Did you not read?
I wasnt trying to make a L vs T revamp, was just pointing out the flaws of Valmik thapars claims...and lol, forget? Did you forget that lions live in groups, fight with unity, are gregarious, fights with coalitions, will be beating a single tiger, pair or trio of tigers with an entire pride? These are real challenges the comity of wild life of india aka the WWF will have to take into consideration, although tiger numbers have gone up...you will literally be talking tiger genocide if you put a pride in tiger country...I have not one dought about that...in that case, I ask again...do you even care for the tigers welfare?
The L vs T subject is one thing, via hypothetical, but the claims Valmik is making is absurd to think that lions are not indigenous to india...romans brought lions only by the thousands at a time over the course of 12 centurys, and for one specific reason, to die in their gladiatorial games, its not as if they brought them over an they took to the woods an became feral, theres no proof they could even if they tried. Where is the records then of Mughals bringing over 50,000+ lions and 50,000+ cheetahs into india? The cites he mentions only showed a handful of african lions imported less than a 100 at a time, who knows if they were african lions, they could have been persian lions, all these animals have distinct geno codings which sceintist can tell apart even with a fraction of different geno samples, an of course the gir lions would have some african ancestry, thats because they migrated from africa
...show me a single lion reintroduction project that was successful in the 19th century with all the technology's we have now of cars, trucks, planes and motor boats...that already is one of the hardest things an actually plan out a place they wont starve to death without the proper fauna.
Yet you want me to believe that in the BC times they managed to do this without all the modern technology we have now by the 50,000+ in over 8 states of india? Ha ha ha thats hilarious. Pure baloney.
The tigers was noted to almost never occur where lions were heavily populated in india, thats not because both they didnt condone the same habitat, the lions most likely killed them off an tigers couldnt settle in lion country since unlike leopards tigers rarely take to trees and wouldnt have any where to hide, only until the lion was exterminated by the hunters, then tiger numbers rose in those areas. Try to stick to the facts. Lions could transverse any jungle, swampy terrain, the okavango lions are direct proof of this:
The Mapogo males:
I counted more than 100 other lions killed by the Mapogo's.
http://www.sunsafaris.com/blog/2012/04/history-of-the-mighty-mapogo-male-lions-by-brett-thomson/
You see that? Lions have specific roles and governing rules, lions form groups and defend or kill off any threat in their territory...they dont adhere to any other predator in their mits if they feel threatened, and would kill tigers by the hundreds...thats only one pride.
Look at the mapogos again:
What are they doing? Drinking water out of a river, what do both lion and tiger need? Water, hence on the ashoka edicts, they all just happened to land on rivers, hence it was a main life stream for lions, an where mostly all the wild conflicts took place, theres to many proof of this that showed lions killed tigers in their areas, and yet no tigers killing lion accounts exist in indias wilds.
All you're doing is speculating an opining that a few pounds of a rare heavy tiger who will be fighting with an extra paw will change the fact that lions hunt and fight in coalitions. And even the mapogos were eventually defeated:
http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-history-most-brutal-killer-the-majingilane-male-lions
This is the life of the lion, they fight, dominate and try to rule the most land range there is, they also populate alot faster than tigers, which again shows the numbers, theres only around 3,500 tigers in the world, theres over 20,000 lions...even if you go back centurys, there was only 80,000 tigers, in comparance there was over 250,000 lions...lions are just the better survivalist, an dominate anything, nothing on earth but man could out compete lions, hence they transvered atleast 5 continents, while tigers only 1...asia, an borderd onto Eurasia.
Again river:
How can a tiger take on an entire pride:
When tigers cant even take on 40 lb wild dogs:
Hello, we are Dhole, an we kill tigers
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35515
Valmik himself stated a case of red dogs killing a tiger, so how can he not accept lions would too, a animal that out weighs a wild dog 10x over and has just as much or even more in a pride. You're still not getting it, how can the tiger population thrive if the tigers cubs and juveniles are killed? You do know that lions wouldnt just walk pass a tiger cub den an let them live right? Males are notorious for killing cubs too:
Lions are similar to humans, a King will not allow his rival kingdom be spared in a time of war, that means tiger cubs will be at steak, young tigers and even adult tigers will be at steak...the tiger population will plummet drastically...india is massive, I dont see why they have to put the two so near each other so early, their numbers should arise alot more before their natural state takes effect again.
It seems that every time when it comes to tiger fans there is always an agenda, like saying the tiger is bigger, faster, more cunning, out weighs the lion, is longer, is heavier, an again an again with this hypothetical size comparison which stems from some idiotic bias...thats gona mean jack shit when both are in the same area. Valmiks book is ridiculous, do you know how to be conclusive that lions werent actaully native to india? Actually go and talk to every historian in every different area they were once noted to have lived there, once he visits thousands of these historical sites and they all unanimously tell the lions were never seen in the wild there, then he can be conclusive...he can claim hes conclusive now by taking wikipedia like cites an copy an pasting internet main stream stuff and twisting them to his own views, but his arguments are weak when held in the light of the facts. Which is just an opinion, a poor one at that.
Last edited:
