WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Captive & Domesticated Animals
Zoos, Circuses, Safaris: A Gallery of Captivity
Zoos, Circuses, Safaris: A Gallery of Captivity
|
Zoos, Circuses, Safaris: A Gallery of Captivity
|
ZOOLOGISCHER GARTEN BERLIN - OCTOBER 2014
a - Indo-Chinese tiger (Panthera tigris corbetti, adult ♀) One doesn't often see Indo-Chinese tigers in zoos in Europe. The Zoologischer Garten has two females and one male. Young adults, I think. The difference in length between the male and the females was limited. In weight, there was more distinction. The females could have been 260-300 pounds, as opposed to 350-370 for the male, meaby a bit more. One of the more striking differences between captive lions (see below) and captive tigers is tigers, as Pocock wrote in his 1929 article, seem to have a more 'springy goat'. One can only guess at the reason, but tigers usually have a slightly longer spine and they also seem to be relatively longer in the hindlegs. Seen from the front or back, walking tigers sway from left to right. They compare to leopards in that they, in spite of their size, often ooze athleticism. Lions seem to have a relatively shorter spine and they are always taller at the shoulder than at the back. Perhaps as a result of the heavy skull and the large neck and chest, they, compared to the size of the legs and the rest of the body, seem to be a bit 'topheavy'. Lions more or less walk straight ahead and do not sway like tigers. They often remind me of powerlifters. A bit shorter, but often more compact. Male tigers too are more developed in the frontal region, but the impression of athleticism is always there, even in robust, bearlike males. In lions, the centre of gravity seems to be in the front part body, whereas it seems to be in the legs in tigers. The result is lions often appear more 'bodily', whereas tigers appear more 'leggy'. Another difference is in attitude. Lions appear more straightforward and 'dogged', whereas tigers appear wary and secretive. If there was to be a confrontation between similar-sized (weight) captive animals, lions, I think, would have more initiative in the initial stages. Tigers, on the other hand, definitely are more agile, faster and more athletic. I don't think there is a lot to choose between both in strength. It would come down to chance and character. Another difference between captive lions and tigers is lions often seem to do quite well in captivity. They seem a bit larger than their wild relatives and often reach a good age in captivity. Captive tigers, although there are many exceptions, often seem to be subject to something that reminds me of degeneration. Wild tigers reach a larger size and they also seem to have a different attitude. Captive Amur tigers, sizewise, seem to be the exception to the rule, but I don't think they are a match for their wild relatives. The difference between captive and wild could be more pronounced in tigers, because wild tigers, perhaps, need to overcome more problems between 2-5 years of age. As they are on their own all the time, survival is something that counts. But they need to beat the competation and have to learn to overcome large animals on their own as well. This would result in a weird combination of waryness and confidence. Wild lions also face a lot of problems between 2-5, but they are social animals at all times. This is also seen in captive animals, and males in particular. Lions are interested in other lions foremost. They're not that interested in other animals or humans.  *This image is copyright of its original author b - Java leopard (adult ♂) I saw captive leopards from Persia, the Amur region and different regions of Africa before. This is the first Java leopard I saw. He was a trifle smaller than most males of other subspecies, but the difference was limited. The male was muscular and well built. Just over 6 feet in total length straight and a bit over 100 pounds, I think. Athleticism all the way. Splendid animal.  *This image is copyright of its original author c - African lion (♂ and ♀, both adult) Although the photograph doesn't show it, the male is the largest captive male lion I saw. He was not only longer and taller than average, but more muscular in all departments. No fat at all. The female was average in length, but also quite robust. My guesstimate for the male was 9.4-9.6 in total length, about 3.5-3.6 at the shoulder standing and well over 450 pounds. I measured and weighed three adult males that were a bit smaller and they, I think, ranged between 380-440 pounds. This one could have been a good 100 pounds heavier than the largest I measured. Captive lions usually are robust in the skull and body, but not as muscular in the legs as captive tigers. This male lion was the exception to the rule. He was big and muscular all the way. Spine and hind legs as muscular as I saw, skull large and chest well developed. It was a pity we were not able to get to a better angle for the photograph, but they had lots of visitors all the time.  *This image is copyright of its original author
Very interesting, Pckts, your account about the "personality" of the big cat species. I would have never thought that jaguars could be so difficult to train, I believed this was the case of the leopard. As for the tigers, yes they are the most representative big cat in the circus and by far. And perhaps the most playful too.
As for the lions, after having seen numerous videos of Salmoni and Richardson (youtube), I am a little bit surprised. Of course there were not captive lions (not trained in an area circus but living in open air). I would have thought when a male lion admits the trainer as being the dominant "male" of the group it will be easier to train. Now you tell the male lion always tests the trainer when suddendly "it doesn't see through him" no longer.  (11-03-2014, 09:30 AM)'peter' Wrote: ZOOLOGISCHER GARTEN BERLIN - OCTOBER 2014 I think another big difference is that almost all captive tigers are hybrids. The only captive bengals live in India and until recently they were very malnourished and under fed. But I have seen a few pure bred Bengals that look very strong, even the tiger that was wild caught then lived in captivity was a massive beast, just a little over fed. His muscle mass was there but he was as definied as his wild counter parts. So while tigers are smaller in captivity, it may be due to the high hybridization of these cats. But even so, if you use Noahs ark as a example. Shere khan is quoted as being a small tiger while Doc is the largest Cat at the reserve. Both are hybrids and live under the same conditions. So with tigers it really comes down to genetics I think. And if these genetics are muddied over generations than the outcome of the cat is uncertain. (11-03-2014, 12:17 PM)'Spalea' Wrote: Very interesting, Pckts, your account about the "personality" of the big cat species. I would have never thought that jaguars could be so difficult to train, I believed this was the case of the leopard. As for the tigers, yes they are the most representative big cat in the circus and by far. And perhaps the most playful too. From all of the accounts I have read and seen, the only thing that is certain is this... All cats are individuals, no one rule can apply only generic ideas. Lions may be more social, tigers may be more cunning, leopards may be more difficult to train, jaguars may be more hard headed, but exceptions always exist. (11-03-2014, 11:12 PM)'Pckts' Wrote:Yes, ok ! You're right, each big cat has its own personality.(11-03-2014, 12:17 PM)'Spalea' Wrote: Very interesting, Pckts, your account about the "personality" of the big cat species. I would have never thought that jaguars could be so difficult to train, I believed this was the case of the leopard. As for the tigers, yes they are the most representative big cat in the circus and by far. And perhaps the most playful too. 
I don't really know anything about this clip.
The cats look kinda happy and healthy. Even the trainer is funny. Good video, but sad at the same time. The make up of the act is especially troublesome. White tigers and ligers are certainly beautiful and stunning, yet I am somehow not happy by their creation. Beautiful massive tiger and big male lion too. Weights are most likely exaggerated however. He's probably adding a good 100 pounds to their weights. Tiger is probably no more than 600 lbs and the lion might be around 500 lbs... though I could be wrong.
Not sure about the weights since they look obese but that first tigers canines were just massive.
 (11-04-2014, 03:53 PM)'Siegfried' Wrote: I don't really know anything about this clip. Disgusting! Pure pretension and a lack of respect. Those are not animals like dogs, which gone through a co-evolution with humans and are actually depending on us. Wild anmals belong into the wild and not into a frigging clown show. 
Agreed Siegfried. Being a pet guy, it's sad how these little buggers (or big buggers that we have here) have been robbed on their right to life. People say boycott buying these pets, and the idea would be great if everyone did so. But most don't listen and buy animals as toys. So us few, the ones who value all life, need to respect and give the unfortunate souls a refuge.
Here is an interesting page from the new book of Dr Sunquist and his wife Fiona named "The Wild Cat Book" from 2014.
 *This image is copyright of its original author It makes you think about keeping tigers in private facilities and how weak are the laws in the USA for this. (11-06-2014, 10:28 PM)'tigerluver' Wrote: Agreed Siegfried. Being a pet guy, it's sad how these little buggers (or big buggers that we have here) have been robbed on their right to life. People say boycott buying these pets, and the idea would be great if everyone did so. But most don't listen and buy animals as toys. So us few, the ones who value all life, need to respect and give the unfortunate souls a refuge. There is only one real option, Nueter all captive un pure Tigers. Since these "zoos" and "circuses" are always trying to breed unpure white tigers and N. American Tigers in general, they will never agree. They will say "its to expensive" or "they are teaching us about these cats" blah blah blah. Its all BS, if any of these sanctuaries actually cared, they would be like Noahs ark. Nueter all big cats and offer the ones that are abused and abandoned a place to live out their days in peace.
I suggest you guys follow his FB page
https://www.facebook.com/jaguarandtiger He has Jaguars playing with leopards and lions and tigers. He is purely rescued orienated, he has a massive male tiger named Frank who he rescued from a circus who never set foot on grass before he came to the sanctuary. Here is frank and his tabby side by side https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=311...=2&theater He said his goal was to get frank larger than this large tabby tiger, and he did. He gained 200+ lbs once he was rescued. Amazing that these cats are treated that poorly in circuses. 
Not really. A circus is a profit making business. I'm not sure about today's circuses, but in the past, bears were fed as pure vegetarians with rarely a scrap of meat; to save money as the big cats were costly to feed. I believe that circus animals need a closer watch to insure their not being mistreated.
(11-18-2014, 02:03 AM)'brotherbear' Wrote: Not really. A circus is a profit making business. I'm not sure about today's circuses, but in the past, bears were fed as pure vegetarians with rarely a scrap of meat; to save money as the big cats were costly to feed. I believe that circus animals need a closer watch to insure their not being mistreated. 100% agree. I have read a few circus performers and some seem to love their animals. But hearing this gentleman speak about big cats and what it actually takes to get a tiger or a lion to jump through a hoop on fire. He says that the only way is to scare them and mistreat them. He says big cats are actually quite shy and emotional. He truly believes all circuses mistreat their animals and no wild animal belongs in a circus. Which I whole heartedly agree with as well. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |