There are very few pure Bengal tigers in the West.
Most of the so-called pure Bengals are mixed and are not included in the international studbook for this subspecies.
White tigers are mixture of Bengal and Amur (“Siberian”) tigers.
They are not Amur tigers.
Just because they are white doesn’t mean they come from some cold, snowy place.
They are not like snowy owls or polar bears.
I don’t see the attraction of breeding white tigers.
But then I really don’t see the point of having a pet that could easily consider you to be a prey species.
definitely agree.
white-tigers are inbred mutts, and every one of them in an accredited zoo takes up valuable real-estate, better spent on REAL breeding-worthy specimens.
IMO it’s criminal to donate cage-space to white-tigers only because their ‘rare color’ sells admission tickets.
‘golden tabbies’ and all the other color-morphs of captive-bred mutt tigers are only an external indicator of their inbreeding co-efficient, IMO.
doggone shame – and keeping a tiger in a backyard is as asinine as a whale in a bathtub…
huh? – did someone say SeaWorld?…
– terry
terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#1827, CVA, TDF
To each his own.
You start as a subspeciesist, then you’re a breedist, and you know what comes next.
I’m not in favor of white tigers because usually they have serious physical defects. On the other hand, treating tigers as if they were purebred dogs with only the “approved” studbook animals being allowed to breed has two problems.
1. there probably aren’t enough tigers of each subspecies to maintain them in a healthy vital number.
2. It completely ignores that tigers, like polar bears/grizzly bears, all have a common origin and acts as if the subspecies were created at the beginning of time and should remain immutable. It isn’t realistic regarding tiger genetics. Before so many tigers were decimated, it’s highly likely that one subspecies interrelated to others where they shared boundaries just as wolves probably did. The various tiger subspecies look more distinct than they probably ever were during the very early Holocene epoch because they are so isolated from each other — but that’s not how they were originally.
With so few tigers, it makes no sense to disgard the “mutts” simply because they have mixed parentage. I’m all for discarding those with severe physical problems, but not for disgarding those of “mixed blood”.
As for keeping a tiger for yourself — i feel that if one wants to endanger their own lives, it’s their choice. they do need to ensure that they don’t endanger the lives of others more than someone who owned say, a stallion. It should never be “if I wouldn’t do it, you should not be allowed to do it.” That’s the easy route to tyranny.
Peggy Richter.
i don’t mind them breeding mutts –
so long as they are NORMAL colors + healthy.
my big problem with the pet-tiger-keepers is the inadequacy of care and lack of enrichment – the compound *siegfried + roy* have, with a house designed for tigers to ramp up and down the steps, loaf on the grass, or lounge in a pool, is the Taj-Majal of tiger-keeping.
the average Texas tiger has a 10 x 12 foot run with a box to get out of the weather, and lounge on to get out of the mud after rain – no pool, no toys, little grass; it’s a prison cell, just outdoors.
the ‘lucky ones’ have concrete, which means no mud – or saturated feces – to lie in, but also hard on joints and paws, cold in winter, and uncomfortable.
if they insist on keeping tigers, they -must- IMO provide enrichment – not a lavatory cage.
[and no – it’s not cheap;
if U live in a house-trailer U cannot afford to keep a tiger –
U can have a dog, cat, rabbit, canary, ball-python,…
life is unfair.]
JMO + IME,
– terry
I agree — since tigers are an endangered species, having a minimum “zoo enclosure” standard would be reasonable. One might actually find some ‘hobby owners” quite willing to help breed and preserve tigers. There’s a exotic cat breeding facility in Rosamond, CA – EFBC’s Feline Conservation Center. it’s considered world class, but IIRC, it was started by amateurs.
Peggy Richter.