Animal trainers

[GrizzlyClaws]

(12-05-2015, 12:38 AM)Pckts Wrote: Wow, I can't believe the Sumatran Amurs were so large.
It seems that Amurs really are the Larger sub species in Captivity, I wonder why this doesn't translate to their wild counterparts. I also wonder why lions, amurs and sumatrans seem to thrive just fine in captivity while bengals seem not to. By "thrive" I simply mean, weigh their normally seen weights or even exceeding their wild counterparts.
I think it comes down to more of the fact that the latter have been used for captive specimens for much longer, their  accessibility to these Zoos, sanctuaries and parks have allowed them to evolve to that life style compared to the Bengal who has very limited captive numbers and most have been kept in one part of the world only.
Either way, very interesting.

The Amur tiger was gargantuan back in 10000 BC, but now they are losing their prey base, so they have to live with smaller size.

The Bengal tiger on the other hand is getting larger than before because no more competition from its major competitor; the Asiatic lion.

Maybe the Bengal tiger can also become supersized after a couple of thousand years if the population and environment remain stable. Reply