There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
02-27-2015, 01:47 AM( This post was last modified: 02-27-2015, 01:47 AM by Pckts )
(02-27-2015, 01:42 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Yes, most tigers in their summer coat can indeed demonstrate their muscular appearance.
While in their winter coat, they look fluffy, kinda like a teddy bear.
A good example of that is the photos above, at Noahs ark, I don't think they go through coat changes usually since it doesn't get that cold. But Ranth for instance, tigers generally have a very similar coat all year round. You see it more with siberians which also contributes to their exaggerated size compared to bengals from times past.
02-27-2015, 01:50 AM( This post was last modified: 02-27-2015, 01:55 AM by GrizzlyClaws )
They all look very fit, but they don't look like the Mr. Olympia of the big cats for some very obvious reasons, since living in the captivity doesn't need the same physical fitness level as their wild counterparts.
However, many captive big cats can still look very fit and athletic.
To compare the most fit captive big cats with the most fit wild big cats is like to compare the amateur bodybuilders with the professional bodybuilders.
02-27-2015, 01:54 AM( This post was last modified: 02-27-2015, 01:54 AM by Pckts )
Continuing our discussion on Baikal. I have not seen any info on his measurements other than the email from king.
This is him, Correct?
*This image is copyright of its original author
If so, he is obviously over weight but a massive tiger none the less.
*This image is copyright of its original author
The email is not very clear about his actual size, I would be curious about his shoulder height and body length, skull size, tail length etc.
That would be the best way to compare
02-27-2015, 01:57 AM( This post was last modified: 02-27-2015, 02:01 AM by GrizzlyClaws )
That's not Baikal, but another normal large tiger.
He is quite large, around 600 pounds, but not prehistoric sized like Baikal.
Baikal looks larger than that tiger, but not as overweighed as him.
And his skull should measure about 17-18 inches if we use the body proportion of a normal tiger, since he looks proportionally same as the normal tiger.
Jaipur is 332cm long and 423kg but obviously he is extremely obese.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Dale is 306 cm total with a weight of 193kg, since we don't know Jaipurs shoulder height we can't compare all factors. But Jaipur is 10'' longer than Dale, we don't know how much in the tail or body, we also don't know his shoulder height comapred to dales.
But the most impressive body dimensions on this limited list is actually Maurice at 309cm and a shoulder height of 104cm, but he is relatively skinny at 179kg and estimated to be 7 years old. He should by all means be pushing the 220kg plus category for siberians.
But for Jaipur to be double the body weight of Dale while only being 10''s longer is far too much. He probably has 150kg plus of fat on him.
Has there been any Wild siberians to measure the length of 332cm?
(02-27-2015, 02:08 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: The 'Baikal' from the Calgary zoo weighs about 400 pounds, obviously less than half of the giant Baikal.
When Comparing Jaipur and his massive weight with body length, lets say Baikal is 243cm with a 100cm tail (just estimating)
He would be slightly longer than Jaipur and 50-60 kg less. I would still say that he is probably 80kg overweight or more when comparing him to wild counter parts.
02-27-2015, 02:18 AM( This post was last modified: 02-27-2015, 02:20 AM by GrizzlyClaws )
Baikal in the first three pics was in his younger days, while he was 12 years old the fourth pic and weighed about 850 pounds, and in the fifth pics, he was quite old with the age of 16 and has lost a lot of weight.
02-27-2015, 02:24 AM( This post was last modified: 02-27-2015, 02:28 AM by GrizzlyClaws )
(02-27-2015, 02:15 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:
(02-27-2015, 02:08 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: The 'Baikal' from the Calgary zoo weighs about 400 pounds, obviously less than half of the giant Baikal.
When Comparing Jaipur and his massive weight with body length, lets say Baikal is 243cm with a 100cm tail (just estimating)
He would be slightly longer than Jaipur and 50-60 kg less. I would still say that he is probably 80kg overweight or more when comparing him to wild counter parts.
With the size of Baikal, a wild Amur will weigh about 350+ kg, and a wild Bengal will weigh about 400-450 kg.
Considering the current wild Amur population has suffered the genetic bottleneck as the result, also the pressure from the lost of habitat, they are becoming more lightly built in proportion for some very obvious reasons.
So this giant Baikal is being well fed, and his weight proportion is in between that of the wild Amur and the wild Bengal, so he is definitely not overweighed.
I agree that he is not as muscular as the wild Bengals, but he is not overweighed either.
