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.
(05-04-2015, 12:24 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Stretched out tigers or one image picked out is not reliable to determine weight. Scaling them agianst human beings is usefull but not scientific.
Especially when said humans stats are unknown i:e Height, weight etc.
In regards to posting captive body weights, you and I both look at the same table.
If you need me to post it here I will, but its easily found on this forum. That table is verified weights and measurements and most tigers are with in the normal range of their species.
You also asked why I think they are overweight,
A couple of reasons,
Most have a less defined muscle definition and have large bellys IMO.
They are robust but not as definied as a wild tiger. While siberians have a thicker coat you can still get a sense of their mass and muscle definition.
Edit: Perfect example of captive specimen is the lion above
Large belly flap, and lack of muscle definition. I would also bet the female would have a large belly flap as well if she turned to the side, her chest looks droopy.
Baikal is not overweighed for his body frame at all.
In fact, he is slightly underweighed according to tigerluver's body mass correlation.
A modern wild tiger with the size of Baikal would easily top 900 pounds, while a pleistocene tiger would top 1000 pounds.
Baikal didn't break the 900 pounds benchmark, so he is not overweighed, but rather underweighed.
05-04-2015, 02:38 AM( This post was last modified: 05-04-2015, 02:41 AM by Pckts )
(05-04-2015, 02:09 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote:
(05-04-2015, 12:24 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Stretched out tigers or one image picked out is not reliable to determine weight. Scaling them agianst human beings is usefull but not scientific.
Especially when said humans stats are unknown i:e Height, weight etc.
In regards to posting captive body weights, you and I both look at the same table.
If you need me to post it here I will, but its easily found on this forum. That table is verified weights and measurements and most tigers are with in the normal range of their species.
You also asked why I think they are overweight,
A couple of reasons,
Most have a less defined muscle definition and have large bellys IMO.
They are robust but not as definied as a wild tiger. While siberians have a thicker coat you can still get a sense of their mass and muscle definition.
Edit: Perfect example of captive specimen is the lion above
Large belly flap, and lack of muscle definition. I would also bet the female would have a large belly flap as well if she turned to the side, her chest looks droopy.
Baikal is not overweighed for his body frame at all.
In fact, he is slightly underweighed according to tigerluver's body mass correlation.
A modern wild tiger with the size of Baikal would easily top 900 pounds, while a pleistocene tiger would top 1000 pounds.
Baikal didn't break the 900 pounds benchmark, so he is not overweighed, but rather underweighed.
We don't have Baikal body measurements so we wouldn't know how to compare him to similar tigers and to truly know his size.
He looks a little overweight there but not much, the other pic he seems more overweight though. But Im not taking anything away from him, he's a big and strong boy for a captive cat but like you stated, not nearly as defined as a wild one.
05-04-2015, 02:42 AM( This post was last modified: 05-04-2015, 02:50 AM by GrizzlyClaws )
(05-04-2015, 02:38 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:
(05-04-2015, 02:09 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote:
(05-04-2015, 12:24 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Stretched out tigers or one image picked out is not reliable to determine weight. Scaling them agianst human beings is usefull but not scientific.
Especially when said humans stats are unknown i:e Height, weight etc.
In regards to posting captive body weights, you and I both look at the same table.
If you need me to post it here I will, but its easily found on this forum. That table is verified weights and measurements and most tigers are with in the normal range of their species.
You also asked why I think they are overweight,
A couple of reasons,
Most have a less defined muscle definition and have large bellys IMO.
They are robust but not as definied as a wild tiger. While siberians have a thicker coat you can still get a sense of their mass and muscle definition.
Edit: Perfect example of captive specimen is the lion above
Large belly flap, and lack of muscle definition. I would also bet the female would have a large belly flap as well if she turned to the side, her chest looks droopy.
Baikal is not overweighed for his body frame at all.
In fact, he is slightly underweighed according to tigerluver's body mass correlation.
A modern wild tiger with the size of Baikal would easily top 900 pounds, while a pleistocene tiger would top 1000 pounds.
Baikal didn't break the 900 pounds benchmark, so he is not overweighed, but rather underweighed.
We don't have Baikal body measurements so we wouldn't know how to compare him to similar tigers.
He does look overweight though, I'm not saying he is obese but he certianly could loose some lbs. But Im not taking anything away from him, he's a big and strong boy for a captive cat.
He has been both measured and weighed by the zoo, and he in fact weighs less than what he supposes to be.
A tiger of his size is designed to weigh more than 900 pounds, just like a 8 feet tall man who weighs 400 pounds, you cannot call him overweighed just because he weighs much more than an average man.
Baikal is 12 feet long or 8 feet in head+body length, he is much bigger than a normal tiger, so he supposes to weigh much more, that's not overweighed.
05-04-2015, 03:21 AM( This post was last modified: 05-04-2015, 03:31 AM by Pckts )
(05-04-2015, 02:42 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote:
(05-04-2015, 02:38 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:
(05-04-2015, 02:09 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote:
(05-04-2015, 12:24 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Stretched out tigers or one image picked out is not reliable to determine weight. Scaling them agianst human beings is usefull but not scientific.
Especially when said humans stats are unknown i:e Height, weight etc.
In regards to posting captive body weights, you and I both look at the same table.
If you need me to post it here I will, but its easily found on this forum. That table is verified weights and measurements and most tigers are with in the normal range of their species.
You also asked why I think they are overweight,
A couple of reasons,
Most have a less defined muscle definition and have large bellys IMO.
They are robust but not as definied as a wild tiger. While siberians have a thicker coat you can still get a sense of their mass and muscle definition.
Edit: Perfect example of captive specimen is the lion above
Large belly flap, and lack of muscle definition. I would also bet the female would have a large belly flap as well if she turned to the side, her chest looks droopy.
Baikal is not overweighed for his body frame at all.
In fact, he is slightly underweighed according to tigerluver's body mass correlation.
A modern wild tiger with the size of Baikal would easily top 900 pounds, while a pleistocene tiger would top 1000 pounds.
Baikal didn't break the 900 pounds benchmark, so he is not overweighed, but rather underweighed.
We don't have Baikal body measurements so we wouldn't know how to compare him to similar tigers.
He does look overweight though, I'm not saying he is obese but he certianly could loose some lbs. But Im not taking anything away from him, he's a big and strong boy for a captive cat.
He has been both measured and weighed by the zoo, and he in fact weighs less than what he supposes to be.
A tiger of his size is designed to weigh more than 900 pounds, just like a 8 feet tall man who weighs 400 pounds, you cannot call him overweighed just because he weighs much more than an average man.
Baikal is 12 feet long or 8 feet in head+body length, he is much bigger than a normal tiger, so he supposes to weigh much more, that's not overweighed.
Where are these measurements posted at?
I have never seen them before, who stated his measurements?
I would need to see chest, neck, limb girth to believe such a number I think it just doesn't seem realistic body length but maybe that is why he is a freak.
Lets not compare a man to a tiger, 8ft man could easily be overweight at 400lbs or be jacked at 400lbs it depends on his build. A tiger at 6'6'' body length is can be 200kgs-250kgs, a tiger at 8' is still only a foot and half longer but weighs nearly double?
Just by looking at him you can tell he was/is overweight, not obese but overweight. Maybe its the lack of muscle definition, may be its the fur, but he looks a little overweight to me.
Another thing to note is the fact that muscle weighs more than fat, to achieve such a weight and not be jam packed full of muscles means that he most likely does have some excess fat on him on top of the fact that Amurs put on fat easier than any other cat will all play a role.
They gave 9ft but it is from the Director of Development and she is a Primatologist (primate expert) not a vet or big cat expert so along with the length of 9ft and that she has probably not directly measured the cat she is just guessing its length.
But if she did measure him,
9ft really doesn't seem realistic at all for head and body, would be a world record by a long shot, I would bet she is talking about total length and assuming she is, and the tail is around 4ft or less, since they are usually 3-3.5ft that means its head and body are normal size for a Male tiger.
(05-04-2015, 12:24 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Stretched out tigers or one image picked out is not reliable to determine weight. Scaling them agianst human beings is usefull but not scientific.
Especially when said humans stats are unknown i:e Height, weight etc.
In regards to posting captive body weights, you and I both look at the same table.
If you need me to post it here I will, but its easily found on this forum. That table is verified weights and measurements and most tigers are with in the normal range of their species.
You also asked why I think they are overweight,
A couple of reasons,
Most have a less defined muscle definition and have large bellys IMO.
They are robust but not as definied as a wild tiger. While siberians have a thicker coat you can still get a sense of their mass and muscle definition.
Edit: Perfect example of captive specimen is the lion above
Large belly flap, and lack of muscle definition. I would also bet the female would have a large belly flap as well if she turned to the side, her chest looks droopy.
Baikal is not overweighed for his body frame at all.
In fact, he is slightly underweighed according to tigerluver's body mass correlation.
A modern wild tiger with the size of Baikal would easily top 900 pounds, while a pleistocene tiger would top 1000 pounds.
Baikal didn't break the 900 pounds benchmark, so he is not overweighed, but rather underweighed.
We don't have Baikal body measurements so we wouldn't know how to compare him to similar tigers.
He does look overweight though, I'm not saying he is obese but he certianly could loose some lbs. But Im not taking anything away from him, he's a big and strong boy for a captive cat.
He has been both measured and weighed by the zoo, and he in fact weighs less than what he supposes to be.
A tiger of his size is designed to weigh more than 900 pounds, just like a 8 feet tall man who weighs 400 pounds, you cannot call him overweighed just because he weighs much more than an average man.
Baikal is 12 feet long or 8 feet in head+body length, he is much bigger than a normal tiger, so he supposes to weigh much more, that's not overweighed.
Where are these measurements posted at?
I have never seen them before, who stated his measurements?
I would need to see chest, neck, limb girth to believe such a number I think it just doesn't seem realistic body length but maybe that is why he is a freak.
Lets not compare a man to a tiger, 8ft man could easily be overweight at 400lbs or be jacked at 400lbs it depends on his build. A tiger at 6'6'' body length is can be 200kgs-250kgs, a tiger at 8' is still only a foot and half longer but weighs nearly double?
Just by looking at him you can tell he was/is overweight, not obese but overweight. Maybe its the lack of muscle definition, may be its the fur, but he looks a little overweight to me.
Another thing to note is the fact that muscle weighs more than fat, to achieve such a weight and not be jam packed full of muscles means that he most likely does have some excess fat on him on top of the fact that Amurs put on fat easier than any other cat will all play a role.
They gave 9ft but it is from the Director of Development and she is a Primatologist (primate expert) not a vet or big cat expert so along with the length of 9ft and that she has probably not directly measured the cat she is just guessing its length.
But if she did measure him,
9ft really doesn't seem realistic at all for head and body, would be a world record by a long shot, I would bet she is talking about total length and assuming she is, and the tail is around 4ft or less, since they are usually 3-3.5ft that means its head and body are normal size for a Male tiger.
You can consult more from @tigerluver or @Kingtheropod if you want to have the additional information.
05-04-2015, 04:01 AM( This post was last modified: 05-04-2015, 04:16 AM by Pckts )
If they wan't to give their oppinion on the matter it's obviously respected, but judging from that email and if it is the only thing that states the size then I think its just a good sized tiger but no record breaker unless its 9' which means its the largest cat ever. (I think)
I'll have to look into total head body length records to see what is the outcome compared to this guy.
(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
(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.
05-05-2015, 12:20 AM( This post was last modified: 05-05-2015, 12:23 AM by Amnon242 )
(05-04-2015, 01:29 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: "Why do you think that Duisburg tiger (or Baikal or that tiger from tiger oasis) are overweight? Your reasons are abolutely lame in those cases"
I never stated anyting about specific tigers just captive tigers in general.
But Baikal looks to be overweight, not obese but he diffenitly doesn't have the definition and has a bit of a large stomach. He's a massive tiger no matter how you slice it, i'm not taking that away from him but his sized is matched by a wild specimen.
I guarantee I can tell the difference between wild and captive lions, I have seen 100s of images and videos of both, they are usually very easy to distinguish. (most of the time, there are a few captive specimens that are in fine health) But very few, the closest "captive lions" to look like wild are Kevin Richardsons and only because his actually live in the "wild" they are just fenced in.
Your claim of the Lion with the belly flap being asiatic is also unfounded, unless you see the stud book you have no idea and most captive lions and tigers are far from pure bred. Especially ones in a place like that where they let different species of cat live together. I:E Lions and tigers...
If a cat is pure bred they are used to breed with other pure bred cats to in a sanctuary type setting.
Even Asiatic lions have belly flaps, yes, but nothing close to that droopy and same with tigers.
If you took historic accounts of Siberians as well, their average weight would jump and be higher than that in captivity as well, but obviously its highly debatable when using older hunting records.
Pckts, just one question: do you consider yourself to be intelligent person?
(05-04-2015, 01:29 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: "Why do you think that Duisburg tiger (or Baikal or that tiger from tiger oasis) are overweight? Your reasons are abolutely lame in those cases"
I never stated anyting about specific tigers just captive tigers in general.
But Baikal looks to be overweight, not obese but he diffenitly doesn't have the definition and has a bit of a large stomach. He's a massive tiger no matter how you slice it, i'm not taking that away from him but his sized is matched by a wild specimen.
I guarantee I can tell the difference between wild and captive lions, I have seen 100s of images and videos of both, they are usually very easy to distinguish. (most of the time, there are a few captive specimens that are in fine health) But very few, the closest "captive lions" to look like wild are Kevin Richardsons and only because his actually live in the "wild" they are just fenced in.
Your claim of the Lion with the belly flap being asiatic is also unfounded, unless you see the stud book you have no idea and most captive lions and tigers are far from pure bred. Especially ones in a place like that where they let different species of cat live together. I:E Lions and tigers...
If a cat is pure bred they are used to breed with other pure bred cats to in a sanctuary type setting.
Even Asiatic lions have belly flaps, yes, but nothing close to that droopy and same with tigers.
If you took historic accounts of Siberians as well, their average weight would jump and be higher than that in captivity as well, but obviously its highly debatable when using older hunting records.
Pckts, just one question: do you consider yourself to be intelligent person?
(05-04-2015, 01:29 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: "Why do you think that Duisburg tiger (or Baikal or that tiger from tiger oasis) are overweight? Your reasons are abolutely lame in those cases"
I never stated anyting about specific tigers just captive tigers in general.
But Baikal looks to be overweight, not obese but he diffenitly doesn't have the definition and has a bit of a large stomach. He's a massive tiger no matter how you slice it, i'm not taking that away from him but his sized is matched by a wild specimen.
I guarantee I can tell the difference between wild and captive lions, I have seen 100s of images and videos of both, they are usually very easy to distinguish. (most of the time, there are a few captive specimens that are in fine health) But very few, the closest "captive lions" to look like wild are Kevin Richardsons and only because his actually live in the "wild" they are just fenced in.
Your claim of the Lion with the belly flap being asiatic is also unfounded, unless you see the stud book you have no idea and most captive lions and tigers are far from pure bred. Especially ones in a place like that where they let different species of cat live together. I:E Lions and tigers...
If a cat is pure bred they are used to breed with other pure bred cats to in a sanctuary type setting.
Even Asiatic lions have belly flaps, yes, but nothing close to that droopy and same with tigers.
If you took historic accounts of Siberians as well, their average weight would jump and be higher than that in captivity as well, but obviously its highly debatable when using older hunting records.
Pckts, just one question: do you consider yourself to be intelligent person?
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur
