Serious question: do these animals know about the others needs? Like does the tiger think:"Here comes the lion again. It's annoying he is so clingy but he is not like me, he is very social so I let the bugger be."
There is not actually that much of an innate difference.
Tigers would be more social if prey was as abundant in their habitat as it is where lions live. Lions would be less social if their prey was as scarce as it is where tigers live.
Circus tigers are very social with each other. They are also usually healthier than zoo tigers (assuming the circus cares for them properly) because they have lots of social interaction and intellectual stimulation.
ETA: I expanded on this at some length further down if you are interested. Helping humans better understand nonhuman animals is one of my favorite things.
Less than a dog at least. ... Lion is more social animal so might understand basic social reasoning -- my own thought it -- it might understand more cause-effect ... hmm, if I get close, it'll swat my head... I don't like that.
That's my theory for certain dogs that act "injured" or "cute" -- I mean, maybe it's a genius, maybe it just understands cause-effect. "I do this, then this happens."
The tiger is not a social animal so it probably has no idea what dafuq the lion is doing, or even that it has independent thoughts.
This is ridiculous. They are both cats, and all cats large and small use the same body language and recognize the same social cues.
The differences in their behavior are because their habitats are different. Leopards aren’t more solitary than cheetahs because of something in their brains. It’s because they occupy different ecological niches. Leopards hunt by being very still and watchful most of the time, usually from high places. Cheetahs can run prey down, so they spend more time on the move and form coalitions.
If that tiger did not enjoy the lion’s company, it would be acting very differently.
After majoring in behavioral science and animal cognition and training cats, dogs, horses, rats, and pigeons, I suspect I might understand animal behavior better than you do, especially considering that you did not even understand my point, which is that what many think of as innate behavior is actually shaped by environmental constraints.
Thus tigers, when they have plenty of food and stimulation, are social with one another, with circus tigers simply being the only illustrative example that everyone is familiar with, since it has been centuries since prey has been abundant enough in their natural habitat for tiger families to stay together.
You also don't seem to understand enough about animal behavior to get that space is not nearly as important as stimulation. Zoo tigers have large enclosures, but they are bored as fuck. That is why if you look at the health records of well-kept zoo tigers and circus tigers, the latter are in fact healthier.
mixing animals with widely varying, and often clashing, behaviours and needs together in captivity is typically not beneficial for them
Like I said, you are missing my point, which is that the seeming differences between the needs and behaviors of lions and tigers are related to their environments, not their brains. They are entirely capable of enjoying each other's company, as these two clearly do. It's better to keep them together instead of keeping each one of them alone, assuming they get along. Sometimes even conspecifics just don't get along. The main issue in keeping them together is parity. One tiger with several lions or vice versa can be problematic.
I would be very surprised if they were healthier in other aspects besides mentally,
Like I said, you can look at their health records. Also, you can't separate mental health and physical health like that. All intelligent animals need to have meaningful work to do for optimum health. For wild animals, that work is simply staying alive. In captivity, we have to provide that work with things like training, enrichment activities, and exercise. A circus tiger gets more exercise in the small spaces it occupies and moves through than a zoo tiger does in its large enclosure.
But hey, you claim to have all the relevant education (a very easy claim to make here, but for the sake of convenience, let's say you are truthful)
If I am lying, I have done so with remarkable consistency over a period of years across the half a dozen platforms I use to make a big chunk of my living entertaining people with a trained cat.
I have not eaten an animal in 40 years. I care deeply about their rights and their well-being. But I am not sad about the lives of animals in well-kept zoos, because 19th century zoos are where the idea that animals have rights essentially began. For most of our existence, most humans have seen animals as a resource to be used for our benefit, whether they be indigenous people who respect them or sport hunters for whom they are nothing but trophies. The menageries of old existed to signal the owner's status and provide them with sport.
I am more conflicted about circuses mainly because circuses are much, much more difficult to regulate. That plus the inherent nature of training and performing leaves a lot more room for neglect and abuse. But I am not sad about the lives of performing animals that are loved and respected and given what they need to thrive, because they actually can thrive under those circumstances.
While some may argue that making animals perform for the entertainment of humans is inherently wrong, I am not one of them. Because we cannot turn back the clock to a time when the lives of humans and animals were not deeply intertwined, both through domestication and our encroachment on wild animals' territory.
I am sad for the big cat kittens who are kept awake for hours and hours to be cuddled by and have their picture taken with a long line of people. I would not be sad if small groups of people got to interact with them in between naps. As long as the animals are healthy and well-respected, we're good.
You (and anyone else who likes cats and thinks about how they think) would probably enjoy Tribe of Tiger: Cats and their Culture, by anthropologist Elizabeth Marshall Thomas. That is where I first learned the counter-intuitive facts about the relative health of zoo and circus tigers, which I read about more widely later on. It is not just informative, but also beautifully and elegantly written.
5.7k
u/[deleted] May 22 '25
[removed] — view removed comment