|
Tiger Directory
|
 (08-12-2014, 09:16 PM)Pckts Wrote: I just got some info on T18 and T12 Since weighing is also a part of the standard operating procedure for relocation, old records of FD remain inaccessible. But I couldn't agree with them more on their estimate !  (08-12-2014, 09:16 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: I just got some info on T18 and T12 This is a very good information. Although the data on the weights of the Sariska tigers seems reliable, according with Dr Sunquist (yes, I send him the figures and he think they are reliable [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]), the only weight that actually sounds weird is the 170 kg for the adult male. However, this is the figure reported officially for the second male and for that reason I use it. Now, this communication shows that in fact, that male weighed probably much more, proving again that male Bengal tigers in the mainland weigh no less than c.185 kg empty belly (this small figure came from the Dakre male (T-102) from Nepal, weight baited was of 200 kg). What disturb me is the fact, a very well know fact, that most people in the field is using bad scales and obsolete methods to weigh tigers in India. The same also happen in Africa, when the Crater lions are been weighed with incorrect and old scales!!! [img]images/smilies/angry.gif[/img] It seems that the only reliable weights, in modern days, are those from Russia, which used new spring scales and now they are using digital scales, like true professionals in the field. In this form the record of 212 kg for Luke (Russia) is much more reliable than the record of 235 kg from the Crater (Tanzania) or these 220 kg Bengals from Sariska. Thank you very much for this clarification Pckts, then it will be correct to drop the male weight of 170 kg from the list, although this means that we have only ONE modern record from Ranthambore-Sariska (male of 220 kg). 
Hi @GuateGojira ,
Thats really a good idea to remove the 170Kg tiger from your tables. What about the Pench tigers, have you used them in your tables ?
No Apollo, I have not used those tigers:
1. The only adult male was "over 200 kg", which means that we don't have a real weight. As far we know, he could weight no less than 220 kg! 2. The other male was a subadult. 3. There is only one adult female, so, I don't know were to include her. There are some records from huge males from Gwalior (hunted), which is in the vicinity of Ranthambore and a few kilometers over Sariska. I think that I will include them with the modern male of 220 kg. The resulting average is impresive, this is all I can say for the moment. (08-13-2014, 07:38 PM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: No Apollo, I have not used those tigers: Hi Guate, In that article they have mentioned the tigers were measured and weighed, but unfortunately they didnt give off any measurements. The male tiger weight was given ">200Kg" so I assumed they had a 200Kg scale and the tiger bottomed it, but Im not sure whether its a correct assumption. If possible can you email them to get the measurements for these tigers and the weight issue. I dont no why because whenever I email any experts I dont get any reply from them (May be my emails are not professional enough) [img]images/smilies/huh.gif[/img] Is it possible for you to add the adult female weight into the table of female bengal weights.. What you think of starting a separate table for subadults ?
Don't get sad, sometimes scientists answer to you, sometimes don't. An interesting point is that most of the time, lion and jaguar scientists answer more times than tiger ones. I don't know why, check that most of the measurements available via email are from other animals, but not from tigers.
About the Pench tigers, yes, they were measured, but like I say to you, the large male surely weighed over 220 kg, so I can't use the figure of 200 kg because he surely bottom it. About the female, she can be used, but as I work by regions, a single weight can't be used in the overall average, like for example the tigress of 177 kg from Nagarahole. 
Who is this guy?
"Elusive Tiger of BRT WLSThis is the huge Basavanahalli kere male and believe me, he is extremely evasive... Too lucky to sight this phantom of BR Hills"..  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author http://www.indianaturewatch.net/displayi...?id=491651
Another unknown to me?
"One of the most magnificent tiger sighting i ever had... This was a great sighting, as we witnessed a natural history moment, but unfortunately didn't had a chance to photograph tat, wer 4 dhole wer completely stood still infront of this tiger and the tiger was walking his path just within 4-5 feet to the wild dogs, i was surprised about both animals behavior, both tiger andd dholes were least bothered even with the distance of just 3 feet, and i have never seen a tiger of this size ever, but i knew tat nagarahole tigers are huge and it proved twice..."  *This image is copyright of its original author http://www.indianaturewatch.net/displayi...?id=462532  (08-14-2014, 03:58 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Who is this guy? Br hills is the most difficult habitat to sight tigers in all of India, it's like all hills basically and elevated.. Good picture, the male looks massive even though i can't see much. [img]images/smilies/wink.gif[/img]  (08-14-2014, 11:10 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: Br hills is the most difficult habitat to sight tigers in all of India, it's like all hills basically and elevated.. Good picture, the male looks massive even though i can't see much. [img]images/smilies/wink.gif[/img] ...I have one remark... I have never been to India, but as I know tiger sighting is quite problematic. For instance couple of weeks ago I red an article about a photographer who visited several tiger reserves in India. In some reserves he hasn´t seen any tigers, in other reservers he was more lucky and saw some tigers (for a moment and from quite a long distance). If somebody says that he visited India and has seen Bamera and his father has seen Wagdoh...then those people were really lucky...I´d say (08-14-2014, 01:27 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote:(08-14-2014, 11:10 AM)'Roflcopters' Wrote: Br hills is the most difficult habitat to sight tigers in all of India, it's like all hills basically and elevated.. Good picture, the male looks massive even though i can't see much. [img]images/smilies/wink.gif[/img] Vijay can elaborate more on this, but it depends on the area. Im pretty sure that when a tourist goes to Ranthambhore they are almost guaranteed to see a tiger in a 3 day safari. I would say the same for Kahna, bandahvargh or Tadoba. Most of the photograph's come from these places so its safe to assume that they are the easiest to see tigers. But you are lucky to see any animal in its natural setting these days, which is sad in its own right. Like you, I haven't been to India either so this is simply a guess. Vijay would have far more info on this I'm sure. Quote:Im pretty sure that when a tourist goes to Ranthambhore they are almost guaranteed to see a tiger in a 3 day safari. Pckts is spot on when he says that it is safe to asuume / conclude that places like Ranthambhore, Bandhavgarh, Kanha, Tadoba & Corbett to a certain extent, offer far better prospects (as compared to many other Tiger reserves) of Tiger sightings. Needless to say luck (of being at the right time at the right place) is a factor too. Most Tigers of these parks are used to the presence of vehicles too. No wonder Wildlife photographers (specializing on Tigers, like yours truly) throng these reserves to build their body of work ! I've been to BRT Tiger reserves 4 times (20 safaris so far & not even a glimpse of the Tiger) ! Apart from the tough terrain of BRT Tiger reserve, chances of sighting Tigers there is almost nil due to the fact that a majority of Tigers have territories in the core areas, which are out of bounds for tourists. I reckon the same goes for jungles like Kaziranga too where Tiger sightings are considered a rarity despite the fact it has got one of the highest Tiger density in India ! (08-15-2014, 12:08 PM)Vijay Rajan Wrote:Quote:Im pretty sure that when a tourist goes to Ranthambhore they are almost guaranteed to see a tiger in a 3 day safari. And what is the chance to see one particular tiger, for instance Bamera or Wagdoh? :-)  'Amnon242 dateline='' Wrote:'Vijay Rajan dateline='' Wrote:Quote:Im pretty sure that when a tourist goes to Ranthambhore they are almost guaranteed to see a tiger in a 3 day safari. Bamera Often Walks along The Road when he's patroling his territory aswell as he's not one bit shy of The car's because The drivers will back up if he comes to close. I have been told The best place to spott tigers are in tadoba at The summer the rest of The year it's bandavgarh. (08-15-2014, 01:46 PM)Pantherinae Wrote:'Amnon242 dateline='' Wrote:'Vijay Rajan dateline='' Wrote:Quote:Im pretty sure that when a tourist goes to Ranthambhore they are almost guaranteed to see a tiger in a 3 day safari.  ...photos? |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 19 Guest(s) |