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)
|
 (03-09-2015, 08:57 AM)'peter' Wrote: GUATEI accept the reprimand and I apologize with the forum, but to be sincere, I will never take this "Waveriders" guy seriously. He try to prove that he is serious person with you, but check what he really is in the post No. 416, when he attacked me directly without any reason, calling me a fanatic and acused me of "hate" other animals just because I was "passioned" with tigers, which is just stupid in any sense. For me Waveriders is a person with double standards that have always show "words" but never a bit of evidence to backup his words. 
@WaveRiders , We want you to open yourself little more with community. All members have only one problem with you and it is lack of evidence in your posts. We really like your posts and want to have members like you but you have to change yourself to be part of community. Its like society we live in, If you want to be part of society , do and follow what other members are doing. You can not avoid these rules.
Also, There are ways to agree and disagree with some one during debate. Let's suppose you and me in debate and I don't agree with your remark, So there are 2 way to address you - 1st way - "WaveRiders, you are completely idiot, Your argument is like a fanatic boy. You look so ridiculous..........so so so so " 2nd way - "WaveRiders, I read your remark, I respect your thought but I do not agree on this part and I have different view, I think you should read again the source you claim.........so so so so" So tell me which one is more social ? 2nd way, Right ? If we consider our self an expert on wild animal study, Then it is shame on us that we do not know how to debate with proper way. We suppose to have a level of maturity, But if we use bad words in our debate it is suppose to be you are uncluttered. I request you please opt for 2nd way to address some one. Same for @GuateGojira Believe me, You both have made the moderating job very hard for us. WaveRiders, Please come with your evidence and make some great informative post on wildfact forum. We would love to learn lot from members like you. You have capability that use it to make some great thread and post, Indulging in fight with some other members will leave you as another fanatic boy. I and peter believe that you can really make some great information content here, But only problem we noticed here is your discussion manner, You generally opt for 1st way I mentioned above which is not good. One more thing, This forum can not be another AVA, If needed We are capable of taking hard decision against anyone, That's the last line.  
KENNETH ANDERSON (1910-1974)
a - Life and work Some decades ago, I bought 'Man-Eaters of Kumaon', written by Jim Corbett. I read it more than once and still remember every story. Later, I bought all other books he wrote. I found it easy to enter his books, because he wasn't a professional writer who indulged in detours. To me, Corbett was a modest man who sat down at night to tell me a true story about something he had experienced a long time ago. What he had seen, was so fascinating that a factual report of what had actually happened would have been just fine. And this is exactly what he delivered time and again. I read many books written by hunters. Although most are interesting to an extent, not one even came close to Corbett. Not one, apart from Kenneth Anderson. Although he, in contrast to Corbett, enjoyed detours every now and then, his stories about man-eaters he had hunted almost compared to those written by Corbett. I could tell you a lot about his life, but I decided for the brief summary in Wikipedia. To the point, I concluded: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Anderson_(writer) b - Communication This is a small detour, but an interesting one. Like most others, I knew and know a few people I respect. Most of these operate(d) in those fields I know quite well. They are, to be sure, not personal friends, but unknown entities who entered my soul at some stage. They didn't stay, but I didn't forget about them. I admit the description is a bit wanting, but it is the best I can do for now. I've been lucky in that I was able to meet some of them in person. Some of those I didn't meet were interviewed by others. I met most others through their books or their music. In quite many cases, I was deliberately met by people I didn't know. They introduced themselves and we talked. Directness is not a typical Dutch treat. It's typical for people with a purpose. Anyhow. Most conversations were about things I did or do. Others were about things I'm interested in. All conversations were quite long and after we parted I felt all questions had been answered. What I noticed time and again was all were very direct and to the point. I won't say they operated in the mono-syllable department, but it was close in most cases. This, I concluded, is typical for interaction when both know their business. But is it? Let's take music. In the style I like, technical skill is much appreciated. Those operating in our Premier League are able to do deliver flawless demonstrations and then some. It takes a lot of talent and years to master an acoustic instrument and produce what is needed at the right moment. For that reason, they take pride in what they do. But those I like best could have delivered their message with their toes, if you understand what I mean. And some actually did. For some reason, they were able to communicate and connect without skill. They had skill, but decided they didn't need it after all. I noticed most of them were raised in a different time. Today is the time of the individual. They're more skilled than before and also know how to play in a band, but quite often seem unable to get to the core of things. The result is they enter my ear, but not my soul. Half a century ago, it was the other way round. I don't know what it is, but I do know it takes a lot of skill to play in a band and really contribute. With skill, to be more accurate, I don't mean the ability to deliver flawless executions. I mean the ability to connect to others and get the best out of them. Your collegues to start with. It's the ability to get the band sound like an individual. Not easy in a time when it is isn't about the team, but the individual. It's not worse than it was. It's different. But I really miss the ability to be there and contribute to real good music without showing your teeth all the time. But I admit I'm not a dentist. Same for those operating in other departments. Although I had never saw 'm before and I never announced my intentions, all of them knew I would show up before I actually did. They also knew why I came. Remarkable. Some of the writers I met wrote lengthy books. But every sentence was a hit and they kept it up right till the last one. I'm not saying everyone involved in mono-syllables is a spiritual giant, but it is a fact that nearly all of those I met, heard or read didn't need a lot of time and room to deliver the message. The lack of words, to be sure, wasn't a result of a lack of interest. Most enjoyed talking to me and many contacted me after we had talked. To give you an example. One day, I played on a party of someone who, moneywise, compared to Warren Buffett. He came over during a break and told me he was involved in circuses. He knew many trainers and also knew I would be interested (...). I was. He gave me an address and I wrote the trainer I wanted to interview a letter with 10 questions. Months later, I got the answers. The letter had less than a hundred words (...). Some days later, the trainer called from Schiphol Airport. He said he wanted to talk when he would return from a trip. We agreed to meet a few days later, but he never showed. The reason was old age had got him. I don't think Corbett or Anderson operated in the mono-syllable department, but every sentence they wrote was a hit. Everything they wrote, so it seems, had purpose. Same, but in another way, for Vaillant. I said 'in another way', because Vaillant doesn't have the first-hand knowledge Anderson and Corbett had. But he clearly knows his business. It shines through the words. c - Tigers and wild dogs in South India Most of us probably know about the letter published in the JBNHS a long time ago. The letter about a life and death struggle between a male tiger and a pack of wild dogs in India, I mean. The result was one dead tiger and twelve dead dogs, the 'eye-witness' wrote. The letter was discussed by many. They agreed it probably was a fake. Wild dogs do not seek out tigers and they most certainly do not lose half their number when they can't avoid a confrontation. Recent observations confirm wild dogs avoid tigers in India. Case closed then? Not quite. Kenneth Anderson had a different view on wild dogs and tigers than most. Although many seem to doubt his stories, it is a fact that his opinions were based on what he saw himself. He also distinguished between what he heard and had seen himself. Here's a few scans of interest:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author I can hear you say that the picture Anderson painted isn't based on an accurate description of an incident he witnessed himself. There are no details and we also don't know if the part right at the bottom of the second scan (" ... I have known of more than one case ... ") is based on what he heard or actually saw. I agree. The information below, however, is based on what he saw himself:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author There is more. In another book, when describing the animals of the jungle, he again wrote wild dogs, in his day, didn't hesitate to attack leopards and tigers in Chittoor (Madras Presidency). He knew of three cases:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author For me, the information of Anderson is good enough, meaning I believe wild dogs at times attacked tigers in Anderson's day in the Chittoor District in South India. The question is why they did. Anderson wrote wild dogs were intelligent animals. If they attacked tigers every now and then, they probably knew some would perish in the fight. What could have been the reason they decided in favour of the attack? Maybe part of the answer is in the description of wild dogs Anderson himself offered. In the hot weather in South India, wild dogs congregated in packs of thirty or more animals. Large packs need large prey animals and they need them at regular intervals. Maybe they killed a few deer in a short space of time and maybe the others dispersed after they witnessed the hunt. This is what many thought in those days. It was the main reason wild dogs were seen as vermin. That was the reason they often were shot on sight. If the large packs stayed in a particular part of the forest for a number of days or weeks, herbivores often dispersed. When faced with empty forests, desperation would have been the most likely result. Maybe some desperate dogs followed tigers in order to steal their prey and maybe this is how they learned how to confront them. Maybe some tigers decided to defend their kill and maybe they found out too late they had opened a door they couldn't close. Maybe some packs, after a fight, decided meat is meat. Nearly all carnivores are opportunists and my guess is wild dogs are no different from others. Let's assume a particular pack learned to hunt tigers. Maybe they met a young animal the first time and maybe they killed the youngster. Every carnivore tries to improve when the opportunity presents itself and maybe the pack that killed a youngster progressed to big tigers. Maybe they succeeded to kill a large tiger a few times and maybe they concluded the benefits didn't quite compensate the losses in the long run. There's another possible explanation and that's attitude. Tiger attitude, I mean. Those with first-hand experience agree wild tigers are intolerant of competitors and nosy and noisy neighbours. It apparently doesn't take a whole lot to get into a fight with a tiger. They actively seek out competitors in order to scare or kill them. In Russia, male Amur tigers quite often engage bears. Not to hunt them, but to convey a message. To others. The bears involved, Vaillant wrote, were not the largest males, but they were by no means no small animals either. No animal in its right state of mind would deliberately engage a dangerous animal, but tigers apparently do it quite often. There are many examples. Some of the fights witnessed no doubt were a result of a predatory attack gone wrong, but most probably were a result of a male tiger seeking out an opponent. Bengt Berg wrote about the Killer of men, who only killed the largest wild buffalos. Ullas Karanth wrote about a male tiger killed by a gaur. This animal apparently was a specialist. Anderson wrote about male tigers, male gaurs and fights. R.C. Morris also did. Many wrote about tigers and wild boars and we also know they at times hunt sloth bears. Male tiger Abu, trying to defend the sambar he had killed, confronted muggers in their element. Elephants never try their luck with tigers and not at all in Assam, where many calves are killed by male tigers following the herds. In northern India, some large male tigers specialize on rhinos. They apparently do not hesitate to attack adult females with calves. Quite many calves are killed each year. If an animal prepared to fight large animals is confronted by a pack of wild dogs, chances are he would be prepared to fight the pack. Maybe some overplayed their hand and paid, but I do not doubt some would have come out on top. Seen from this perspective, a fight between a pack and a tiger can't be dismissed out of hand. This is what Anderson had to say about tigers and fights:  *This image is copyright of its original author Tigers and wild boars:  *This image is copyright of its original author Male tiger and male gaur:  *This image is copyright of its original author d - Conclusions Today, wild dogs seem to avoid tigers in India. Half a century ago, things could have been different. In the Chittoor District in southern India, dholes attacked, killed and consumed tigers. Anderson knew of three cases. This also means the famous letter about a fight between wild dogs and a male tiger in the JBNHS can't be dismissed out of hand. I didn't find evidence for incidents in other regions in India. Those who expressed their opinion on dholes and tigers all agreed dholes avoid tigers. Then and now. The question is why the situation in the Chittoor District was different. Based on the information Anderson offered, it was concluded that wild dogs often congregated in large packs (of up to 33 individuals) in the hot weather in his day. These large packs needed to hunt large animals every few days. As a chase often is a noisy affair, it is likely that those who witnessed or heard an attack would have dispersed. This would have resulted in empty forests and desperation. In times of need, wild dogs could have followed tigers in order to steal their kill. If tigers would have been prepared to defend their kill, a chance confrontation could have resulted in a fight and, at times, in a dead tiger. Maybe this is the reason some packs learned to hunt tigers. A career in tiger slaying, however, would have been quite difficult if every attack, as Anderson indicated, resulted in a number of dead wild dogs for the simple reason the disadvantages (less and less dogs as time progressed) would have outweighed the benefits (a dead tiger) in the long run. Dogs also are able to count. When tiger hunting was abandoned, the knowledge needed to hunt them would have been lost. Another reason why confrontations can't be excluded is the attitude of tigers. Those in the know agree wild tigers often are very intolerant of competitors. At times, but more often than one would expect, they engage dangerous animals, like wild boars, bears, leopards, elephants, rhinos and crocs. For this reason, one has to expect that some tigers would have been prepared to defend their kill against wild dogs. Today, wild dogs usually hunt in smallish packs. They do not seem to avoid water:  *This image is copyright of its original author When they meet stripes, they usually say hello. Name calling is out of the question, especially when her majesty is too close for confort and in her prime. The situation, therefore, is back to normal:  *This image is copyright of its original author
here's how i feel about the Wild Dogs and Tiger situation in the Jungle.
 *This image is copyright of its original author Even though this is a jackal, still one of my favorite pictures. [img]images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img]
A FEW PICTURES
01 - Indian tigress descending a hill (Bengt Berg, 1934):  *This image is copyright of its original author 02 - Beautiful India (Bengt Berg, 1934):  *This image is copyright of its original author 03 - India. This tigress had cubs (National Geographic):  *This image is copyright of its original author 04 - " ... What he doesn't know about tigers isn't worth knowing ... " (The Maharajah of Dholpur about his shikari, Bengt Berg, 1934):  *This image is copyright of its original author 05 - Pristine forest in Primorye, July 2007 (from a blog):  *This image is copyright of its original author 06 - Prem Bahadur with the skull of the mighty Sauraha tiger (Peter Jackson, 2003):  *This image is copyright of its original author 07 - Tigress 'Serga' (Russia):  *This image is copyright of its original author 08 - Male tiger in a Sumatran forest. it wasn't his best day:  *This image is copyright of its original author 09 - Very well done, Sergio Budicin (2009):  *This image is copyright of its original author 10 - Skull of a male Amur tiger poached. Compare to the skull of the Sauraha tiger:  *This image is copyright of its original author 11 - Java tiger - Udjung Kulong, 1938 (Hoogerwerf, 1970):  *This image is copyright of its original author 12 - Bantam, West Java, 1941 (Tropenmuseum Amsterdam):  *This image is copyright of its original author 13 - Java tiger (no details known):  *This image is copyright of its original author 14 - Paw print, Java 2014 (Phatio, this forum):  *This image is copyright of its original author
The stories of Wild Dog tiger encounters seem unreasonable to me. I just don't see the need for a wild dog to loose many pack members attempting to kill a tiger nor do I see any instance where a tiger if facing many wild dogs could or would not just run. No way a wild dog can stop a tiger from escaping if they wan't to and I am sure the wild dogs would be more then happy to know they ran off the tiger.
 *This image is copyright of its original author Tiger and Lion skull side by side. Also, Peter's picture *This image is copyright of its original author Looks like the artist had Kazirangra tigress on his mind. [img]images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img]  (03-10-2015, 11:25 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: The stories of Wild Dog tiger encounters seem unreasonable to me. I just don't see the need for a wild dog to loose many pack members attempting to kill a tiger nor do I see any instance where a tiger if facing many wild dogs could or would not just run. No way a wild dog can stop a tiger from escaping if they wan't to and I am sure the wild dogs would be more then happy to know they ran off the tiger. Yeah those stories are completely void of context and wildly embellished. I could see if a tiger attacked the pups or something they would go after it but there's no fucking way they see a tiger and decide as a pack to go attack it, knowing they would lose 5-6 members. That just flies in the face of evolutionary logic. The tiger/dhole relationship is the same as the hyena/lion. There's competition and conflicts, with tigers and lions winning 9 out of 10.
From what I read here, Kenneth Anderson seems to "like" dholes. He describe them with care like no other description that I have read. Probably, this same way to see them could deviate his statements, in a first observation.
He seems to have saw only "one" of those reports, while his descriptions are based in the testimonies of others. Probably, in this area, dholes have some mythical aura on them. At the end, the possibility of dholes killing tigers can't be ruled out, however I found very hard to think in a pack of dholes, at any number, killing a healthy tiger. In this case, Mazák (1981) offers a plausible explanation:  *This image is copyright of its original author Dholes "could" kill only ill or otherwise weakened tigers. This fact seems confirmed from the Russian Far East, where is well known that tigers suppress packs of wolves, which are larger and more powerful (although less numerous) than any dhole. Old accounts like those of Kenneth Anderson seems reliable in a normal context, however, sometimes those accounts are not as accurate as we can think. Dr Karanth refer to this event:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author He (Dr Karanth) is very humble saying that his experience is "limited", especially when he spend more time in the forest that any hunter, plus his observations are not anecdotal but from a scientific point of view. In this case, I think that Dr Karanth made a good point on the exaggeration issue of hunters and the use of evolutionary logic.Other thing, as far I remember, none of the accounts described the age, the health or the physical state of the tigers, which is crucial in the account/fight. One say "female", the other say "male", but in the old tales, hunters never had a good method to estimate the age of tigers and size is not a good method. Remember the young subadult male tiger T-104 from Nepal, captured by Dr Sunquist, that was as large as an adult male and had the same size than adult tigers, for example (yes, someone could point out that he weighed a lot less than an adult male, but if we judge him just by its size, like the witnesses, the animal was already large, with 289 cm in total length straight). As far we know, that "tigress" could be just a young female of 2-3 years old and the "large" male in the JBNHS report too. Lastly, a final scientific opinion on the issue:  *This image is copyright of its original author *This image is copyright of its original authorMazak statement seems to be the most unbiased and give some credit to the old stories, but like Dr Karanth and Dr Tiwari, I now accept that those old accounts seems too suspicions to accept them just like that, especially when in almost 50 years of modern scientific studies, there is not a single case of dholes attacking (not the say killing) any tiger, while on the other hand, there are several cases, scat and kill evidence, of tiger (and even leopard's) predation over dholes. Something say to me that the old stories of tigers killed by dholes are the same ones of tigers over 4 m long in Russia. None of them entirely confirmed, or the same story repeated over and over again with slight changes, and all of them colored with local exaggeration. Maybe the modern India is not like the old one, but now seems that the tiger is the undisputed winner in this conflict.
Some data on the pack size of the dholes, in scientific documents:
 *This image is copyright of its original author Source: Acharya et al. 2010. Dhole Telemetry Studies In Pench Tiger Reserve, Central India. Larges pack recorded at 14 members, actually observed.  *This image is copyright of its original author Source: Acharya. 2007. The Ecology of the Dhole or Asiatic Wild Dog (Cous alpinus) In Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh. Largest pack recorded at 40 members, but it is not stated if it is a real figure, an estimation or just a quote from other source. Check that the increase on pack size affect negatively in the food intake, which seems that larger packs are not too good for dholes.  *This image is copyright of its original author Source: Durbin et al. 2004. 8.1 Dhole Coun alpinus (Pallas, 1811) Endangered – EN: C2a(i) (2004). Largest pack recorded at 25 members. It seems that the confirmed packs range between 10 to 15 members with exceptional cases of 25 members, including juvenile animals. The figure of 40 members most be investigated, principally in its primary source. Finally, a gift to all. A table that I have made since 2012, with summarize all the data that I have about the size of the dholes, at that date:  *This image is copyright of its original author Probably there are more records in other sources and I will be very glad to add them to it, if I found more. Cohen (1978) quote a maximum head-body length of 113 cm and a largest weight of 20 kg and he quotes a large series of sources. 
Not being very familiar with dhole behavior, I believe scavenging would be the most likely scenario for conflict.
Similar dynamic to the lion/hyena. Just my two cents. 
Hello everyone.
Nice forum. I'vee always browsed here and there but never had any intentions of joining until now. Looks like many of you are really dedicated in what to do which leads me to this question.. What is the relationship between crocodiles and Tigers? The internet doesn't really give out a detailed information between them and the accounts are few and there. I'm assuming they avoid each other at all cost, but since Tigers are adaptable to swimming unlike most big cats, the confrontations are inevitable . Are there any books on interactions of these two books that give out a bigger picture of these two beasts? thanks in advance
Hello @Gaido , Welcome to the forum.
It is interesting question. I do not have much information on these duo interaction, However I would like to share my thought with you. There are few incident like legendary tigress Machli killing big croc. However I believe that in most places crocs are dominated by other predators specially Big cats. In Africa, Lions (specially big males) most of the time dominate croc. In Brazil Caiman (Smaller species of crocs family) are mostly hunted down by Jaguar. In fact In Brazil Jaguars have evolved themselves as main predator of caiman. Jaguars are equally good in swimming when compared to tigers. Opposite is also true. There are some reports which states that crocs have killed many big cats as well including Lion and Tiger. One more point to note is biggest species of crocodile family don't have any interaction with Big cats. (03-14-2015, 09:52 AM)'Gaido' Wrote: Hello everyone. The interaction from what I have seen with Crocs and Tigers is simple. Tigers dominate and prey on them, adults that is. But there are a couple of factors that go along with this, Mugger crocs are much smaller than their african cousins, there isnt vast rivers like the nile for them to grow in to massive size as well as not having huge migrations of herbivores that give them abdunce of food. Even "large" mugger still fall prey to tigers. I:E: Machli killing that 14'er. This is also probably the reason why Tigers love the water, because there is nothing for them to fear in it. Now lets look at African Crocs, you have the Nile which grows massive and may not attempt on a adult lion but will definitely attempt on a youngster. The water is also filled with hippo and this has probably been a determing factor as to why Lions hate the water. To many variables there and its not safe for their young. On land, a lion completely dominates them though, just watch the doc on the Hippo Carcass. You will see 50+ crocs completely scatter and leave the carcass at the sound of a male lions roar. The water is a different story though, that is their comfort zone. These are just theories but after studying their interactions for years, this is my guess. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 8 Guest(s) |