WildFact
›
Premier Section
›
Edge of Extinction
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
Tiger re-establishment potential to former Caspian tiger (Panthera tigris virgata) range in Central Asia Chestin, Paltsyn, Pereladova, Iegorova & Gibbs, 2016
Highlights • Options to restore tigers to Central Asia are explored. • At least two habitat patches remain potentially suitable for tiger re-establishment. • The most promising site—the Ili-Balkhash—hosts ca. 7000 km2 of habitat. • The site could support a population of 64–98 tigers within 50 years. • Re-establishment of tigers in Central Asia may yet be tenable. Abstract: "Caspian tigers (Panthera tigris virgata), a now extinct subspecies genetically similar to the Amur tiger (P. t. altaica), occurred until the mid-1900s from modern day Turkey and Iran east through Central Asia into northwest China. A literature analysis we conducted revealed that Caspian tigers occupied ca. 800,000–900,000 km2 historically, mostly within isolated patches of tugay- and reed-dominated riparian ecosystems at densities up to 2–3 tigers/100 km2. Herein we explored options to restore tigers to Central Asia using Amur tiger as an “analog” form. Spatial analyses based on remote sensing data indicated that options for Amur tiger introduction are limited in Central Asia but at least two habitat patches remain potentially suitable for tiger re-establishment, both in Kazakhstan, with a total area of < 20,000 km2. The most promising site—the Ili river delta and adjacent southern coast of Balkhash Lake—hosts ca. 7000 km2 of suitable habitat that our tiger-prey population models suggest could support a population of 64–98 tigers within 50 years if 40–55 tigers are translocated and current Ili river flow regimes are maintained. Re-establishment of tigers in Central Asia may yet be tenable if concerns of local communities in the Ili-Balkhash region are carefully addressed, prey population restoration precedes tiger introduction, Ili river water supplies remain stable, and the Amur tiger's phenotype proves adaptable to the arid conditions of the introduction site."  (11-23-2016, 06:55 PM)peter Wrote: WILDFACT PUBLICATIONS ON THE SIZE OF INDIAN AND NEPAL TIGERS Hello Peter "A Ranthambore male tiger later transferred to a facility allegedly was just over 600 pounds the second time he was weighed." I just wanted to ask where you got this 600 lb figure from? As far as I know, I am unaware of any record of a tiger in Ranthambore reaching over 600 pounds. Can you please show the source to this if you have? 
I believe Tigerwalah stated that 280kg figure for Jhumroo
http://www.tigerwalah.com/tiger-attack-my-take/  (12-13-2016, 10:30 AM)Kingtheropod Wrote:(11-23-2016, 06:55 PM)peter Wrote: WILDFACT PUBLICATIONS ON THE SIZE OF INDIAN AND NEPAL TIGERS The famous Ranthambore male tiger who was tried and sentenced after killing four apparently was weighed when he was arrested. I read he bottomed a 600-pound scale the second time he was weighed, but I also read he was 240 and 250 kg. in two other reports. I really wouldn't know what to make of it, but it clearly was a large male tiger:  *This image is copyright of its original author The tiger in the report posted by Copters is another tiger. Although the author wrote he was 280 kg., I take it for now he too most probably bottomed a 600-pound scale. If both reports would have been found in old books, they would have been rejected without thinking twice. What I was saying, Pod, is wild male tigers in India are large animals. If anything, they seem bigger than a century ago. It is, however, a fact that reliable data often are lacking. The lack of accuracy is the reason modern data often can't be used for a paper or article. The series I want to do with Tigerluver would be the first with some kind of proof of wild Indian and Nepal tigers exceeding well-accepted markers. As a result of a lack of reliable modern data, it will be about Indian tigers shot a century ago (1880-1920) and Nepal tigers shot just before the Second World War (1930-1939). The lack of good data is the reason why the threads about modern big cats have been created.
I have a question, about the work (see reply #1065) on the possibility to restore the Caspian tigers (P. t. virgata) in nature using Amur tigers subspecies.
Admitting that they are different tigers, genetically as morphologically: What is the sense to reintroduction using another subspecies, in this case the Amur tigers? I mean, virgata is extinct anyway. Only environmental factors, can bring her back to life, in the course of time? (12-17-2016, 07:32 PM)Ngala Wrote: I have a question, about the work (see reply #1065) on the possibility to restore the Caspian tigers (P. t. virgata) in nature using Amur tigers subspecies. The question that arises about reintroduction of Panthera tigris into the Caspian region now is, can they live there today? Many species in the central Asian sphere are also endangered, and it may not be sufficient prey availability like a century ago for tigers to live. Of course, the purpose of relocating some Amurs to the Caucasus would be to expand the range of current living tigers, not bring back extinct populations.
THE TIGERS OF TRENGGANU (Lt.-Col. A. Locke, London, 1954).
A few days ago, in another thread, Polar asked for a link to the book of Locke. Here it is: https://archive.org/details/tigersoftrenggan007267mbp The book was first published by Museum Press Limited (London) in 1954. In 1986, Vinpress Sdn Bhd published a reprint. I have the reprint. Lt.-Col. Locke was a District Officer in a remote and wild region in Malaysia just after World War Two. His job was to protect the local population from various enemies. These included ... " communist terrorist gangs who infested the jungle, and cattle-destroying or man-eating tigers in the same resort ... " (Foreword). The book is well-written, to the point and interesting all the way. Highly recommended. (12-17-2016, 07:32 PM)Ngala Wrote: I have a question, about the work (see reply #1065) on the possibility to restore the Caspian tigers (P. t. virgata) in nature using Amur tigers subspecies. Interesting question, but not easy to answer. The thread has a number of posts on Caspian tigers. As the thread has no index yet (I'm working on it), you have no choice but to find them yourself. As to the remark on the differences between Panthera tigris altaica and Panthera tigris virgata. Researchers concluded they are closely related (genetics). Not a few researchers, with Kitchener as spokesman, proposed to treat all mainland tigers as one species, but they did distinguish between a northern and a southern clade. I posted photographs of Caspian tigers and compared them to photographs of Amur tigers. There are differences, but they also overlap in many respects. One could conclude that Caspian tigers showed more regional variation, but this was also true for Amur tigers in the recent past. Korean tigers were different from the typical Amurs of today and so were Manchurian tigers. Caspian tigers were exterminated between 1930-1970 of the last century, but there have been quite many reports about tigers in the last two decades. Afghanistan in particular is often mentioned. Most sightings no doubt refer to leopards, but central parts of Asia still have many remote and wild regions with few people. A big cat might stand a chance if protection would be taken seriously. The problem, if anything, is political stability, not a lack of wild country. 
Historical and present range of Tigers,Lions,Leopards and Cheetah's respectively...
 *This image is copyright of its original author If there is still sufficient prey and people are tolerant towards big-cats there is no problem in releasing them in their former range ..... except small changes all cat subspecies are same so they will survive there easily. If they start eating people after release send them into zoo's. 
59 tigers radio collared
New Delhi, Apr 26 () Fifty-nine wild cats have been radio collared in various tiger reserves across the country, the government today said, noting that information provided by the collared tigers was "critical" for conservation of the species. "While the maximum 35 tigers have been radio collared in various tiger reserves in Madhya Pradesh, 14 have been done in two tiger reserves in Rajasthan," Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar said in a written reply in Lok Sabha. He said that the cost of radio collar depends on the purpose for which it is intended to be customised. "A simple VHF radio collar with battery life of three to four years will cost between Rs 25,000-30,000. This collar will help in tracking animals in the field. "The more advanced radio collars with GPS, activity sensor, mortality sensor, VHF, UHF, automatic drop off etc cost almost Rs 3-4.50 lakhs. This depends upon the research programme intended to be addressed," Javadekar said. He said the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) has not evaluated the potential harm caused by the radio collars for the tigers. The minister also informed that a tigress in Pench tiger reserve has given birth to four cubs. "All the tigress of Panna and Sariska tiger reserves are collared and doing well. The information provided by radio collared tigers is critical for long term conservation of the species," he said. TDS DV http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/...992460.cms
TIGERS AND BEARS IN THE HIMALAYAS
I read quite a few old books, but found nothing about tigers and brown bears in the Himalayas. Black bears is a different story. In Russia, black bears are hunted by Amur tigers. In the foothills of the Himalayas, they are not. One of the reasons could be size. Although some male black bears can get to 400 pounds and just over in southeastern Russia, the average is closer to 300-350 pounds. Not a few males, however, would struggle to get to 300. In the region just south of the Himalayas, males are larger and heavier. Those who knew both wrote there was little to choose between male sloth bears and male black Himalayan bears a century ago. In that period, sloth bears were killed by tigers every now and then. Judging from letters published in the JBNHS, males were included. I never read anything about tigers hunting Himalayan black bears. The 'ring method' used by the Maharajah of Nepal just before World War Two produced both tigers and bears at times. What he saw strongly suggested that Himalayan black bears did not fear tigers. Although only immatures and females were involved, the story wouldn't be very different in males. When he sat in a tree waiting for the tiger to appear, Corbett saw a large male black bear heading straight for the Temple tiger on his kill (a cow). The bear stalked the tiger (...) and jumped into the hollow where the tiger was eating. He didn't see what happened, but could hear every detail of the fight that followed. After a few minutes, the tiger " ... broke off the engagement and came along the open ground in front of me at a fast gallop, closely followed by the still screaming bear ... " ('The Temple Tiger', Jim Corbett). Corbett had a go at the tiger, but missed. He did shoot the bear from a distance of a few feet only though. He wrote he had no other choice. When Corbett had his hands in his pockets searching for a cigarette and matches, he saw " ... the Temple tiger unhuriedly cantering along the open ground over which he had galloped a minute or two earlier ... looking not at me, but at his dead enemy ... " ( 'The Temple Tiger'). After a smoke, Corbett " ... stepped down from the holly tree and went to have a look at the bear, who, I found, was even bigger than I had at first thought. His self-sought fight with the tiger had been a very real one, for blood from a number of deep cuts was seeping through the thick fur on his neck and in several places his scalp was torn right down to the bone. These wounds would have mattered little to a tough animal like a bear, but what did matter and what had annoyed him was the injury to his nose. All males resent being struck on the nose, and not had the bear been struck on that tender spot but insult had been added to injury by his nose being torn in half. Reason enough for him to have chased the tiger with murder in his eyes, and for him to have ignored the report of my heavy rifle ... " ('The Temple tiger'). The tiger, to be sure, was described as a large male. What is 'large' in Corbett's dictionary? Well, he shot quite a number of male tigers exceeding 10 feet 'over curves' in total length. The tables I posted about tigers in northern India shot a century ago showed impressive averages. A 'large' male in northern India, like the Temple tiger Corbett was after, would have been at least 9.4 in total length 'between pegs' and most probably well over 440 pounds. Not a joke, that is. But not large enough to impress a determined male Himalayan black bear, so it seems. So if it wasn't size, what was the difference between sloth bears and Himalayan black bears back then? A difference that would make even a large male tiger think twice? My take is size was a reason. I read too many reports about Himalayan male black bears described as 'very large'. And 'very large' was quantified in some cases in that some males were estimated at well over 500 pounds by experienced observers. Some of them towered over 7 and even 8 feet on their hindlegs. That's as big as a decent male brown bear. It could be there wasn't much to choose between them at the level of averages, but large male sloth bears just exceeded 400 pounds a century ago, whereas there are plenty of reports about large male Himalayan black bears estimated well over that mark. Same for southeast Asia, by the way. Some male black bears in the northern part of what used to be French Indochina were estimated at well over 500 pounds half a century ago. As big as the biggest male tigers in that region. Attitude could be another difference. Although confrontations between sloth bears and tigers often result in a stalemate, sloth bears will run when possible. In many cases, they're afraid of tigers. Himalayan black bears are different. Based on what I read, some male Himalayan black bears seem to be prepared to meet the tiger at equal terms. Confrontations not seldom result in a few rounds and the bear described by Corbett was prepared to take on a large male tiger on a kill. That should tell you something. It's very likely he had quite a bit of experience. Bearwise, there is a clear difference between Amur and Indian tigers. Even captive Amur tigers show a lot of animosity when they see a bear, no matter how big he is. Bears not only are competitors in Russia. In summer, they also are an important food item. Apparently more so than many researchers initially thought. Recent research also suggests that the bears hunted are not as small as many think. Amur tiger culture definitely includes bears and it often shows. Wild tigers have to learn how to deal with bears or else. Indian tigers are different. Although there are tigers who hunt sloth bears, most of them do not. They fight them and kill at times, but that's different from hunting. Only few tigers consider sloth bears as food. Furthermore, there are no reliable reports about Indian tigers hunting Himalayan black bears. More than once, I heard rumours about tigers killed by large bears in the Himalayas. I never found any evidence, but not hunting them is good enough for me. Notice that size in both cases (Himalayan black bears and Amur tigers) apparently isn't decisive. Himalayan black bears, although large enough to kick ass anywhere, apparently do not fear Indian tigers. Not in males, I mean. This although we know that Indian tigers, and those in the Himalayas in particular, are unsurpassed in length, robustness and weight. If anything, they are as large as Himalayan black bears, if not larger (averages and extra-large individuals). Amur tigers, although not as heavy as their Indian relatives, are deeply involved in bears. Those considered to be in the know agree they are prepared to take on bears of similar size (brown and Himalayan black bears). Russian authorities agree that tigers win more often. I have the numbers and concluded it's about two to one, meaby a bit more. I know smaller bears could be included in that result, but it also is a fact that Amur tigers do ok in the heavyweight division. Bears lead on points, but an average male brown bear is larger than an average male Amur tiger (260-270 vs 190-195 kg.) and the big boys (definitely over 700 pounds.) are included. Attitude. Culture. These things are related to experience and history. Returning to the Himalayas. Here's a bit more from those in the know:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Carrington Turner was a professional (Imperial Forest Service). The one below, a hunter and writer, also saw his fair share of tigers and bears. Try to find them if you can. Both books are not expensive and informative all the way. Make that very informative. They were written by people who saw a lot more than we ever will:  *This image is copyright of its original author
INTERVIEW WITH ULLAS KARANTH IN THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS (Dec. 2016)
The interview was posted in another thread. As it is interesting, I decided for a repost in this thread: http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/karnataka/2016/dec/29/when-a-tiger-dies-theres-need-for-rational-response-and-a-bold-new-vision-1554098--1.html
MALE TIGER CAPTURED AND RELOCATED NEAR LUCKNOW
The article below was posted in the new thread about modern measurements and weights of tigers a few days ago. The tiger captured was long (10.5 or 317,50 cm., most probably measured 'over curves') and about average in weight for that region (210 kg. or 464 pounds). The article is interesting: http://www.wpsi-india.org/news/30042012.php
THE ACTUAL STANDING HEIGHT OF LIONS AND TIGERS IN THE JARDIN DES PLANTES (Paris) IN 1895
The tables below were posted at AVA quite some time ago. Most unfortunately, the essentials were omitted. This means I can't inform you on a few things you would want to know. However. I do know the French were involved in northern Africa and the southeastern part of Indochina in that period (1895). a - Origin It's more than likely that the lions came from northern Africa. It's also more than likely the tigers came from what is now Vietnam. Based on what I have, I'd say the southern part of it (Cochinchina, see the map below). b - Measurements The lions and tigers in the Jardin des Plantes were measured while standing in front of the bars. We're talking about the actual standing height measured at the top of the shoulder, that is. b1 - Barbary lions:  *This image is copyright of its original author b2 - Vietnam tigers:  *This image is copyright of its original author c - Averages Lion ♂: 88,265 - (m) 92,0750 - 95,885 (n=3) Lion ♀: 81,280 - (m) 85,1675 - 89,055 (n=2) Tiger ♂: 86,995 - (m) 88,025 - 89,055 (n=2) - the young male wasn't included Tiger ♀: 74,930 - (m) 79,690 - 84,138 (n=3) d - Photographs d1 - Wild Barbary lion This male was photographed somewhere in northern Africa. Great picture:  *This image is copyright of its original author d2 - Subadult male Barbary lion (London Zoo, 1896):  *This image is copyright of its original author d3 - Captive Indochinese tiger (captured in the northern part of Vietnam):  *This image is copyright of its original author d4 - Map of French Indochina  *This image is copyright of its original author d5 - Captive Indochinese tigers (Zoologischer Garten Berlin, autumn 2015):  *This image is copyright of its original author d6 - My guess is the tiger below was shot in Annam, in the heart of Vietnam. In those days, the conditions in Annam were better than in the north (Tonkin) or south (Cochinchina). Situated on a plateau, it was considered healthy and popular with many. Apart from beautiful forests, Annam had plenty of wild animals (elephants, large herbivores and big cats). Compared to British India, French Indochina was easier to reach. Between 1920-1940 or so, it was the place to be for American hunters. The tigers, of course, were said to be large. Larger than in southern or northern Vietnam and larger than in Bengal (west and north of the Sunderbans) as well. I have to say that the photographs I have (all from French books) often show impressive animals. The largest skull I know of was from Annam. The largest shot by Baze in that region was 260 kg. and, partly as a result of a very long tail, 338 cm. in total length (most probably measured 'over curves'). He wasn't the only one. Some years ago, there was an exhibition in Paris about Indochina. A friend was there. He knows about tigers and told me the mounted tiger was the largest he had seen. By a margin, he added. Tigers shot in the northeast (China), north (Tonkin, just south of China) and south (Cochinchina) were smaller than in Annam. The largest V. Mazak knew about was a male of 402 pounds shot in December 1968 the northwestern part of what was then North-Vietnam. Tigers in the western part of Vietnam, however, also were quite large. A German hunter shot a male close to 200 kg. in one of the last wild places in the west in the sixties of the last century. There's not much left of the paradise Annam once was. The last forests are all but empty. Tigers are gone. A village just south of Hanoi is considered a hotspot for those interested in tigers. Poached tigers, that is. What a pity. As for the tiger below. Although perhaps not as robust as an average male Indian tiger, he was tall. Well over average, I'd say:  *This image is copyright of its original author e - Comparison with the table published by V. Mazak (1983) It is about the measurements of Panthera tigris corbetti (Paris Zoo and Dvur Kralove). The 2 males averaged 88 cm., whereas the 2 females averaged 79,25 cm. No difference with the tigers measured in the Jardin des Plantes in Paris in 1895, that is:  *This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 64 Guest(s) |