|
Tigers are social animals?
|
So tigers are social animals or what?
"b) Influence of sociality on stereotype. Our study shows that tigers managed in social conditions stereotyped lower than those managed in solitary condition. [81] and [54] also reported that social interaction results in the reduction or absence of pacing. However, this is intriguing, as several species of felids are solitary living with vast territories in the wild [82], and considering the territorial behaviour of tigers, especially of males, in their natural habitats. [68] explained this contradiction citing the composition of a large group of seven individuals by [83], who stated that "the presumed territoriality system of male tigers appears to be less rigid than that, for example, of many antelopes and birds' and "it is possible that territorial behaviour may be modified under certain environmental conditions such as shortage of water or cover"(This is confusing because in 1957 which is [83] the only thing i heard of is powell describing 5 tigers and a tigress sharing a small area.. actually that is obviously a tiger family, there are all coincidences) Further, [68] stated that female in oestrus may travel widely and is sometime followed by several males (How is this has to do with sociality? Tigers will fight for the female no?). Studies across a number of other species have also demonstrated social isolation to be associated with high levels of stereotypic behaviour and chronic stress [84–87]. On the other hand, [88] state that felid species, which are generally solitary in the wild, are in pairs or trios in zoos due to constraints of space and as a result, although arguably a source of social enrichment, can also be a source of chronic stress [3] and can affect reproduction too [89–90]. However, the present study shows that keeping the tigers in sociality might positively influence their welfare in captivity." @peter? Now the researchers are dumb for quoting and saying that about the territoriality system of the tiger, because they took it out of context.. "The territories of some mammals are so large that they cannot be surveyed readily by the owner, as Leyhausen has pointed out, and this seems to be the particularly true in the case of the tiger. Strangers cannot, therefore, be prevented from entering the area, because a defense of all boundaries is impossible except by such indirect means as marking with scent. As a result, the presumed territorial system of male tigers.." The deer and the tiger Schaller goes about explaining obvious coincidences, and obviously there is a lot they didnt know back then.. is that the tiger territory was 2x bigger etc and it seems like some things werent explainable back then, but now it seems like more is known about. But still interesting. I want to see your explanations.. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article...ne.0174711 
COOPER
a - Captive big cats - A few weeks ago there was an attempt at a debate on lions and tigers. A kind of comparison, one could say. As Stealthcat was involved, it ended with a few remarks on the possible outcome of a bout between males of similar size and age. In the wild, I slightly favour stripes. The main reason is more selection at the level of individuals. That and more experience in hunting and coping with stress. In captive animals, and zoos in particular, lions could have the edge. The main reason is that captive lions, usually living in small groups, keep their identity because they can interact with each other. Based on what I saw and heard, the margins would be small. Just an opinion, of course. One could also conclude that it largely is about the development at the level of individuals and be close. The moment a cat no longer develops, it will collapse in all departments meaning it will become a parody on a lion or a tiger. In zoos in particular, big cats often get bored to death. One result is stereotype behavior. - Apart from the exchange with Stealthcat, there was an exchange in the thread 'A Gallery Of Captivity'. It started with a post in which a horse attacked by a lioness and a tiger in a Chinese circus featured. The horse had a scare, but survived. The circus didn't. I posted about the cats I saw in zoos, rescue facilities and circuses and I saw a few. To keep it short. Compared to big cats living in zoos and, to a lesser extent, rescue facilities, circus big cats (referring to European circuses only) were very healthy in most departments. The main reason is interaction with other animals and humans. Interaction nearly always results in development in the social skills department. If we add regular activity and bonding of some kind, chances are you will see a lot of healthy cats. The ban on exotic animals in circuses in particular resulted in countless unnamed victims and a great loss of knowledge. It will also no doubt result in countless big cats with 'silly walks' soon. b - Wild big cats Rumour has it that lions are the only social cats. Not true. Nearly all 'solitary' cats have a social life of some kind. We don't know about it, because of a lack of knowledge. Remember the information about a tigress with four cubs followed by an enormous male brown bear in Russia? Wolverine posted about it in the tiger extinction thread some months ago. The bear stalked her in order to confiscate her kills. Rangers knew and considered hunting the bear, as there was no need for him to stalk the tigress for so long. Before they acted, tigress 'Rashel' did. They heard her complain. At least, that's what they thought. They had never heard the sound she made before. Within days, a male tiger appeared. In the video Wolverine posted, you can see him and the tigress. He was definitely reassuring her. The bear got wind of the changing tide and decided to move. Could have been a result of the hunting season, but my guess is there were other reasons. You no doubt heard about 'National Geographic Wild'. January is big cat month. I saw a number of interesting documentaries. In January, the BBC broadcasted a new series: 'Big Cats'. In the series, a puma biologist featured. He said he lived and breathed pumas. Even dreamt about them. The camera traps revealed something he didn't know: adult female pumas interacting with each other for prolonged periods of time. They even shared kills. Male pumas, often portrayed as cub killers, visited females every now and then. When they approached the kill of a female or a gathering of females, they kept a low profile. Very low, I would add. No aggression whatsoever. In another documentary (on pumas), a biologist interested in interaction between wolves and pumas found that the conclusions of others were only true to an extent. In some regions, pumas often are displaced by wolves. For this reason, they move to regions where wolf packs have no business. These regions also have wolves, but smallish groups only. most packs were smallish. In these regions, adult wolves seem to hunt on their own. When they meet pumas near kill sites, they often withdraw. A solitary wolf is no match for a solitary puma and both know. Problem solved. Tigers are solitary cats, but they often visit females with cubs. When a female with young cubs is killed, they're the first to know. Not seldom, they take care of the cubs. Some hunters in the past reported about it, but they were not taken serious. Billy Arjan Singh wrote about a tigress he had raised. She had been born in captivity. After some time, she returned to the wild. Impossible, many said. But it happened. As she had no degree in hunting, an old male tiger took care of her. He killed for her and treated her with great respect. After a few years, she graduated and mated with a vigorous young adult male who had been around for quite some time. She had cubs before she was accused of a crime. A young adult male and a big old male tiger in the same district and both interacting with a young tigress? But adult male tigers are fiercely territorial, are they not? Yes, they most definitely are. This is why so many male tigers perish well before their time. But what about the young adult male and the old boy in northern India then? You tell me. We know a bit, but the life of wild tigers is a mystery. Wild tigers are elusive animals. Every individual is different. In order to get to understanding, you need to get close and stay close for many years. And when you think know a few things, you will be proven wrong. Life isn't about models, standardizations and predictions. In mammals, it's individuality all the way. Furthermore, there are conditions. Finally, there is change. Male tigers are very territorial, but not when nearly all prey animals leave their ranch as a result of crop failures. A century ago, male Amur tigers often followed wild boars moving north. They had no other option. c - To conclude What I'm saying is we know next to nothing about tigers. Or other big cats. There's always exceptions, like Packer, Miquelle and U. Karanth, but you can't study wild tigers for some time, graduate and say you really know about tigers. Every article I read is interesting, but knowledge, no matter how detailed, about one part of reality can't be extrapolated. A century ago, hunters noticed that the situation in one district was very different from another. Reality is an unknown entity that changes all the time. Research is one way to get to knowledge, but there are others. One could decide to talk to locals, one could decide to read books written a long time ago and one could decide to combine different methods to get to knowledge. Knowledge has many faces. I read many books written a long time ago. Nearly every book has something of interest. My advice is to select books written by those who lived and breathed tigers. They hunted them, but didn't shoot at everything that moved. Don't go for books written by hunters out for a trophy only.
Interesting read. I did too notice that male tigers are constantly seen with their females and cubs, thapar also came to the conclusion that the male tiger does help contribute to raising offspring. I read cases on other threads where male tigers give food to their cubs and such.
A male tigers territory over laps females, right? I know female tigers usually establish close to their mothers, and tend to be very familiar with each other. I read in a book where it says the relatedness between female tigers in a male tigers territory, is the same between lionesses in a pride. I thought its interesting how its very similar to a lions pride, except lions are just in groups (and also form coalitions). Me and stealthcat have a few questions for you.. sorry if it intervenes with any rules on here, just delete them if they do: - What are the differences between the lions and tigers muscularity in the forearms (elbow to paw)? - Differences between lion and tiger skulls? Such as weight and robusticity? (Might be inappropriate): - Marcel Peters, where did you find out that he favors the lion in a fight? - You said your father saw fights between lions and tigers. Who was the winner in the fights? (Oh, and do you have the message with genghis insulting you still? That would be gold if you can foward it to me privately lol)
Measurements of captive tigers and lions
Here's a few measurements of 3 captive male lions in a Dutch facility. All males, although old, were in good condition and well-built:  *This image is copyright of its original author For comparison, here's information on 5 captive Amur tigers. Same facility, same person measuring and same method. Tiger 'Amur' was flown to China later. At Schiphol Airport, he was weighed. As it is about money and the distinction between cage and content, the scales are reliable. The man who transported him witnessed the proceedings. Tiger 'Amur' was 211 kg. (466 pounds). His weight is not in the table:  *This image is copyright of its original author The tigers were from France. Circus tigers, they were. One of them, a male, escaped during a show. There was no panic, as he was quickly surrounded by staff. The trainer guided him back to the cage. When entering the cage, he fell. The tiger, undoubtedly as a result of stress, instinctively attacked and bit once. The trainer was killed immediately and the tiger was shot. The 7 remaining tigers, now without a job, were neglected for nearly two months. When they arrived in Nijeberkoop, they were not fit. A few months later, I measured and weighed them. That is to say, I wanted to weigh them. Tiger 'Arames' was no problem, but 'Igor' woke up during the attempt. As it was out in the open, we decided against a new attempt. Not a bad decision, as he was in a foul mood that day. So much so that all visitors, in spite of the bars, quickly disappeared when he told us what he thought about the place. Never saw so much aggression in a big cat again. Differences between captive male lions and tigers The tables say that the male lions had bigger skulls and chests. The male tigers had longer bodies and longer, as well as bigger, legs. Tiger 'Amur' was clearly larger and heavier than lion 'Macho'. The difference between the other males was limited (within 20-30 pounds). In spite of his weight, tiger 'Amur' was very agile, whereas lion 'Macho' wasn't. I was standing right behind 'Amur' when 'Macho' told him to stay away from his woman (a tigress!). Tiger 'Amur' didn't agree and 'Macho' came like a freight train. Before he had reached the bars (less than a second away), tiger 'Amur' was on his hindlegs. I still remember how well and efficient he moved. Saw it from a few feet. When 'Macho' had reached the bars, 'Amur' struck. The two blows were so hard, that everyone thought he would break them. Without a sound, 'Macho' rolled over in submission. The outcome of the (virtual, as bars) interaction was predictable because of the difference in size (fights between big cats, all other factors equal, are decided by size and individuality), but the way both acted was typical (I saw many more) for both species: when they're angry, male lions prefer the freight train act, whereas tigers do the Muhammed Ali thing. Captive male lions like fighting and are very serious about it. They come with everything they have and will destroy the opponent here and now and then some. Before they come, they'll let you know. They fight to eliminate competition, to get the best opportunities and to rule. When fighting other male lions, it's about winning, no matter what. When fighting other species, they go for the kill. Although it may seem different, it isn't personal in most cases. It's about the rankings. Captive male tigers also like to fight, but have a different goal and approach a fight in a different way. Although they too fight for dominance at times, most serious fights are personal. Unlike male lions, tigers do vendettas. Anything is allowed. This means that planning comes in. Lions plan to do a take-over. Tigers plan to kill. As they, unlike most male lions, keep their feelings to themselves, trainers doing tigers often are left guessing. This is why many trainers consider tigers as sly and sneaky. Male lions enjoy strength tests, but tigers avoid wasting their energy. When male lions engage, a trainer often can see it coming. Male tigers, on the other hand, often seem to come out of nowhere. Lions like to overpower their opponent. Tigers don't care about overpowering, but a decisive advantage. This is why they move in a different way. At times, fighting tigers seem like two dancers or two fighters. Both are trying to find a gap in the defence of the other. My brother, a very good fighter, said they were unsurpassed at it. In spite of that, he favoured the lion because of the over my dead body attitude and the way they present themselves. We once entered a kind of theatre in Hamburg. It had four male lions and all of them were roaring because one of the females was in heat. I could have sworn they were talking to him. There was most definitely a connection. I've seen it every time he was close to male lions. Fore-arms All wild tigers are professional hunters. They nearly always hunt on their own. Large animals, if possible. In order to do that all their life, they need to avoid risk. In a fight, you can take risks. When hunting, you don't. In the end, it is about getting the intended victim down as quickly as possible and finish the job. Although some methods are preferred, they have different ways of doing it. Once they made contact, they try to keep the victim as close as possible in order to avoid injuries. When they have the grip needed, they use their paws and fore-arms to restrain the victim. The big fore-arms are a result of gripping, pulling and restraining, not dragging. Tigers can grow to a very large size, but they don't need a heavy frame. Anything but that. If conditions change, tigers need to be able to quickly adapt. The best way to get there, is muscle. Not bones. Changing a bone takes time. Tigers don't have time. Wild male lions also hunt, but they often do it in a team. For them, heavyweights, it is about restraining a large animal, enabling the others to go for the soft spot. They're built to withstand significant stress for quite some time. A stocky body with relatively large bones helps. Same for a long and reinforced 'snout'. My guess is that lions could have a (relatively) heavier frame (skeleton) than tigers. The reason is they need it. Is all of this visible in captive big cats? Yes. Captive lions often are shorter and stockier than captive tigers. Tigers are longer, limbier and more athletic. The big fore-arm, even in captive tigers, often stands out. In similar-sized males, the difference in this respect ranges between 10-20%. Have another look at the tables and compare the lions with Amur tigress 'Volga'. Although only 136 kg., her fore-arms almost compare with those of the male lions. The view of a sailor My father was a sailor for a long time. He saw the world, that is. In those days, smart people organized fights between dangerous 'wild' animals in cities visited by sailors, especially in Asia (India and Indonesia), but he saw fights in the Americas as well. The aim always was bets and money. In order to affect the outcome of fights, drugs were often used. What he saw, was a result of that. He knew. Tony Hughes When I asked them about interactions between captive big cats, trainers were wary. Tony Hughes wasn't, because he wasn't a trainer. That is to say, he wasn't a performer. Tony assisted well-known trainers. He trained the cats and intervened when things got out of hand during a training session or show. He has a reputation in this respect, because he, like a male lion, is fearless and bold. One of the Chipperfields is alive because of Tony. For this reason, Tony saw a lot more than most trainers. The interview lasted for two days and it was honest all the way. In his experience, and he has lots of that, a serious fight between two similar-sized animals (cat or bear) is close to unpredictable. Individuality was more important than anything else. Although tigers and lions have different attitudes and use different techniques, there's no such thing as species-related skill in a serious fight. Not to the liking of most posters, but there you have it. Skulls When interested in skulls, visit skull threads. One of our mods (Grizzly) in heavily involved in skulls, claws and bones. The tiger thread also has good info in this department. Based on the skulls I measured, I'd say that lions have relatively longer skulls than tigers. Tiger skulls are (relatively) wider at the arches. They also have longer canines and a relatively wider rostrum. Captive Amur tigers have longer skulls than captive Indian tigers, but those of Indian tigers are relatively more robust. Tiger skulls are big gun platforms. Everything not contributing in that respect has been removed. Lions deal with stress. For this reason, the os frontalis (the bone on top of the skull) often is wider and more robust in lions. But I saw photographs of very robust skulls of wild Amur tigers. What do we really know? 
Are tigers social animals?
Tigers, like all the members of the Felidae family (except for the lion and cheetah), are solitary and territorial. However, there is some plasticity in the behavior of this animal, depending of many factors like prey density, habitat type and even "personal" behavior. Here I am going to share a little summary of the results of scientific studies regarding the social behavior of tigers in the Indian Subcontinent and Russia. The next picture was the first image of a male tiger with the female and the cubs together, courtesy of the great Valmik Thapar.
 *This image is copyright of its original author Kanha:
George Schaller (in the picture) was the first one that made a scientific study about tigers and its prey in the Indian subcontinent. His pioneer work is still the guide for many modern studies on tigers. He was only about one year in Kanha and he found that male tigers were territorials but that females were not, so male had "territories" while females only had "home ranges". Females shared its territory with other females except for the core areas of the home ranges. He also found that tigers were tolerant with its cubs and even shared a kill with his family (female and his cubs), but for some reason this observations were ignored for long time. So, tigers in Kanha had this social structure until the 80's, as Sunquist (1981) quote Panwar (1979) saying that after the recovery of Kanha and the new higher prey level, the tigresses began to be territorial, avoiding any contact with other females. This is the behavior found in the Nepal tigresses, which suggested that a good prey base allow tigers to be more independent and became more territorial.
 *This image is copyright of its original author Chitwan:
The Nepal Tiger project found that tigers in Nepal are highly territorial but the females do share they home ranges with her daughters, although sometimes there are conflicts. However, it took time to found this information. At the beginning Dr Charles McDougal (1977) believed that there was some degree of overlap between the females and that they were not territorial, however at the light of the new evidence of the radio-collared tigers he wrote an Postscript in page 165 of his book where he accepted that the home ranges of the tigresses were in fact “Territories” that are defended from other females. Dr Mel Sunquist (in the picture), in his document of 1981, using radio-collared tigers, found that males are territorial and that females also have delimited territories but his sample was small. Latter Dr Dave Smith and others (1987 - 1993) found that the conclusions of Dr Sunquist were correct: male tigers are highly territorial and only allow the presence of they own sons for a short time, but nor from other males which they will expel from they territories; female tigers are also territorial but may share here territory with her daughters, although sometimes the daughters may displace they own mothers from the territory, like the case of female T-01. Females form "family clusters" like lionesses prides but each female in her own territory, even Sunquist believed that if the habitat where the same, tigers have the entire capacity to live like in groups like lions. They also found evidence of conflicts between tigers, but while this were minimum at the beginning (Sunquist, 1981) they became more serious, especially after the death of the "king" tiger M-105 (Sauraha male), and that showed that the presence of a strong male is very important for the stability of the area, especially for the females in order to produce cubs (Seindensticker, 1996). Also the larger population of Nepal tigers and the short space increased the conflicts and by the 90’s started the cases of Man-eater tigers, something that in the time of Dr Sunquist was not almost unthinkable. Overall, Nepal is the best example of the "normal" tiger ecology and behavior, with a good prey base and some of the smallest territories on record.
 *This image is copyright of its original author Ranthambore:
In Ranthambore, the habitat situation was different, it is more open, and is possible to follow the tigers at eye sight, something that is not possible with tigers in Nepal as the habitat is too close (Sunquist, pers. comm.). Valmik Thapar (in the picture) together with many other observers provide us the only long terms visual study that may compete with the Nepal Tiger Project, not only for its time frame, but also for the information obtained. In the series of books from Mr Thapar he was able to describe the ecology of the tigers and is very interesting. Thapar was the first one to describe the role of the "father" in the tiger society in his book "The Secret Life of Tigers" and he found that males DO protect they cubs and take care of them if the female is not present, he hypothesize that males protect its territory not only to preserve its females but also to protect its cubs, and the time showed how correct he is. He also saw males sharing its kills with them families, even allowing the females and cubs to eat before them, something that is not recorded even in the social male lion! In the book "Tiger: portrait of a predator" he described a reunion of nine tigers over a prey (a large nilgai) and all the tigers ate from the kill in order, with no conflict and all the feeding was regulated by the older female, the one that made the kill. He found that all the animals were related except for one, and this case was also presented in the book "Tiger: the ultimate guide". However, I found that in the book "The secret life of Tigers" Thapar do shows that that "unknown" tiger was in fact, a relative of the group, so what he saw in that moment was a "pride" behavior at a kill of related tigers, but the tigers showed a more "advance" for of sharing the kill, with no fights or conflicts (evidence of the use of they larger brains?). At the end, he got to the same conclusions that the tigers of Nepal: Male and female tigers are territorials, but males may share its territory with them sons and females do divide her territory with her daughters, however there are conflicts and severe fights may happen. New observations from modern naturalists showed male tigers sharing kills and also taking care of the cubs when the female is dead, but is sad that all this observations are scattered and not compiled in books like Mr Thapar done.
 *This image is copyright of its original author Panna:
The Panna studies are the first one done in the dry forests of central India. There Dr Ragu Chundawat (in the picture) found that the tigers were also territorial like in Nepal, but the females were not entirely and there was a great overlap between them except for a core area, just like the case of Kanha in the time of Schaller. This may be because of the prey base, which is lower than in Chitwan and Ranthambore, but also is important to show that the radio-collared tigresses were a mother and her daughters, so that may explain why the females shared some areas. Males are territorial and do not allowed any other male, but as the territory is too large (about 250 square Km) some areas can't be watched all the time and he found some transient males in the areas, that avoided the large territorial males. However conflict raised when there are females in heat and the males following them fight each other. The large male M-125 (Madla male) lost an eye in one of those conflicts. His studies were incomplete because all the tigers of Panna started to disappear and when Dr Chundawat requested for assistance to investigate the case, the park rangers ignored him and even "kick out" him from the park, the result was that Panna, like Sariska, lost all its tigers. However, with the reintroduction of tiger in Panna, Sarkar et al. (2016) found that the "new" tigers "behaved almost exactly the same way as that of native populations, offering support for reintroduction strategies."
 *This image is copyright of its original author Nagarahole:
In Nagarahole, Dr Ullas Karanth (in the picture) made a study with radio-collared tigers but his results were incredible. While the female was territorial, the males were not. In fact, in his book "The Way of the Tiger" Dr Karanth presented this conclusion, together with some form other studies, but please take in count that his data about Panna and the Russian Far East needs to be updated:
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author It seems that the tigers in Nagarahole do not show exactly the same behavior than the Chitwan tigers, but we must note that he don't knew if the males T-03 and T-04 were relatives of not, which may be posible based in the relations between male tigers in Chitwan and Ranthambore. Dr Karanth continues his studies so more information may be available in the future.
 *This image is copyright of its original author Sikhote Alin:
In the Russian Far East, the tigers should show a different behavior, especially because of the difference of habitat and prey density. The first Russian studies from Baikov do not focused too much in tiger territoriality and Heptner & Sludskii (1992) which compile all the available information in Russian literature, shows that tiger home range did overlap extensively. However, the new studies made by The Siberian Tiger Project show something different. It seems that despite the habitat difference and low prey density, male tigers are still territorial and although the overlap exists, this is still minimum. The same case happen with females, with some overlap but this is also minimum and tigers do not migrate to follow prey. Dr Dave Miquelle and Dr John Goodrich (in the picture) made an excellent work in the Russian Far East and shows that tigers in the area, despite the huge differences in habitat, do behave about the same than those in the Indian Subcontinent (Goodrich et al., 2010). Check the conclutions in Sunquist (2010):
 *This image is copyright of its original author Now check this table, which corrorborate Dr Sunqusit conclusion, this is from (Goodrich et al., 2010):
 *This image is copyright of its original author We can see that all tigers are territorial in the Indian Subcontinent and the Russian Far East. The case of Kanha was already explained and now the females are territorial too. The case of Sumatra must be taken with caution as is very important to know if the tigers in the camera traps are related or not.
Also check this famous picture:
 *This image is copyright of its original author It seems that male Amur tigers shows the same protective/sharing behavior of the tigers in the Indian subcontinent. Trough time, more information will clarify the situation.
 *This image is copyright of its original author Conclusion:
With this information, we can see that tigers are solitary but not antisocial. They are territorial animals that protect its habitat but that can be flexible if the habitat requires it. Tigers are able to congregate in groups in exceptional situations, but normally prefer to be solitary as is more economic to take care of yourself in an habitat that is too close to coordinate an attack and where large preys live at low densities. Females priority is a good habitat with enough prey density to feed her and her cubs, they will share the habitat with her daughters like a big scattered "pride" and may be together in exceptional cases. Males priority are large territories with enough females to mate, they may tolerate its male offspring as long as they don't attempt to mate with its females and certainly both, males and females, will not tolerate estrange tigers, because they may kill the cubs and take over the territory if they can. Fights between tigers are not the norm but do happen and are lethal, but they prefer to use they specialized method of socializing at distance. Even the lack of aggression when they are together and feeding in family may be evidence of the high degree of cephalization of this species, in comparison with the other Panthera members (Yamaguchi et al., 2009).
There is more information in the subject, but this summary present the main conclusions of the respective studies.
Hope this helps, Greetings and cheers.
GUATE
Excellent post. Many thanks for the summary. Your post opens the door for a debate on what 'territory' really is in big cats. We also need to know if it's flexible at times and, if so, why.
Hello again @peter, nice to "see" you again.
 In fact, the territoriality in cats is very complex, even in lions there are places where the prides do not have "territories" but just "home ranges". Of course it will be interesting to investigate this case. From my part I will continue with the information about the tigers. Greetings my friend. 
So Guate, are you in position to back in moderation section ? Or you will still take your time ?
(09-07-2018, 10:50 AM)sanjay Wrote: So Guate, are you in position to back in moderation section ? Or you will still take your time ? Thank you for the invitation @sanjay, but for the moment I need to update my status in the forum, there is a lot of things that I need to read. By the way, I tried to upload a document of 23 Mb but the system told me that it was too heavy, there is a new policy about the size of the documents that we can upload? Also, old pictures that I have posted in the forum are no longer available, is that a problem in the forum or the original pictures probably dissapeared?  
Sure take your time, you were always here, its completely your choice.
23Mb is not possible here for now, You can upload it to some free cloud storage and can link here. Use dropbox, google drive, one drive, etc.. The original source of the images probably changed, there is no problem in our forum. That's why I always suggest to use the imgur (the third last icon in the editor) 
From "Tiger: The Ultimate Guide"
"Baze found and killed six tigers who lived in this extraordinary labyrinth of caves. The corners were full of the bones of animals that the tigers must have fed on. There were dark, narrow passages opening out into "rooms", and in one annex he found a dead tiger cub. He continued "Actually there was only one complete family living here - the tigers, her cubs, and the big tiger my friend shot. Another tiger - the one I accounted for - lived by himself in a separate apartment, and the last tigers lived in another cul-de-sac with the baby whose body we found. The maze of caverns and passages provide a safe retreat, sheltered from bad weather, and they would sally forth separately at night to scour the countryside, keeping as far as possible out of one another's way." |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |