Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur

[Pckts]

(05-04-2015, 12:13 PM)'faess' Wrote:

(05-03-2015, 11:13 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote:

(05-03-2015, 11:07 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: I don't think that is true, in these images and videos you have something to scale them against, looking at a camera trap image you hardly get the picture of mass. 

While there are large captive siberians, I don't necessarily buy into the idea that siberians get larger there than in the wild. When you dig deeper into actually captive weights, they seem to be nearly the same as wild weights when discussing amurs, even body measurements.

The "300kg" siberians always seem to be obese or at least overweight, wild animals simply can't be built like that, their nothing but muscle when compared to their captive counterpart. 




 

Amur from Duisburg was in 300 kg range and he was not obese. The same goes for Baikal, who was almost 400 kg. Also some tigers from Tiger Oasis are in 300 kg range and they dont seem to be obese.

 
I have also seen amur who was 220 kg in the age of 2 (definitely not obese). This tiger has also the potential to hit 300 kg in his prime.
 


 

(05-03-2015, 11:27 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote: this is the same tiger (tiger oasis)...i think..

300 kg? Could be... Obese? I dont think so

BTW they have at least one another male of this size


 

If that is the same Baikal then he is no larger than 440 lbs. I remember one of the owners from his last zoo that he was less than 500

 

That is a different Baikal, I believe that is the one who just recently died in a fight with two youngsters.

This Baikal is much larger but his body measurements are unknown 9' is the only # given and is most likely his total and length and probably a estimation.
  Reply