large gaur killed by tigers may be due to size difference of these species. The average weight of banteng killed was 423.9 kg, which was similar to the 397.9 kg average weight for gaur. The mean weight of both prey species is 3.5 to 4.5 times greater than the predicted 1:1 prey to predator ratio. In the absence of medium-sized prey, killing these larger animals may be especially critical for female tigers when provisioning nearly independent young when male offspring are already larger than the mother. This is the first study to present data on the average weights of gaur and banteng killed in Southeast Asia and these results suggest that these are key prey species to target in tiger prey recovery efforts".

This means that this Thailand tigers, in the absence of medium sized prey, they focus on the largest prey available. Here is the link: https://osf.io/znwvr

It will be interesting to see the finished document. In fact in the FB page of the Thailand tiger project there is several information, picture and videos, about kills made in large banteng, and based in the average weight, it seems that to kill an adult banteng is easier than kill and adult gaur, as the average weight of the prey killed in smaller in the gaur than in the banteng.


*This image is copyright of its original author
6 users Like GuateGojira's post
Reply

Guatemala GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****

Body size of the tiger - final compilation

The tiger (Panthera tigris) is a carnivore mammal member of the Felidae family, is the largest felid on Earth and an obligated carnivore that inhabit the Asian continent. It is the top of the food chain but even then it is in great danger of extintion because of the humans.

For long time ago, I investigated this animal, I have read almost all the books available about this species, focused in those from modern scientific investigations, which started since 1963 with the investigation of Dr George Schaller in Kanha NP, India. Previous to that, very few Zoologist studied the tiger and most of the information came from hunters that took more time in explaining how to kill it than how to understand it. However, something that was writen a lot in the old litterature is about the size of the animal, but even then there was a lot of controversy and there are several documents about that, explaining the correct form to correctly measure them. At the end, even with all the information available, it was very important to choose the correct and reliable information over the one full of exagerations. This is the case with the Bengal tiger and sources like Brander, the Maharaja of Cooch Behar and Hewett, amoung others, give us the most reliable information about the true size of the tiger. Now, with the other subspecies, the information is scanty and in some cases almoust inexistent. With the Amur tigers, old records mentioned specimens of 4 meters long and up to 384 kg, but when Slaght et al. (2005) investigated them it shows that almost all the old records are unverified or were just copy-past from the reports of Baikov. In the other side of the coin, there is only one body measurement for a single male Bali tiger and none for females, plus there is not a single weight about that population. So, where it came the information that we normally use and that populates the web (including Wikipedia in ocations) in these days? Well, the obvious answer is Mazák (1981):


*This image is copyright of its original author


This table from the document of the Zoologist Vratislav Mazák from 1981 is the base for the calculation of the size of the tigers, and for many years it was the only reliable. Previous attempts were made, for example the report of Guggisberg in his book of 1975 which dedicated almost 4 pages only to that topic, but it was Mazák who stablished the ranges and added also information about the skull size from specimens that he personally measured, which provide the best degree of reliability. However, his table was not perfect, as he did not presented averages, sample sizes and included captive specimens, like with the Amur tiger. In fact, he is the one that popularized the idea that the Amur tiger is/was the biggest tiger subspecies. Other problem is that he used estimations with the populations that did not had data, like for example the Bali tiger and now we have many people preaching those figures but they do not know that are not real, just calculations and in the best case, are just an educated guess.

At the end, some modern Biologists tried to provide compilations about size and weight for tigers, for example Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) and Barlow et al. (2009) but the problem is that the first one provided scanty information and used old records from Russia and provided unreliable body sizes and the second source mixed captive with wild specimens, which provided incorrect averages. So it seems that even in modern times it is really hard to found reliable information about the size of the tiger.

In this case, since 2003 when I started to participate in debates and when I started a serious study on tiger's biology, ecology and behaviour, I manage to compile several records of size and weight for all the tiger subspecies and with the help of others, like @peter for example, I manage to get sources that I don't even knew that existed. Following the process explained in Slagth et al. (2005) I classified the measurements and weights that are reliable from those than no, using those that match the "highly reliable" and "generally reliable" cathegories like the main sources. On the measurements I tried to use only those "between pegs" but that is a method normally used with the Bengal population, but rarely used with the other populations, which sadly decrease the sample size. After many years of clasifications, depurations and reading many books, it was until the 2018 that I manage to compile all the information in order to create new tables. However tragedy happens and I lost all the information gattered for at least 5 years. Since then, I decided not to post anymore and retire from forums, however some posters that still provide incorrect information in other forums were the reason why I decided to return, but this time I did not had the time to make the investigations that I used to do. So I decided to recover all the information that I could rescue from old backups and from my own memmory, trying to search the original papers and my old comparison images that thankfully have the sources of the information on them. The effort paid good results as I enlarged the samples and found more information from other subspecies, so until the last year I manage to recover all the information about the size of the lions and the tigers, and I am still completing that of the jaguars and leopards. Believe me, gattering all that information is time consuming and that is something that I don't have anymore.

At the end, in February 2020 I managed to complete the comparative image of the lion size with all the reliable information that I could found, here are the links:
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-on-the-...eo?page=20  -- post 293
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-on-the-...eo?page=21  -- Post 302


In this case, I only needed to do the same think with the tigers, the animal that I love the most and the real inspiration for all these years of study of Biology like an amateur investigator. The next image is the result of all that effort, document reading and even personal communications with the experts. It is a big work of accuracy, patience and love and I think that the results are incredible. So here is my final comparative image of the size of the tiger:


*This image is copyright of its original author


I used the new classification of the IUCN which states that only two subspecies of tigers exist, but also I leave the old subspecies names as the issue is still not settle. The image is self-explanatory (please read the small letters and they have important details) but I will like to share some other details to avoid confusions.

* Bengal tiger: The figures in both measurements and weights includes the Sundarbans specimens, however in a foot note I added the average weights excluding that population (Mainland only), which is 210 kg (150 - 272 kg -- n=160) for males and 138 kg (105 - 177 -- n=96) for females. In a future I will create an image only with the diference between the Mainland and the Sundarbans population with the new format (I don't like the old one and the comparative images look larger than the average specimen). For details on the average calculations and also for details on the results on the Nepalese tigers weights and samples, I will leave these links:


https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-modern-...rs?page=23  -- post 341
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-modern-...rs?page=24  -- posts 356 and 358
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-modern-...rs?page=25  -- post 362

https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-lion-an...er-heights  -- post 3
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-who-is-...ur?page=29  -- posts 430, 433 and 434
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-who-is-...ur?page=30  -- post 440

If someone ask about the huge record bengal tigers, those were not included for obvious reasons but here is the link where I discussed that, posts No. 391 and 404, check it: https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-modern-...rs?page=27

So, at the end, the Bengal tiger is still the largest tiger subspecies/population and the heaviest cat in modern times.


* Amur tiger: I decided to include the few reliable records from tigers measured and weighed by Russian Zoologists, which are few but important, just like I have done with the Bengal tigers. For information you can check my old document of 2015 about the size of the Amur tiger, although that document needs to be updated as now we know that all the specimens were measured, apparently, along the curves. Knowing this, the image of the Amur tiger was scalated smaller than the Bengal tiger as the measurements "along the curves" produce longer results than those "between pegs". Even then, I still believe that Bengal and Amur tigers were of the same body size (based on skulls at least) and both represent the pinnacle of the species.

* Indochinese tiger: There are no particular remarks on it, just that I decided to separate them from those of Malaysia, following the genetic research. For details in the modern measurements please check these links:
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-indo-ch...ers?page=5  -- posts 68 and 69
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-indo-ch...ers?page=6  -- post 81

* Bali tiger: I did not included any body mass for the Bali tigers as the figures of Mazák are estimations and there are no real weights in litterature. I made years ago a calculation using an isometric aproach and using the method of Sorkin (2008) and Christiansen & Harris (2009) but I decided not include it, as the image shows only real measurements, no calculations. This is because I want to keep it as original as posible.

Maybe in this moment there are other details that scape from my mind, but like I allways say, if you have a question over a particular point, you are free to ask.


Greetings to all, have a nice day. Happy
10 users Like GuateGojira's post
Reply

United Arab Emirates BorneanTiger Offline
Senior Member
****
( This post was last modified: 03-11-2020, 03:29 PM by BorneanTiger )

(03-09-2020, 11:05 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: Body size of the tiger - final compilation

The tiger (Panthera tigris) is a carnivore mammal member of the Felidae family, is the largest felid on Earth and an obligated carnivore that inhabit the Asian continent. It is the top of the food chain but even then it is in great danger of extintion because of the humans.

For long time ago, I investigated this animal, I have read almost all the books available about this species, focused in those from modern scientific investigations, which started since 1963 with the investigation of Dr George Schaller in Kanha NP, India. Previous to that, very few Zoologist studied the tiger and most of the information came from hunters that took more time in explaining how to kill it than how to understand it. However, something that was writen a lot in the old litterature is about the size of the animal, but even then there was a lot of controversy and there are several documents about that, explaining the correct form to correctly measure them. At the end, even with all the information available, it was very important to choose the correct and reliable information over the one full of exagerations. This is the case with the Bengal tiger and sources like Brander, the Maharaja of Cooch Behar and Hewett, amoung others, give us the most reliable information about the true size of the tiger. Now, with the other subspecies, the information is scanty and in some cases almoust inexistent. With the Amur tigers, old records mentioned specimens of 4 meters long and up to 384 kg, but when Slaght et al. (2005) investigated them it shows that almost all the old records are unverified or were just copy-past from the reports of Baikov. In the other side of the coin, there is only one body measurement for a single male Bali tiger and none for females, plus there is not a single weight about that population. So, where it came the information that we normally use and that populates the web (including Wikipedia in ocations) in these days? Well, the obvious answer is Mazák (1981):


*This image is copyright of its original author


This table from the document of the Zoologist Vratislav Mazák from 1981 is the base for the calculation of the size of the tigers, and for many years it was the only reliable. Previous attempts were made, for example the report of Guggisberg in his book of 1975 which dedicated almost 4 pages only to that topic, but it was Mazák who stablished the ranges and added also information about the skull size from specimens that he personally measured, which provide the best degree of reliability. However, his table was not perfect, as he did not presented averages, sample sizes and included captive specimens, like with the Amur tiger. In fact, he is the one that popularized the idea that the Amur tiger is/was the biggest tiger subspecies. Other problem is that he used estimations with the populations that did not had data, like for example the Bali tiger and now we have many people preaching those figures but they do not know that are not real, just calculations and in the best case, are just an educated guess.

At the end, some modern Biologists tried to provide compilations about size and weight for tigers, for example Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) and Barlow et al. (2009) but the problem is that the first one provided scanty information and used old records from Russia and provided unreliable body sizes and the second source mixed captive with wild specimens, which provided incorrect averages. So it seems that even in modern times it is really hard to found reliable information about the size of the tiger.

In this case, since 2003 when I started to participate in debates and when I started a serious study on tiger's biology, ecology and behaviour, I manage to compile several records of size and weight for all the tiger subspecies and with the help of others, like @peter for example, I manage to get sources that I don't even knew that existed. Following the process explained in Slagth et al. (2005) I classified the measurements and weights that are reliable from those than no, using those that match the "highly reliable" and "generally reliable" cathegories like the main sources. On the measurements I tried to use only those "between pegs" but that is a method normally used with the Bengal population, but rarely used with the other populations, which sadly decrease the sample size. After many years of clasifications, depurations and reading many books, it was until the 2018 that I manage to compile all the information in order to create new tables. However tragedy happens and I lost all the information gattered for at least 5 years. Since then, I decided not to post anymore and retire from forums, however some posters that still provide incorrect information in other forums were the reason why I decided to return, but this time I did not had the time to make the investigations that I used to do. So I decided to recover all the information that I could rescue from old backups and from my own memmory, trying to search the original papers and my old comparison images that thankfully have the sources of the information on them. The effort paid good results as I enlarged the samples and found more information from other subspecies, so until the last year I manage to recover all the information about the size of the lions and the tigers, and I am still completing that of the jaguars and leopards. Believe me, gattering all that information is time consuming and that is something that I don't have anymore.

At the end, in February 2020 I managed to complete the comparative image of the lion size with all the reliable information that I could found, here are the links:
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-on-the-...eo?page=20  -- post 293
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-on-the-...eo?page=21  -- Post 302


In this case, I only needed to do the same think with the tigers, the animal that I love the most and the real inspiration for all these years of study of Biology like an amateur investigator. The next image is the result of all that effort, document reading and even personal communications with the experts. It is a big work of accuracy, patience and love and I think that the results are incredible. So here is my final comparative image of the size of the tiger:


*This image is copyright of its original author


I used the new classification of the IUCN which states that only two subspecies of tigers exist, but also I leave the old subspecies names as the issue is still not settle. The image is self-explanatory (please read the small letters and they have important details) but I will like to share some other details to avoid confusions.

* Bengal tiger: The figures in both measurements and weights includes the Sundarbans specimens, however in a foot note I added the average weights excluding that population (Mainland only), which is 210 kg (150 - 272 kg -- n=160) for males and 138 kg (105 - 177 -- n=96) for females. In a future I will create an image only with the diference between the Mainland and the Sundarbans population with the new format (I don't like the old one and the comparative images look larger than the average specimen). For details on the average calculations and also for details on the results on the Nepalese tigers weights and samples, I will leave these links:


https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-modern-...rs?page=23  -- post 341
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-modern-...rs?page=24  -- posts 356 and 358
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-modern-...rs?page=25  -- post 362

https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-lion-an...er-heights  -- post 3
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-who-is-...ur?page=29  -- posts 430, 433 and 434
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-who-is-...ur?page=30  -- post 440

If someone ask about the huge record bengal tigers, those were not included for obvious reasons but here is the link where I discussed that, posts No. 391 and 404, check it: https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-modern-...rs?page=27

So, at the end, the Bengal tiger is still the largest tiger subspecies/population and the heaviest cat in modern times.


* Amur tiger: I decided to include the few reliable records from tigers measured and weighed by Russian Zoologists, which are few but important, just like I have done with the Bengal tigers. For information you can check my old document of 2015 about the size of the Amur tiger, although that document needs to be updated as now we know that all the specimens were measured, apparently, along the curves. Knowing this, the image of the Amur tiger was scalated smaller than the Bengal tiger as the measurements "along the curves" produce longer results than those "between pegs". Even then, I still believe that Bengal and Amur tigers were of the same body size (based on skulls at least) and both represent the pinnacle of the species.

* Indochinese tiger: There are no particular remarks on it, just that I decided to separate them from those of Malaysia, following the genetic research. For details in the modern measurements please check these links:
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-indo-ch...ers?page=5  -- posts 68 and 69
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-indo-ch...ers?page=6  -- post 81

* Bali tiger: I did not included any body mass for the Bali tigers as the figures of Mazák are estimations and there are no real weights in litterature. I made years ago a calculation using an isometric aproach and using the method of Sorkin (2008) and Christiansen & Harris (2009) but I decided not include it, as the image shows only real measurements, no calculations. This is because I want to keep it as original as posible.

Maybe in this moment there are other details that scape from my mind, but like I allways say, if you have a question over a particular point, you are free to ask.


Greetings to all, have a nice day. Happy

For mainland Bengal tigers, barring the smaller ones in the Sundarbans, the calculated average is 210 kg (461.97 lbs), alright, but I'm surprised that if you take the Sundarban tiger into account, then the average for the male Bengal tiger (200 kg or 440.95 lbs) becomes slightly lower than that of the male Siberian tiger (203 kg or 447.54 lbs), because previously in 2015, when you calculated the average for male mainland Bengal tigers to be 208 kg (458.56 lbs), even with frail male Sundarban tigers weighing only 126 kg (277.78 lbs), the overall average for the male Bengal tiger (196 kg or 423.11 lbs) was still higher than that of the male Amur tiger (190.0 kg or 418.88 lbs), even if slightly, so how did the Siberian tiger come on top this time?

Ustad (T-24) the mainland Bengal tiger at Ranthambhore National Park, northwest India, credit: Himangini Rathore Hooja in 2012

*This image is copyright of its original author
Reply

Netherlands peter Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 03-11-2020, 08:29 PM by peter )

(03-11-2020, 10:15 AM)BorneanTiger Wrote:
(03-09-2020, 11:05 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: Body size of the tiger - final compilation

The tiger (Panthera tigris) is a carnivore mammal member of the Felidae family, is the largest felid on Earth and an obligated carnivore that inhabit the Asian continent. It is the top of the food chain but even then it is in great danger of extintion because of the humans.

For long time ago, I investigated this animal, I have read almost all the books available about this species, focused in those from modern scientific investigations, which started since 1963 with the investigation of Dr George Schaller in Kanha NP, India. Previous to that, very few Zoologist studied the tiger and most of the information came from hunters that took more time in explaining how to kill it than how to understand it. However, something that was writen a lot in the old litterature is about the size of the animal, but even then there was a lot of controversy and there are several documents about that, explaining the correct form to correctly measure them. At the end, even with all the information available, it was very important to choose the correct and reliable information over the one full of exagerations. This is the case with the Bengal tiger and sources like Brander, the Maharaja of Cooch Behar and Hewett, amoung others, give us the most reliable information about the true size of the tiger. Now, with the other subspecies, the information is scanty and in some cases almoust inexistent. With the Amur tigers, old records mentioned specimens of 4 meters long and up to 384 kg, but when Slaght et al. (2005) investigated them it shows that almost all the old records are unverified or were just copy-past from the reports of Baikov. In the other side of the coin, there is only one body measurement for a single male Bali tiger and none for females, plus there is not a single weight about that population. So, where it came the information that we normally use and that populates the web (including Wikipedia in ocations) in these days? Well, the obvious answer is Mazák (1981):


*This image is copyright of its original author


This table from the document of the Zoologist Vratislav Mazák from 1981 is the base for the calculation of the size of the tigers, and for many years it was the only reliable. Previous attempts were made, for example the report of Guggisberg in his book of 1975 which dedicated almost 4 pages only to that topic, but it was Mazák who stablished the ranges and added also information about the skull size from specimens that he personally measured, which provide the best degree of reliability. However, his table was not perfect, as he did not presented averages, sample sizes and included captive specimens, like with the Amur tiger. In fact, he is the one that popularized the idea that the Amur tiger is/was the biggest tiger subspecies. Other problem is that he used estimations with the populations that did not had data, like for example the Bali tiger and now we have many people preaching those figures but they do not know that are not real, just calculations and in the best case, are just an educated guess.

At the end, some modern Biologists tried to provide compilations about size and weight for tigers, for example Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) and Barlow et al. (2009) but the problem is that the first one provided scanty information and used old records from Russia and provided unreliable body sizes and the second source mixed captive with wild specimens, which provided incorrect averages. So it seems that even in modern times it is really hard to found reliable information about the size of the tiger.

In this case, since 2003 when I started to participate in debates and when I started a serious study on tiger's biology, ecology and behaviour, I manage to compile several records of size and weight for all the tiger subspecies and with the help of others, like @peter for example, I manage to get sources that I don't even knew that existed. Following the process explained in Slagth et al. (2005) I classified the measurements and weights that are reliable from those than no, using those that match the "highly reliable" and "generally reliable" cathegories like the main sources. On the measurements I tried to use only those "between pegs" but that is a method normally used with the Bengal population, but rarely used with the other populations, which sadly decrease the sample size. After many years of clasifications, depurations and reading many books, it was until the 2018 that I manage to compile all the information in order to create new tables. However tragedy happens and I lost all the information gattered for at least 5 years. Since then, I decided not to post anymore and retire from forums, however some posters that still provide incorrect information in other forums were the reason why I decided to return, but this time I did not had the time to make the investigations that I used to do. So I decided to recover all the information that I could rescue from old backups and from my own memmory, trying to search the original papers and my old comparison images that thankfully have the sources of the information on them. The effort paid good results as I enlarged the samples and found more information from other subspecies, so until the last year I manage to recover all the information about the size of the lions and the tigers, and I am still completing that of the jaguars and leopards. Believe me, gattering all that information is time consuming and that is something that I don't have anymore.

At the end, in February 2020 I managed to complete the comparative image of the lion size with all the reliable information that I could found, here are the links:
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-on-the-...eo?page=20  -- post 293
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-on-the-...eo?page=21  -- Post 302


In this case, I only needed to do the same think with the tigers, the animal that I love the most and the real inspiration for all these years of study of Biology like an amateur investigator. The next image is the result of all that effort, document reading and even personal communications with the experts. It is a big work of accuracy, patience and love and I think that the results are incredible. So here is my final comparative image of the size of the tiger:


*This image is copyright of its original author


I used the new classification of the IUCN which states that only two subspecies of tigers exist, but also I leave the old subspecies names as the issue is still not settle. The image is self-explanatory (please read the small letters and they have important details) but I will like to share some other details to avoid confusions.

* Bengal tiger: The figures in both measurements and weights includes the Sundarbans specimens, however in a foot note I added the average weights excluding that population (Mainland only), which is 210 kg (150 - 272 kg -- n=160) for males and 138 kg (105 - 177 -- n=96) for females. In a future I will create an image only with the diference between the Mainland and the Sundarbans population with the new format (I don't like the old one and the comparative images look larger than the average specimen). For details on the average calculations and also for details on the results on the Nepalese tigers weights and samples, I will leave these links:


https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-modern-...rs?page=23  -- post 341
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-modern-...rs?page=24  -- posts 356 and 358
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-modern-...rs?page=25  -- post 362

https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-lion-an...er-heights  -- post 3
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-who-is-...ur?page=29  -- posts 430, 433 and 434
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-who-is-...ur?page=30  -- post 440

If someone ask about the huge record bengal tigers, those were not included for obvious reasons but here is the link where I discussed that, posts No. 391 and 404, check it: https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-modern-...rs?page=27

So, at the end, the Bengal tiger is still the largest tiger subspecies/population and the heaviest cat in modern times.


* Amur tiger: I decided to include the few reliable records from tigers measured and weighed by Russian Zoologists, which are few but important, just like I have done with the Bengal tigers. For information you can check my old document of 2015 about the size of the Amur tiger, although that document needs to be updated as now we know that all the specimens were measured, apparently, along the curves. Knowing this, the image of the Amur tiger was scalated smaller than the Bengal tiger as the measurements "along the curves" produce longer results than those "between pegs". Even then, I still believe that Bengal and Amur tigers were of the same body size (based on skulls at least) and both represent the pinnacle of the species.

* Indochinese tiger: There are no particular remarks on it, just that I decided to separate them from those of Malaysia, following the genetic research. For details in the modern measurements please check these links:
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-indo-ch...ers?page=5  -- posts 68 and 69
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-indo-ch...ers?page=6  -- post 81

* Bali tiger: I did not included any body mass for the Bali tigers as the figures of Mazák are estimations and there are no real weights in litterature. I made years ago a calculation using an isometric aproach and using the method of Sorkin (2008) and Christiansen & Harris (2009) but I decided not include it, as the image shows only real measurements, no calculations. This is because I want to keep it as original as posible.

Maybe in this moment there are other details that scape from my mind, but like I allways say, if you have a question over a particular point, you are free to ask.


Greetings to all, have a nice day. Happy

For mainland Bengal tigers, barring the smaller ones in the Sundarbans, the calculated average is 210 kg (461.97 lbs), alright, but I'm surprised that if you take the Sundarban tiger into account, then the average for the male Bengal tiger (200 kg or 440.95 lbs) becomes slightly lower than that of the male Siberian tiger (203 kg or 447.54 lbs), because previously in 2015, when you calculated the average for male mainland Bengal tigers to be 208 kg (458.56 lbs), even with frail male Sundarban tigers weighing only 126 kg (277.78 lbs), the overall average for the male Bengal tiger (196 kg or 423.11 lbs) was still higher than that of the male Amur tiger (190.0 kg or 418.88 lbs), even if slightly, so how did the Siberian tiger come on top this time?

Bengal tiger at Sundarban Tiger Reserve, West Bengal State, India, credit: Soumyajit Nandy

*This image is copyright of its original author


Ustad (T-24) the mainland Bengal tiger at Ranthambhore National Park, northwest India, credit: Himangini Rathore Hooja in 2012

*This image is copyright of its original author


Amur tiger, outside winter: Continental Tiger | Species | WWF

*This image is copyright of its original author

BORNEAN TIGER

It would be appreciated if you, from now on, can refrain from posting pics that have been posted all over this forum time and again, especially when there's no direct need. The shorter the post, the more direct the message. This no doubt will result in more focus. Thanks in advance.  

As to the question. You compared Guate's tables and wonder why the average weight of wild male Amur tigers changed between 2015 and 2020. Correct?

Assuming I got it right, I would get to 'good question'. Guate no doubt will try to answer when he has a bit of time.

GUATE

First of all many thanks for the overview on the size of wild tigers.  

As to the connection between the averages and the additional remarks: I agree with the question of Bornean Tiger on the average weight of wild male Amur tigers. I assume you decided to include a few historical weights, but I could be wrong. Could you inform us on the reasons?

There's a bit more. I'm referring to your info on skulls and length and the difference between wild and captive tigers. 

a - Body length

My advice is to add a remark on the method to measure tigers. In the recent past (1860-1955 roughly), hunters and naturalists in what was then British India distinguished between measurements 'between pegs' and measurements taken 'over curves'. The first method, as far as I know, was only used by some hunters in some parts of British India. Apart from a few exceptions (I have a dozen measurements of Indochinese tigers taken 'between pegs'), tigers were measured 'over curves'. Today, biologists measure wild tigers (and other big cats) 'over curves' just about everywhere. In order to prevent confusion, my proposal is to use measurements taken 'over curves' only. You could add a table with measurements taken 'between pegs' later. 

b - Skulls 

You said V. Mazak's tables (referring to the tables published in 'Der Tiger', third edition, 1983) pop up in just about every book about tigers and added his tables are a bit confusing, because he mixed measurements of skulls of captive tigers with those of wild tigers. I agree regarding Amur tiger skulls, but I'm not sure about the other subspecies. My proposal is to add a remark on Mazak's conclusions on the skulls of Amur tigers. 

The remark on the 385,00 mm. skull of a Caspian tiger in your overview can be removed, as it is confusing. In his book, Mazak said the owner of the skull was not a large animal. He added the information about that particular skull was unreliable. Furthermore, the skull was lost. 

As to the skulls of tigers in Malaysia. More than a century ago, an interview with the Sultan of Johore was published. The interview had a number of photographs and was discussed in this thread. Some of the tigers he shot well exceeded 9 feet 'between pegs'. Remarkable, as the males shot by Locke in Trengganu half a century later averaged about 8.7 'between pegs'. Locke ('The tigers of Trengganu') saw the records of the Sultan and confirmed large individuals had been shot by the Sultan. 

One of the tigers the Sultan shot had a skull with a greatest total length of 365 mm. A few years ago, a skull with a greatest total length of 370 mm. was discovered in the Helsinki Natural History Museum (Finland). This skull was from the southern part of Malaysia, meaning it can be used in your overview. 

My proposal is to use information published by the one who adopted Mazak's name (referring to J.H. Mazak). His samples are quite large, meaning the averages he found are reliable. I'm referring to the skull size of P.t. sondaica, P.t. sumatrae and P.t. corbetti. 

c - The difference between wild and captive tigers

Recent information strongly suggests there are significant differences between wild and captive tigers. Apart from Amur tigers, wild tigers often are larger and heavier than their captive relatives. In adult males, at the level of averages, the difference in large subspecies could be 10-20%.  

Between 1940-1980 roughly, four tiger subspecies (P.t. balica, P.t. sondaica, P.t. virgata and P.t. amoyensis) have been exterminated. Those involved in overviews, regarding the subspecies I referred to, therefore, have no option but to use old information. The problem is, the distinction between old and new information isn't always easy to spot in tables. For this reason, overviews need quite a few additional remarks. 

I know there isn't much room for additional remarks in your overviews, but maybe you could change a few things here and there. In the end, it isn't about the pictures, but the quality of the information.   

d - New information

You know most tables and overviews are based on a limited sample. This means the conclusions are moderately reliable at best. In the near future, to a degree, things will change. I measured about 400 skulls of big cats in natural history museums and private collections. In a few months from now, I'll have more time to visit museums and private collectors. Apart from the skulls I measured myself, I found a lot of good information elsewhere. All in all, I have about 1,000 skull measurements I consider reliable. 

I will post a number of tables this year. The aim is to distinguish between captive and wild and young adults and adults and every table will have individual entries only. I will contact you when I'm ready. 

In the meantime, some of us could contact field biologists or wildlife organisations in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, India, Nepal, Bhutan and Russia. We need recent and reliable information about the size of wild tigers.
5 users Like peter's post
Reply

Guatemala GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****

(03-11-2020, 10:15 AM)BorneanTiger Wrote: For mainland Bengal tigers, barring the smaller ones in the Sundarbans, the calculated average is 210 kg (461.97 lbs), alright, but I'm surprised that if you take the Sundarban tiger into account, then the average for the male Bengal tiger (200 kg or 440.95 lbs) becomes slightly lower than that of the male Siberian tiger (203 kg or 447.54 lbs), because previously in 2015, when you calculated the average for male mainland Bengal tigers to be 208 kg (458.56 lbs), even with frail male Sundarban tigers weighing only 126 kg (277.78 lbs), the overall average for the male Bengal tiger (196 kg or 423.11 lbs) was still higher than that of the male Amur tiger (190.0 kg or 418.88 lbs), even if slightly, so how did the Siberian tiger come on top this time?

Very good question and the answer is simple, in that image I included the historical with the modern records together, just like I have done with the Bengal tigers. This figure was used many times even in the old comparative images of 2015 and there is a full explanation in this link, post 341: https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-modern-...rs?page=23

"About the Amur tigers, we have less information, however, with the few old and verified old records and the modern scientific records we can present figures of 216.5 kg (n=10, range: 164 - 254 kg) for males in old records and 190 kg (n=23, range: 155- 212 kg) for the modern ones. The overall average using all the weights will be of 203 kg for the entire subspecies/population."

So, the figure of 203 kg is for both historic and modern records. I wanted to create also a comparative image using only the modern scientific records but it resulted that it lacks so many data that don't worth the effort, so I just leave it like a table and here are the tables that I made since the last year, using only modern scientific records:


*This image is copyright of its original author



*This image is copyright of its original author



Please note that in this table I use the figure of 261 kg which is just a chest girth calculation, while in the comparative image I now use the figure of 272 kg as maximum as that is the real figure for males M105 (Sauraha) and M126.

Hope this helps. Like
5 users Like GuateGojira's post
Reply

Guatemala GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****

(03-11-2020, 03:26 PM)peter Wrote: GUATE

First of all many thanks for the overview on the size of wild tigers.  

As to the connection between the averages and the additional remarks: I agree with the question of Bornean Tiger on the average weight of wild male Amur tigers. I assume you decided to include a few historical weights, but I could be wrong. Could you inform us on the reasons?

There's a bit more. I'm referring to your info on skulls and length and the difference between wild and captive tigers. 

a - Body length

My advice is to add a remark on the method to measure tigers. In the recent past (1860-1955 roughly), hunters and naturalists in what was then British India distinguished between measurements 'between pegs' and measurements taken 'over curves'. The first method, as far as I know, was only used by some hunters in some parts of British India. Apart from a few exceptions (I have a dozen measurements of Indochinese tigers taken 'between pegs'), tigers were measured 'over curves'. Today, biologists measure wild tigers (and other big cats) 'over curves' just about everywhere. In order to prevent confusion, my proposal is to use measurements taken 'over curves' only. You could add a table with measurements taken 'between pegs' later. 

b - Skulls 

You said V. Mazak's tables (referring to the tables published in 'Der Tiger', third edition, 1983) pop up in just about every book about tigers and added his tables are a bit confusing, because he mixed measurements of skulls of captive tigers with those of wild tigers. I agree regarding Amur tiger skulls, but I'm not sure about the other subspecies. My proposal is to add a remark on Mazak's conclusions on the skulls of Amur tigers. 

The remark on the 385,00 mm. skull of a Caspian tiger in your overview can be removed, as it is confusing. In his book, Mazak said the owner of the skull was not a large animal. He added the information about that particular skull was unreliable. Furthermore, the skull was lost. 

As to the skulls of tigers in Malaysia. More than a century ago, an interview with the Sultan of Johore was published. The interview had a number of photographs and was discussed in this thread. Some of the tigers he shot well exceeded 9 feet 'between pegs'. Remarkable, as the males shot by Locke in Trengganu half a century later averaged about 8.7 'between pegs'. Locke ('The tigers of Trengganu') saw the records of the Sultan and confirmed large individuals had been shot by the Sultan. 

One of the tigers the Sultan shot had a skull with a greatest total length of 365 mm. A few years ago, a skull with a greatest total length of 370 mm. was discovered in the Helsinki Natural History Museum (Finland). This skull was from the southern part of Malaysia, meaning it can be used in your overview. 

My proposal is to use information published by the one who adopted Mazak's name (referring to J.H. Mazak). His samples are quite large, meaning the averages he found are reliable. I'm referring to the skull size of P.t. sondaica, P.t. sumatrae and P.t. corbetti. 

c - The difference between wild and captive tigers

Recent information strongly suggests there are significant differences between wild and captive tigers. Apart from Amur tigers, wild tigers often are larger and heavier than their captive relatives. In adult males, at the level of averages, the difference in large subspecies could be 10-20%.  

Between 1940-1980 roughly, four tiger subspecies (P.t. balica, P.t. sondaica, P.t. virgata and P.t. amoyensis) have been exterminated. Those involved in overviews, regarding the subspecies I referred to, therefore, have no option but to use old information. The problem is, the distinction between old and new information isn't always easy to spot in tables. For this reason, overviews need quite a few additional remarks. 

I know there isn't much room for additional remarks in your overviews, but maybe you could change a few things here and there. In the end, it isn't about the pictures, but the quality of the information.   

d - New information

You know most tables and overviews are based on a limited sample. This means the conclusions are moderately reliable at best. In the near future, to a degree, things will change. I measured about 400 skulls of big cats in natural history museums and private collections. In a few months from now, I'll have more time to visit museums and private collectors. Apart from the skulls I measured myself, I found a lot of good information elsewhere. All in all, I have about 1,000 skull measurements I consider reliable. 

I will post a number of tables this year. The aim is to distinguish between captive and wild and young adults and adults and every table will have individual entries only. I will contact you when I'm ready. 

In the meantime, some of us could contact field biologists or wildlife organisations in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, India, Nepal, Bhutan and Russia. We need recent and reliable information about the size of wild tigers.

Hello @peter, thanks for your replay, I will answer the remarks:

a - Body length:
In fact, the image did explain which animals were measured "between pegs" and which "along the curves". In fact, as I say and also you confirm it, it seems that only Bengal tigers and a very few other specimens for the other subspecies/populations were actually measured "between pegs". Now, sadly I only have measurements "between pegs" as I discarted all those taked "along the curves" in litterature for obvious reasons. In fact, the only one that I still conserve the measurements "over the curves" are some tigers from India and those from the Caspian, that is all. Amur tigers, for obvious reasons are included only those "over curves" as that seems to be the method used by Russian Biologist in the old and apparently also in the new records, so there is no option. About Bali tigers, Mazák believe that the other measurements, which are two females as far I remember, were probably "over the curves" or maybe even "skin measurements", which is even more unreliable.

b - Skulls:
About Mazák, it is not a secret that I greatly admire him and he is still one of the main sources, so my remarks were only for education, not for other thing, I want to make that point clear. About the Amur tigers, I was not talking about skulls but about the weights, as we know that the heaviest tiger of 306 kg reported by Mazák was a captive one. About the skull of the Caspian tiger, I decided to use it because been honest, is in the same position like the other large skulls of the Bengal and a Amur tigers, those are huge skulls that can't be confirmed, or at least the one of 406 mm from Manchuria is the more reliable, but the other ones, we can only believe in the original report. In fact, I think that a size of 385 mm is posible for the Caspian tiger, as they were just slightly smaller than the Amur and Bengal populations:

*This image is copyright of its original author


I still remember this image and I can only wonder how large was this specimen.

About the Malayan tiger, Locke was the main source for body size and I also mention in the image the large skull of 370 mm that based in DNA it was classified as a Malayan tiger (check the remarks under the weight and skull lenght figures). 

Finally I used the average of skull length from Yamaguchi et al. (2009) because the sample is larger and I used the ranges from Mazák (2013) as it shows the maximum and minimum reported in all litterature. For Indochina and Malaysia, I used the averages from J. H. Mazák (2008) which separated the two subspecies in the case of the males, check this:

*This image is copyright of its original author


Ranges were taken from Mazák (2013) to complete the figures.

c - The difference between wild and captive tigers:
It was a hard decision to use captive weights for the tables, but it was the only form to fill the gap, however I clearly showed it when I use it to avoid confusion (red letters). I think that what we can do is maybe to add a remark explaining that captive specimens normally weight less than wild specimens (except for Amur tigers, for some reason). Now, other thing will be to exclude them, but I think that it will be unfair for those that gathered that data and at the end, is usefull at least for the record, in thise case Slaght et al. (2005) which contacted the zoos.

About old and new information, check that we already had the same problem with Bengal and Amur tigers in the past, so now we already know the methods to classify the reliable information. So you can be sure that the few information available for tigers of Caspian, Java and Bali posted in the image is the only reliable one. About South China and Malayan tigers, I used captive weights just to fill the gap, but like I told you, there are remarks in red color showing the difference.

d - New information
I am very excited to know that you have more information about skulls of tigers. I really appreciate your effort. I was thinking about that and also that you said that you have more measurements, so when you are ready to publish your information, I can help you to create tables or even comparative images. About to contact experts of other countries, I have tried to do it but no results for the moment, sadly.


Greetings.
4 users Like GuateGojira's post
Reply

Netherlands peter Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 03-12-2020, 02:57 PM by peter )

RECENT INFORMATION ABOUT THE SITUATION IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

a - Documentary

Yesterday, a very recent (2020) documentary about traffickers was broadcasted on BBC 2. The Laura Warner documentary 'Tigers: Hunting the Traffickers' is both interesting and discouraging. If you get a chance to watch it, don't hesitate. 

b - Malaysia 

Aldo Kane is a former Royal Marine who knows about warfare. He also knows about tigers, the trade in tiger products and traffickers and trained anti-poaching teams in Malaysia. In that country, the remaining tigers (less than 200 today) are targeted by professional poachers armed with knowledge and serious weapons. Opposing them is difficult. I'm not saying it is a lost battle, but it's close. The snares are lethal. Tigers just don't stand a chance. 

c - Thailand

Thailand has 44 zoos (and/or private facilities) and all of them have tigers. Meaning something is going on. Those involved in tiger conservation agree it's more than likely that some zoos and facilities breed tigers for export. The hard part is finding evidence. It takes knowledge, skill, contacts and courage to collect evidence that will stand in court. Meaning you need people with access to good local information. These 'wildlife detectives' are of vital importance. The detective who featured in the documentary is doing an outstanding job. Hunting traffickers and those they bribed is dangerous. 

d - Laos

Tigertraffickingwise, Laos compares to a kind of store. It has both frozen cubs kept in fridges and live adult tigers in all kinds of 'facilities'. Some of them attract visitors, but others are used to store tigers. They're fattened up until they're ready to be transported. To Vietnam. 

e - Vietnam

In this country, wild and captive-bred tigers are sold. A few years ago, the focus was on tiger bones and the production of a kind of glue. Today, clients want more. According to the 'wildlife detective', live tigers are transported to villas (...) that have cages (...). After the client has made a choice, the victim is killed and consumed. Consumed? Yes. Rumour has it tiger meat and tiger bones will result in more, ehhh, vigour and drive.

f - Geneva

When hard evidence has been collected, it is presented to representatives of wildlife organisations. Organisations saying they want to save wild tigers. There are quite a few and most of them have the means to do something. Once or twice a year, they meet in Geneva (Switzerland) to talk tiger and do decisions on traffickers, criminal organisations and countries hosting these organisations. 

Kane talked to a number of representatives of wildlife organisations. Evidence was presented and everyone agreed something has to be done. But the Chinese have a somewhat different opinion and their lobby is not to be underestimated. Meaning decisions on countries ignoring international laws and agreements again were postponed. Also meaning those involved in poaching and trafficking can continue. Finally meaning tigers in southeast Asia have no future.  

g - Conclusions

The demand for tiger 'products' (in China in particular) is as strong as ever, if not more so. It's one of the flipsides of economic growth. It's clear that the policy regarding facilities breeding tigers and countries facilitating criminal organisations does not have a postive effect on the number of wild tigers. The opposite is true. In the last decade, the number of wild tigers has been halved. 

Tigers are now gone in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and severely threatened in Sumatra, Malaysia and Burma. Recent information says tigers are poached in India, Nepal and Russia as well. It is to be expected that the pressure in these countries will significantly increase in the near future. As all of them, in contrast to traffickers, struggle with inadequate means, it's more than likely the target regarding the number of wild tigers (in 2022) will prove to be a bridge too far.    

Meaning those involved in tiger conservation have failed. Again. I'm, to be clear, not referring to rangers and field biologists, but to those involved in policies, agreements and decisions. The time for change has arrived, that is. 

h - Proposals

Based on what we saw in the last two decades, my first proposal is to abandon the strategy to protect tigers in regions where poachers are not opposed because of a lack of means or political will. I'm referring to regions where tigers, and many other predators, are all but gone. In these regions, organisations involved in tiger conservation have been unable to realize their goals. One could also conclude they're no match for the Chinese and those involved in poaching.  

My second proposal is to focus on a few regions suited for tigers. Regions supported by both national organisations and international organisations involved in conservation, that is. The first aim is to connect the remaining parks and reserves in order to avoid problems with those interested in developing these regions. The second aim is to enlarge these core regions. A large population (at least 500 adults) is needed to prevent gene loss and inbreeding. Some parts of these regions could be used to attract visitors. 

My third proposal is to interact with their enemies. Both conservationists and those interested in tiger products profit from a decent number of protected reserves and a large population of tigers. Everyone interested in tigers knows captive-bred tigers do not compare to their wild relatives. Not even close.

A surprising conclusion to finish the post? I agree. But you know as well as I do that most humans, apart from a few exceptions (referring to fundamentalists in particular), are not that interested in, ehhh, ideals. The days people were prepared to fight for what they thought was right seem to be gone. Today, most of us are driven by something different. I'm referring to security and things like that, but if you say money I would agree right away. Meaning those interested in tigers (referring to those interested in conservation and their opponents) need to find common ground. 

If they fail, chances are conservationists and those opposing them will clash sooner or later. Would a more or less permanent all-out in a national park or a tiger reserve (we seem to be heading that way) be a solution for those making their home in the natural world? 

i - Debate

It is about the last two sentences of the previous paragraph. Do you think we should be prepared to make room for those living in the emerald forest with no strings attached (including dangerous animals), or should we go for a money-based conservation model already tested in, for instance, Australia (saltwater crocs) or South Africa (canned hunts) right away? 

And what's your advice for those involved in tiger conservation at the level of decisions?

We could do a smallish debate. If interested, remember respect is crucial no matter what.
5 users Like peter's post
Reply

United Arab Emirates BorneanTiger Offline
Senior Member
****
( This post was last modified: 03-13-2020, 11:04 PM by BorneanTiger )

(03-12-2020, 04:46 AM)peter Wrote: f - Geneva

...

Kane talked to a number of representatives of wildlife organisations. Evidence was presented and everyone agreed something has to be done. But the Chinese have a somewhat different opinion and their lobby is not to be underestimated. Meaning decisions on countries ignoring international laws and agreements again were postponed. Also meaning those involved in poaching and trafficking can continue. Finally meaning tigers in southeast Asia have no future.  

g - Conclusions

The demand for tiger 'products' (in China in particular) is as strong as ever, if not more so. It's one of the flipsides of economic growth. It's clear that the policy regarding facilities breeding tigers and countries facilitating criminal organisations does not have a postive effect on the number of wild tigers. The opposite is true. In the last decade, the number of wild tigers has been halved. 

Tigers are now gone in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and severely threatened in Sumatra, Malaysia and Burma. Recent information says tigers are poached in India, Nepal and Russia as well. It is to be expected that the pressure in these countries will significantly increase in the near future. As all of them, in contrast to traffickers, struggle with inadequate means, it's more than likely the target regarding the number of wild tigers (in 2022) will prove to be a bridge too far.    

Meaning those involved in tiger conservation have failed. Again. I'm, to be clear, not referring to rangers and field biologists, but to those involved in policies, agreements and decisions. The time for change has arrived, that is. 

h - Proposals

Based on what we saw in the last two decades, my first proposal is to abandon the strategy to protect tigers in regions where poachers are not opposed because of a lack of means or political will. I'm referring to regions where tigers, and many other predators, are all but gone. In these regions, organisations involved in tiger conservation have been unable to realize their goals. One could also conclude they're no match for the Chinese and those involved in poaching.  

...

My third proposal is to interact with their enemies. Both conservationists and those interested in tiger products profit from a decent number of protected reserves and a large population of tigers. Everyone interested in tigers knows captive-bred tigers do not compare to their wild relatives. Not even close.

A surprising conclusion to finish the post? I agree. But you know as well as I do that most humans, apart from a few exceptions (referring to fundamentalists in particular), are not that interested in, ehhh, ideals. The days people were prepared to fight for what they thought was right seem to be gone. Today, most of us are driven by something different. I'm referring to security and things like that, but if you say money I would agree right away. Meaning those interested in tigers (referring to those interested in conservation and their opponents) need to find common ground. 

If they fail, chances are conservationists and those opposing them will clash sooner or later. Would a more or less permanent all-out in a national park or a tiger reserve (we seem to be heading that way) be a solution for those making their home in the natural world? 

I'd like to ask about the issue of money and the poachers that kill wild animals like tigers for profits. Considering that the coronavirus has forced Chinese authorities to ban the consumption and trade of wild animals, and close down those cruel and unhygienic markets where wild and domestic animals alike were being traded and slaughtered (refer to what was being discussed in this thread for instance), besides increasing the risk of a global recession (partly by hitting the demand for oil, and leading to the current dispute between 2 major oil producers, which in itself has serious implications for the global economy), shouldn't poachers or their customers, who consume illegal animal products like tiger parts, themselves be in trouble now?
Reply

India sanjay Online
Wildanimal Enthusiast
*****

China is not only consumer of these things, Many south east country also have demands. Pandemic like coronavirus is temporary halt. Let it settle and it will emerge again. Sometime I think John Varty is doing better.
Reply

United Arab Emirates BorneanTiger Offline
Senior Member
****
( This post was last modified: 03-12-2020, 08:56 PM by BorneanTiger )

(03-12-2020, 06:21 PM)sanjay Wrote: China is not only consumer of these things, Many south east country also have demands. Pandemic like coronavirus is temporary halt. Let it settle and it will emerge again. Sometime I think John Varty is doing better.

The pandemic may be temporary, but it has far-ranging consequences. Not only has tourism towards Southeast Asia, especially by Chinese tourists, taken a hit, but now there are serious worries for the global economy, namely the oil dispute, and an increased risk of recession, which at least theoretically means that customers of poachers or the wildlife trade will be in financial trouble, and therefore the poachers or wildlife traders themselves: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/m...o-reassurehttps://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new...583864.cms
Reply

Netherlands peter Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 03-16-2020, 05:37 PM by peter )

(03-14-2020, 02:39 PM)johnny rex Wrote: What is the maximum prey size (e.g. weight, physical dimensions, etc.) that a single male lion or tiger can take alone without being in groups? Up to the size of a buffalo bull?

Tigers and rhinos

A few decades ago, I often taped documentaries. I still have these videos and the summaries I wrote. In two videos, rhinos were hunted by male tigers. I saw one on a forum later. It had been broadcasted on a Russian channel (the comment was in Russian) and parts of the documentary had been moved to AVA. The footage was from Nepal or northern India. It showed a male tiger following a rhino and her calf. In order to get rid of the tiger, mom decided to move to a river island. The tiger followed. A few days later, the adult female was on her own. She had defended her calf right to the end and nearly lost her life doing so. The second video was less clear, but the people interviewed were sure tigers hunted adult rhinos every now and then.   

Some of those who spent a lot of years in what used to be British India wrote about their experiences later. They too thought tigers hunted adult rhinos and elephants occasionally. It starts with calves. When a tiger is experienced, he moves to adolescents and young adults. I wasn't surprised to read later adult rhinos had been killed by tigers. 

Most posters seem to have doubts about tigers hunting rhinos, but there are reliable reports about rhinos killed by tigers in recent years. Nearly all rhinos killed were youngsters and adult females, but some tigers seem to hunt adult male rhinos every now and then. This photograph was posted not so long ago. It shows a male tiger and a male rhino killed in a fight. Happened in November 2017:


*This image is copyright of its original author
 

Tigers and elephants

I've read so many books in which tigers and elephants feature, that I wouldn't know where to start. Apart from books, there are magazins like The Field, The Indian Forester and The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society. In each of them, you can find letters from members about interactions between tigers and elephants. Most of these were published in the period 1890-1950, but I also have reports about recent incidents. 

The book below was discussed in the tiger extinction thread some years ago. It has different stories in which male tigers and male tuskers feature. Male tigers following herds quite often hunted calves and youngsters, but they also attacked adults defending youngsters. Not every attack resulted in a dead elephant, but quite a few elephants were injured.  

Adult females never left the herd on their own to engage a tiger following the herd, but some males visiting the herd occassionally, and tuskers in particular, did. Some of these males harrassed and 'hunted' tigers interested in elephants. They knew about their habits and waited for an opportunity to attack. At times, they were injured while trying, but they also succeeded every now and then. 

Those who know captive tigers agree they have a dislike for certain animals. In captivity, a dislike can develop into a fued. I'm not sure about their wild relatives, but my guess is they're nopt that different. Based on what I read, I'd say male elephants could compare in this department. When these two get involved, anything can happen.    

Never ever underestimate a wild male elephant driven by anger. Kenneth Anderson and others who hunted 'roques' agreed they're intelligent. move as silent as a big cat and know how to hunt an animal they dislike. For them, a human is no different from an animal. 

Here's the title page of the book, a reprint. My advice is to buy it when you can:             


*This image is copyright of its original author


Tigers and wild buffalos

Tigers and gaurs often feature in books, articles and posts. Tigers and wild buffalos, however, is a different story. In the tiger extinction thread, a few books written by Bengt Berg were discussed. In one of these, the 'Killer of Man' features. This male tiger from Bhutan was known for the way he killed wild buffalos. He wasn't after youngsters or females, but only hunted large bulls. 

The largest tiger Berg ever shot was 9.7 'between pegs' and 565 pounds. The 'Killer of Man', however, was in a different league. He could have shot this giant on different occasions, but wanted him to pass on his genes. Berg was a real hunter, that is. 

This specialist hunting large male buffalos never was involved in a battle. He rose underneath and in front of the giant, got a hold on the throat and the horns, used his grip to turn the head sideways and downward, planted the horns in the ground and heard the vertebrae of the neck crack while moving to the tail to start dinner. How to use weight in your advantage, lesson one. 

Berg saw the results time and again. His accurate descriptions made it clear the tiger rose in front of the buffalo, toppled him over and used his strength to twist the neck, in this way using the weight of the falling buffalo to his advantage. It wasn't a result of coincidence, that is. I've seen it on two occasions in old documentaries. In both cases, the neck was broken in this way. It wasn't the skill that made the Bhutan tiger famous. It was his strength to completely twist the head of a very heavy animal in such a way, that the horns were planted in the ground each and every time. Berg never saw any signs of a struggle.

Here's a wild buffalo (photograph from one of the books of Berg):


*This image is copyright of its original author


The neck of this buffalo was broken:


*This image is copyright of its original author
   

Now imagine a large bull with his horns sticking into the ground, his neck broken by a cat less than a third his weight.   
    
Tigers and bears

Most posters are fascinated by large animals killed by much smaller specialists like big cats, but only few seem to appreciate a tiger able to kill a robust and agile animal like a bear. Strange, as even a smallish adult brown bear is a powerful animal well capable of killing a male tiger. 

Some male Amur tigers hunt female brown bears every now and then. It is an ability that isn't really appreciated. 

Remember the video of Matkasur and the female sloth bear less than half his weight? I've seen a number of videos of Matkasur from up close. He's a splendid male tiger similar in size to an average male Amur tiger or better. In spite of that, he wasn't able to kill a very modestly-sized female sloth bear, whereas Russian specialists not seldom kill female brown bears twice her weight.  

Although he intended to discourage her at first, the engagement turned serious at some stage. The video shows Matkasur wasted a lot of energy struggling an animal he could have convinced in another way. He was, after all, a prime male tiger more than twice her weight.

The video underlines the conclusion that sloth bears are not easy to kill, even when they're only half the weight of a tiger. When the bear is over 220 pounds, a quick bite to the back of the skull isn't going to produce a quick result. Not unless the tiger is a specialist. The tiger often has no other option but to face the bear, meaning the fight can be dangerous. Bears, more robust than tigers, can take a lot of damage. This isn't true for tigers. If there's one thing a professional hunter wants to avoid, it's extra weight. It has a flipside. If the tiger is injured in a fight, he'll pay. If a bear is injured, he'll visit another tiger kill. 

These tiger kills, by the way, are the reason Amur tigers learn about bears the hard way. If they survive their first fights, chances are they'll continue in the bear department. When they gain experience, tigers progress from youngsters to adults. Adult females, that is. Adult male brown bears are not hunted, as too risky. Males up to 4-5 years of age, however, have been killed by specialists. In Russia, Amur tigers occasionally hunt male Himalayan black bears, but I've yet to read a reliable report about an adult male Himalayan bear killed by a tiger in India, Nepal, Myanmar and Vietnam. 

In some seasons and regions (in the Russian Far East), bears are an important food item. More important than red deer, for example. Some posters argued the results of research confirming bears are an important source of food were a result by smallish samples and the presence of bear specialists, but Miquelle and others recently concluded they could have been wrong regarding tigers and bears in the Russian Far East.

Amur tigers, for obvious reasons, are not as large and heavy as half a century ago. Males averaged about 389 pounds in a document published in 2005. But the table was polluted to a degree and the conditions in the Russian Far East are improving. The number of tigers is increasing and I've seen quite a few recent pictures and videos of large male Amur tigers in very good health. My guess is those interested in tigers and bears could be in for a few surprises in the near future.
2 users Like peter's post
Reply

United States Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******
( This post was last modified: 03-15-2020, 08:42 PM by Pckts )

China also put a ban on all animal trade goods because of this. Although I'm one to think that the virus is being blown a bit out of proportion. But hopefully it opens our eyes a bit more to understanding that these animals dont belong near most of us and they can transmit new pathogens that are deadly. 
This is really a case of us expanding too far looking for resources instead of conservation.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
-Oscar Wilde
2 users Like Pckts's post
Reply

Netherlands peter Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
Moderators

BORNEAN TIGER AND PC

The debate on the, possible, connection between the trade in wild animals and diseases is interesting. My proposal is to start a new thread and continue over there. This thread is about wild tigers. 

RISHI

Thanks for moving a copy of the post on the maximum size of animals hunted by tigers to this thread. Can you move the posts of Bornean Tiger and PC on the virus and the trade in wild animals to the new thread? It will be created today.
2 users Like peter's post
Reply






Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB