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)
|
Pckts
Yea, I agree with that you can distinguish the size if one is just bigger like Jai and Veeru brothers. But comparing top males like Wagdoh, Jai, Khali, Madla aren't easy by looking at them, especially if they aren't standing aside together. I think it's still better to measure their size. Just not tell the information of locations. I really wish there should be death penalty to poachers and their families as well. My friend who's trying to saving tiger in Pench told me there is about 12 tigers left in Umred Karhandla. There was villages inside in Umred Karhandla, and they may have caused conflicts between human and tiger, and poaching. He aso said villages inside Umred Karhandla are relocated now. I guess there is a chance to save remaining tigers. There are still Jai grandchildren are living in Umred Karhandla. Villages were inside in Panna far as I know when I watched documentary "Tigers of the Emerald Forest" until tigers were wiped out by poachers in 2008. It's good to hear villages are relocated if it is true. A real problem is chinese and vietnamese are keep eating those animals and buying it from poachers. Sometimes, I really wish entire countries just kick out chinese and vietnamese in their countries. Just see chinese is smuggling jaguar fangs in central and south america these days. Since you brought up the Serengeti lions. I am really curious, which animal is larger between tiger and lion? I do know tiger is the largest, strongest, and most powerful cat. But it looks different when I see photo of them together in captivity like the everland, black jaguar white tiger foundation, and other big cat sanctury. Male lion looks bigger than tiger, but I guess this is because of manes. I do know lion has a larger skull and taller shoulder in general. My professor (he is 80 years old) said people used to believe lion was bigger through out human history, but they realize the tiger is the largest and ultimate existing cat after studying them recently in 1900 (1900 is recent compare to 5000 years of human history after civilizations). I've seen photo of Indian Royal home before, but male asiatic lion skins were longer (head to body) and bigger (width) than Bengal tiger skins. But I don't know the Bengal tigers were male or female. I hear all the time that african lion is bigger than asiatic lion. Is it true that tiger is the largest cat? I study about these animals, but I don't have a real experience of big cats. Especially, if it is measuring big cats in museum, captivity, and wild. Which animal is the biggest cat? Is it really tiger? And I am asking to everyone who really know about big cats. (03-12-2018, 11:27 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Greatearth says: It would be the same for the Brown bear, Grizzly bear, Kodiak Bear, and Polar bear since elephant and rhino are too big and extremely powerful. I would absolutely believe that elephant and rhino just killed brown bear in roman record. But who recorded it? And where was it recorded? Like I hear all the time that tiger normally defeated and killed lion in roman arena since when I was a kid from book. But I am always wondering where did these information came from.  (05-14-2018, 10:49 PM)Roflcopters Wrote: I spoke to Varun Thakkar a while ago, a person who has been around for atleast a good 20 years. he has seen Kingfisher, Umarpani, Wagdoh and Jai. when i asked him about the biggest out of the four in terms of height, overall body length and just dimensionally bigger. Jai was the biggest according to him, also Jai if im not mistaken was weighed post monsoon. that’s like the toughest time of the year for tigers, 238 kilograms on a scale, 18kg for the error value for the scale. 220kg empty stomach, in winters Jai was easily far bigger so obviously a very large male. too bad he was poached and from the sounds of it, Jaichand is also gone, most likely poached. what a tragedy, Wildlife Institute of India is no longer competent and cannot provide answers for why so many tigers went missing under their rightful eyes. Umred Karhandla is the present day Panna. every tiger that grows to full maturity there is poached sooner or later. Srinivasa, Jai and Jaichand are a prime example of that. I totally agree with him ↴ (05-15-2018, 03:02 AM)Greatearth Wrote: It is the same as people who claiming Bengal tiger in Sundarban is the same size as Bengal tiger in mainland India. You can't really tell it by just watching them for a long time. If someone says, that this tiger...  *This image is copyright of its original author ..is larger than, this tiger...  *This image is copyright of its original author ..then it calls for second opinion, or atleast not taking his words as gospel just because he's Varun Thakkar. Especially if there are conflicting claims with Wagdoh by others. (i'm not even considering what Minh Ha says about Jai.)  (05-15-2018, 02:25 PM)Greatearth Wrote: Pckts I've gone fairly in depth on the topic here https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-compari...ids?page=3 But to keep it short and sweet, Lions appear taller and leaner while tigers appear shorter and stockier. Body length is close, too hard to determine with the naked eye. In regards to Black Jaguar White Tiger, the largest cats he has are in the big pride which consists of Male lions and lioness and two tigress and one male Tiger, the male Tiger "Alcyone" is as large as the largest Lions in the Big pride "Ali and Han" while being 6 months younger, while the largest females he has are 1 lioness and 1 Tigress, both around 160kg I believe. In captivity, I have seen huge Lions and huge Tigers, both overlapping greatly, the heaviest big cat I have seen in captivity is a Lion while the biggest in frame was a Tiger but he wasn't as thick as the lion, but I have seen other Tigers who were as thick as the lion but they were smaller in body dimensions. I have never seen an Amur in Captivity though and we all know that they do very well there and I have seen enough photos of them together to form opinions on the subject. Thanks to @Betty I have seen a ton of them together as well as doing my own searches, you can see quite a bit here https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-zoos-ci...9#pid54899 And strictly going off of that, I'd say Tigers are probably a bigger cat over all. But my personal experience from what I have seen in the wild is that there is no way to know which is actually "larger," They come in many sizes and big is big, when you see a 200kg+ cat, you're awestruck, simple as that. Here is my comparison image of two of the big cats I saw, they were similar distance from me, I had to enlarge the lion a bit to match the tiger but that can have to do with many factors. But either way, do you really think you can tell the difference in weight with the naked eye?  *This image is copyright of its original author Females of each species were a bit easier to tell the difference in for me, Their frame dimensions seem similar but Tigress seem to be a bit more muscular than Lioness, but again, that could just have to do with particular individuals. In regards to skins, @Rishi found a great image that should shed some light on the subject for you... "The Laxmi Niwas Palace of Bikaner, Rajasthan (it's a hotel now) built in 1904 before the hunt-ban, has multiple Indian tiger & lion skins by the Maharaja back in the days. 14 of the most prized ones are hung side by side in the Billiard Room."  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
(05-15-2018, 04:50 PM)Rishi Wrote:And, while Jai's 220kg "empty" weight is verified by Dr. Habib, I haven't seen the 225kg weight for BMW's sub adult verified outside of Minh.(05-14-2018, 10:49 PM)Roflcopters Wrote: I spoke to Varun Thakkar a while ago, a person who has been around for atleast a good 20 years. he has seen Kingfisher, Umarpani, Wagdoh and Jai. when i asked him about the biggest out of the four in terms of height, overall body length and just dimensionally bigger. Jai was the biggest according to him, also Jai if im not mistaken was weighed post monsoon. that’s like the toughest time of the year for tigers, 238 kilograms on a scale, 18kg for the error value for the scale. 220kg empty stomach, in winters Jai was easily far bigger so obviously a very large male. too bad he was poached and from the sounds of it, Jaichand is also gone, most likely poached. what a tragedy, Wildlife Institute of India is no longer competent and cannot provide answers for why so many tigers went missing under their rightful eyes. Umred Karhandla is the present day Panna. every tiger that grows to full maturity there is poached sooner or later. Srinivasa, Jai and Jaichand are a prime example of that. But generally his word is backed by verified sources, but there certainly looks like there would be more than a +/-5kg difference between the 2.
Pckts
That's right. I can't distinguish by just looking at them, especially if they are not next to each other. But I was asking with after measuring their sizes since 100 years ago. All of biologist and people who knows big cats would say the largest, storngest, and most powerful cat today is the Tiger. I heard it too since when I was a little, but I don't have any real experience with big cats. I was always curious about this because male lion always looked bigger in photo and video from photo, TV channel, video from big cat sanctuary, Everland, and other places. I guess lion's main makes them look bigger? I've seen captive lions a lot (even including right front of me), but they don't really look big as I hear in book and internet. They were definitely big, but not big as I expected. I've seen Shaquille O'Neal and I do have a friend who's playing in NFL lineman. I actually felt like those guys were bigger than male lions after seeing lions closely. I'v seen puma right front of me, but puma looked bigger than I expected. Maybe because wild pumas (it may have been female puma) look small in photo compared to grizzly and male wolf unlike male lions generally look big compared to other African carnivores. Yes, it was that photo! Thanks to find other photos and the location! I thought it was trophy hunting room by Indian royals. I only saw the first and second photo from many different angles. That male lion skin is larger than 2 tiger skins, just tigers are longer due to long tails. Actually, lion skin at 5th photo above bookshelf looks bigger than any of tiger skins in the room. I've seen skulls of the Bengal tiger, Asian lion, and Indian leopard. Lion skull was the biggest. That's why I was wondering is it really true that Bengal tiger is larger than Asiatic lion, and even larger African lion. What's your opinon peter? I know you measured many skulls, bones, and alive big cats. Which cat is the largest and most powerful? (05-16-2018, 01:00 PM)Greatearth Wrote: I was always curious about this because male lion always looked bigger in photo and video from photo, TV channel, video from big cat sanctuary, everland, and other places. So what? You can see how confusing it is to make an accurate estimation in even for popular tigers like the above ones. Hundreds of people have seen them multiple times & each seem to have a different opinion... And tigers don't even have manes! Quote:Yes, it was that photo! Thanks to find other photos and the location! I thought it was trophy hunting room by Indian royals. I only saw the first and second photo from many different angles. That male lion skin is larger than 2 tiger skins, just tigers are longer due to long tails. Actually, lion skin at 5th photo above bookshelf looks bigger than any of tiger skins in the room. I've seen skulls of the Bengal tiger, Asian lion, and Indian leopard. Lion skull was the biggest. That's why I was wondering is it really true that Bengal tiger is larger than Asiatic lion, and even larger African lion. That is a real trophy room. The Laxmi Niwas Palace have been converted to an exotic hotel by its heirs of royal family. Also, that lion on entrance wall is the second largest in the room. Largest one is a tiger on the left wall... (You can see it in the 5th & 6th photos in Pckts's post too)  *This image is copyright of its original author Other ones aren't really big tigers. Unlike big lions, they lived in the remotest jungles & were harder to come across. Usually the ones that got kicked out of those undegraded habitats got shot. That's probably one of the reasons tigers' genetics got hit less harder by the 17-20 century hunting spree...
Rishi
I don't think that is true. Majority biologist (or hunters, naturalists, big cat experts, and others) and people who really knows big cats always putting hands on tiger. And almost every source and science journal is concluding that tiger is the largest and most powerful existing Felidae. I know people used to believe lion for a long time, but it changed after people studied about animals deeply from 1800. It is just people who really don't know about animals still believing the lion is the largest cat from my experience, because of the lion king movie and they used to grow up with lion is the king of the beast. Or it is always going to be crazy lion fans if they know about big cats, but this is the same for any other crazy animals fan. For me, I am not really sure if it is true or false since I have never measured any big cats and never seen/studied any big cats in wild. Male lions always looked bigger in tv channel and photo from Everland and big cat sanctuary. Even specimen I saw was male lion always looked bigger. However, I agree that the tiger is the most powerful and largest cat, and tiger is the real king of the beast. The 2nd is lion, 3rd is jaguar, 4th is either puma or leopard, 5th cheetah or snow leopard, 6th clouded leopard, and so on..... So have you visited that place? Which animal generally looks bigger (by average) from your observation? And where did these lions from? From Rajastan or Gujaret? I guess the Indian lion size was pretty much the same if they were from other states of India.  *This image is copyright of its original author *This image is copyright of its original author
 (05-15-2018, 09:08 PM)Pckts Wrote:(05-15-2018, 02:25 PM)Greatearth Wrote: Pckts I think the largest specimen in this collection seats on the chair, the bottom photo from the right.... She virtually dwarfs all other carnivorous specimens... 
WOOD NORTON MUSEUM (UK)
Could have been a typical trophy room in the early 20th century. Never heard about this museum:  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (05-15-2018, 01:35 PM)peter Wrote:As requested, I've quoted a copy of the post of interest into this thread. Just click on the quote to expand it.(05-13-2018, 09:33 AM)Rishi Wrote: Big News unearthed by Suhail! @peter @parvez @Jimmy @SuSpicious @Sully @
tigerluver and Rishi
Where were those conversations? I didn't even noticed Rishi tagged my name there.   (05-15-2018, 02:41 PM)Greatearth Wrote:(03-12-2018, 11:27 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Greatearth says: It would be the same for the Brown bear, Grizzly bear, Kodiak Bear, and Polar bear since elephant and rhino are too big and extremely powerful. The Romans themselves kept records. Also, there were no tigers in the Roman arena. However, there was an unknown brown dog-like animal which the Romans called a tiger. The bear fought lions, bulls, leopards, and in one fight a rhinoceros. Never an elephant.  *This image is copyright of its original author
PANTHERA TIGRIS ALTAICA - 6 - HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST AND MANCHURIA
6a - Introduction A post on the history of the Russian Far East and the northern part of Manchuria in a thread dedicated to tigers? Yes. The reason is simple. Today, humans, directly or indirectly, strongly affect those who make their home in the natural world. If we want to know a bit more about the future of wild tigers, we have no option but to discuss politics every now and then. No agree? In southeastern Asia, conservation has zero priority. The result is that wild country is rapidly disappearing everywhere. Wild tigers are all but gone in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodja. Myanmar still has tigers, but the reports are not good. Indonesia compares in that conservation is at the bottom of the list as well. Want to see destruction at work? Visit Sumatra. In India, Nepal and Bhutan, however, conservation has meaning. The result is about 3 000 wild tigers. In Thailand and Malaysia, conservation also isn't a paper tiger. The result is 500-600 wild tigers. In the Russian Far East, tigers will have 200 000 square km. at their disposal soon. Today, there are about 550 wild Amur tigers in Russia. If we include North-Korea and China, there could be about 600. China, definitely improving in the conservation department, is a bit silent on the Chinese tiger though. In 2011, there were 5-10 tigers in the western part of central China. One also wonders about the situation in the extreme southwestern part of the country. The recent report on a remote and largely isolated population of tigers in northeastern India suggests that they could be present in the extreme southwest of China. These tigers don't seem to belong to P.t. tigris or P. t. amoyensis. 6b - Numbers and future In the last 150 years, tigers lost about 95% of their territory. Many think there were about 100 000 just before the human population exploded. My guess is there were less, but densities could have been higher than today because the ecosystem was healthier back then. Two decades ago, there were about 3 500 wild tigers left, meaby a bit more. Today, there could be about 5 000 - 6 000. The target set in St. Petersburg a few years ago will prove to be a bridge too far, but tigers do seem to have a future just south of the Himalayas, Nagarahole, Thailand, southern Malaysia, northeastern China and, in particular, the Russian Far East. Central and southwestern China (some wild tigers left, but very low numbers and no airplay), Kazakhstan (reintroduction of tigers considered, but not in the immediate future) and Indonesia (overpopulation, total destruction and no conservation policy whatsoever) were not included. Sumatra is a free for all at the moment. It could be that some of the very wealthy (I was thinking of the project of Tommy in particular) will create a few private sanctuaries, but the reports are not good. I don't think tiger numbers will double in the next decade, but 7 000 - 8 000 wild tigers in ten years from now seems a realistic target. In all regions that have tigers, conservation is crucial. As conservation and politics are closely related, a discussion about politics can't be avoided. India tops the list. Although poverty is a very real problem for a large part of the population, conservation has priority. Remarkable. The problem is that the political situation in India is quite complex. We need an insider able to get to a decent summary. I was thinking of Sanjay of Rishi, but anyone interested in politics, conservation and tigers is invited to give it a try. Same for Nepal and Bhutan. As China was already discussed in the series on the Chinese tiger (this thread), the time has arrived to have a closer look at the situation in the Russian Federation. 6c - History of the Russian Far East After going over what I have on Russia, I decided for the internet. Before I did a search, I had to limit the scope. I decided for the period after 1850. The reason is that tigers, distribution- and numberwise, most probably reached their top in the period 1650-1850. When significant parts of Asia had been occupied by European countries and fire-arms had become available, the situation changed. Wild country was cultivated and hunting was introduced. Although there were a few rules, wild animals were quickly decimated in many regions. Tigers in particular suffered, as they, for different reasons, topped the list of the new rulers and the new hunters. The result was that tigers disappeared everywhere. Well before World War Two started, tigers had been exterminated in Korea and decimated in Indonesia (Bali and Java), southeastern Asia (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) and quite many parts of what was then British India. After the war, in the period 1950-1975, tigers were hunted down in central Asia and in most parts of China. And what about northern China and Russia? I can also keep it short and tell you right now that tigers in that part of Asia, in spite of their limited numbers, survived the massacre. There were different reasons. One is that northeastern Asia was thinly populated. It still is. Two is long winters and a limited number of tigers. Three is politics. What is now the Russian Far East, was part of China. In 1858 (Treaty of Aigun), Russia, expanding east, got a significant portion of northern China and in 1860 (Treaty of Peking) the region that now has most Amur tigers (Primorye) was added:  *This image is copyright of its original author The aim of the new rulers was to populate and cultivate the new territory, but not in the way it was done by most western nations in Africa and Asia. When the new settlers made a mess of it, the Russian elites decided for a different approach. Conservation always was on their mind and it most probably made the difference for Amur tigers. I knew a bit about the history of the Russian Far East, but not enough. For this reason, I decided to search for studies and books in which this region featured. It took me some time, but the result was overwhelming. Everything you want to read is there. Although every study is interesting, one of them stands out. It covers everything of importance and, in spite of the title, links the history of the Russian Far East with today (the writer visited Linda Kerley). The dissertation 'TAMING TIGER COUNTRY: COLONIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT IN THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST, 1860-1940', written by Mark Sokolsky (Ohio State University) and published in 2016 is a true treasure and will be discussed in the next posts:  *This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 56 Guest(s) |