Skip to comments.Tiger kills lion in Turkish zoo
Posted on 03/08/2011 6:07:20 AM PST by decimon
A Bengal tiger has killed a lion at Ankara Zoo after finding a gap in the fence separating their cages, say zoo officials in the Turkish capital.
The tiger severed the lion's jugular vein in a single stroke with its paw, leaving the animal dying in a pool of blood, officials said.
The zoo says it is safe for visitors, despite the incident.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
Stroking the cat ping.
Guess that settles that debate.
“I’ve got tiger blood. Dying is for fools!” — Charlie Sheen
What about the Red Wings and Pistons?
“turkish” is synonymous with “fail”
Everything these people do turns to crap. They can’t even run a zoo.
Look at Egypt now. For years it’s been “British have our stuff! Give it!”. Now “their stuff” is being looted AGAIN, while the heritage in Britain is as safe as it’s been for 150 years.
You see, obama...sometimes “king of the jungle” is just a title....
Maybe he hasn’t noticed... he’s already dead... his ghost haunts his own soul...
> Always wondered which would win a tiger/lion battle.
There was an animal planet show about this very subject 2 or 3 years back.
Result: Tiger beats Lion; Jaguar beats Tiger. Nothing beats Jaguar; it is the strongest and largest of all the big cats.
I'm seeing in other reports that it wasn't a fight. The tiger was able to reach its paw through a gap in the fence to slash the lion.
liger - half lion and half tiger
A jaguar is bigger and stronger than a tiger? Don’t think so.
Some tigers grow to 600 pounds.
That liger can bite your butt even in a tripod deer stand!
Next week, Round Two in the Mixed Mammal Attack Championship: Tiger vs. Alligator
Or something like that, I don't know...
Wow, I knew that Tiger was pissed because his wife caught him screwing around, but killing a lion...
Ping for later.
Crikey! Nice kitty...(slowly backing away)
Ever see an adult male leopard walk through lion territory, right past an entire pride of lions?
The lions just sit there and watch from a respectful distance, and the leopard acts like he’s got no troubles.
A leopard can kill you, drag you up a tree, take your girlfriend and max your credit card before you know he’s even there.
Think about how tough it was for tigers that couldn't do this while tigers were "evolving." They would approach a lion and then the lion would just maul the cr@p out of the tiger. It's a miracle that this tiger had any ancestors who survived that struggle of the fittest.
This kind of thing would really hurt your “pride”...
That cat doesn’t look at all impressed with the antlers. LOL
“turkish is synonymous with fail”
The Ottoman Empire disagrees.
The lion and his buddies were high, started taunting the tiger and the poor tiger had to react. Some critters never learn.
“Ever see an adult male leopard walk through lion territory, right past an entire pride of lions? The lions just sit there and watch from a respectful distance, and the leopard acts like hes got no troubles.”
That may be true for well fed lions who don’t want to bother fighting another predator. The fact is that lions routinely steal leopard kills. That’s one reason they take them up trees. A leopard is no match for an adult lion.
Nice SF Zoo tiger attack reference. :^)
ok, I’ll say it “CATFIGHT!!” really.
“A jaguar is bigger and stronger than a tiger? Dont think so. Some tigers grow to 600 pounds.”
A jaguar is basically a South American version of a leopard. Maybe a little stronger and more muscular. It’s not surprising that a tiger could kill a lion one on one. Tigers are typically larger than lions. They are also solitary animals that dont hunt in packs like lions do. They have to be very efficient killers to survive.
Jaguars aren’t the largest, but I’ve heard they are the baddest.
Not accurate. For one, the Jaguar is not bigger than a lion or a tiger. It is larger than a leopard (think of it as a heavier/stockier/more muscular 'leopard' with a different shape to its rosettes), but it is not comparable to a lion or tiger.
When it comes to the lion versus tiger debate, things get quite a bit tricky. For one, the killing of the tiger by the lion cannot be ruled in as evidence that the tiger wins. The circumstances have the tiger seeing the gap, making a move, and on the first swipe hooking and severing the jugular. That is a move that can EASILY be replicated by a lion in the same set of circumstances. That was a perfectly replicable event had either cat been given the same set of circumstances.
Now, as for which cat can win, I would personally say they are both equal ...with one major caveat. When you say 'lion,' where exactly is the lion from? When you say 'tiger,' what sub-species are you talking about? For instance, there have been a number of recorded instances of Gir lions (a sub-species of lion found in one small area in Gir Forest, India) killing tigers during staged matches in the late 1800s/early 1900s. Gir lions are about the same size as lions in Central Africa, and slighly smaller than East and Southern African lions. Also, looking at lions in the East and Southern Africa, depending on location and food source they can be SIGNIFICANTLY bigger than other lions ...for instance the Okovango swamp lions (aka Marsh lions) have immense musculature (due to wading all the time in marshy waters), and lions that normally hunt buffalo (as opposed to wildebeest or zebra) also tend to be bigger (there is one pride that actually hunts elephants, although that is primarily a basis of strategy rather than outright strength). On the tiger side, if you have a Bengal tiger it is more of an even match (and even then, if it is a Bengal from southern India it will be smaller than an average lion). On the other hand, if you have a Malayan tiger then even an average lioness will dispatch it with no effort, and if you bring about the Sumatran tiger then even a large male leopard has a chance against it! Then you go to the other end of the scale, where you have the Siberian (Amur) tiger ...in a serious fight, the lion better have loads of luck on its side to win that matchup because the size/weight difference can be substantial.
Thus, it depends a lot on where the 'lion' and the 'tiger' are coming from ...the fairest fight would be between a Gir lion from India and a Bengal tiger from Bangladesh. Start throwing in the subspecies, and the only thing that is for certain is that the Siberian tiger will probably win (and even then, I would still put my money on the lions that live in the swamp and hunt buffalo).
Then you have to throw in individual disposition ...an individual lion may be more aggressive than its kin. An individual tiger may be more aggressive than its kin. A good example is the case above ...the tiger lashed out at the lion, and scored the jugular! Instant (well, near instant) death! I have personally seen a pride of lions headed by one large aggressive black-maned male, who by himself fended off THREE male lions that were trying to take over his pride (which normally means injury/death for the losing lion, and death for all his cubs so that the lionesses can get back into heat).
A factor that can be considered is that lions have only three purposes in life ...i) procreate with the lionesses, ii) fight off other male lions so as to take over a pride, and iii) fight off other make lions trying to take over its pride. Hence the mane in the lion ...to make it look bigger (an experiment done with Tsavo lions, which tend to be maneless) and to protect its throat from bites from other lions (and tigers in this case). Tigers, on the other hand, are solitary ...only getting together with a tigress to mate. The only interaction with other male tigers is if there is a shortage of food and encroachment of territory occurs. Lions, on the other hand, have only one real function (apart from eating and sleeping) ...fighting off other lions that strive to take over the pride, kill its cubs, and most probably kill it outright (or injure it sufficiently that it is only a matter of time before starvation or a pack of hyenas stamp its exit visa). Thus, I'd say, that lions would be better fighters than tigers.
Finally, what is the real world evidence to support that? (And no ...I do not mean the 'animal face-off' show or whatever its name was)
Actual fights: (from: http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict4.html)
Film of lion and tiger fights: There are two films recording early lion and tiger fights, one in captivity and the other in the wild.
*The first documents an event set up to entertain a prince. The fight took place in the pit of a palace compound with the entire encounter being recorded.
The film showed that the tiger was at an immediate disadvantage. Tigers use a throat grip as their primary means of killing and the lion's thick protective mane prevented the tiger gaining a hold on the throat joint. On the other hand, the tiger had no special protection, so was vulnerable to attack.
In this fight, the tiger was killed.
*The second piece of film dates back to the 1930s and is still under investigation by this site. The documentary owner has yet to view more than a few portions of it and until the film can be converted to a more easily viewed format little more progress can be made on reviewing this piece.
As far as can be ascertained, the film was taken during an expedition to capture some tigers in the Gir region of India. Again, the tiger was the loser.
These films back up current expert opinion, including some from Leeds University, regarding the potential result of conflict between these two animals. It is considered that exactly the same outcome would occur given a modern battle between the lion and the tiger.
There is a film showing a tiger winning, although it needs to be taken in context (North Korean propaganda material):
Korean pit fight film:
Widely rumoured to exist is a piece of film showing a Korean pit fight between a lion and tiger. This site had spoken to many people who had heard of the film, but, until recently, no one who had seen it. Since second-hand information and rumour is of little use for this article the film is not yet considered evidential. The best information available so far is due to exhaustive work on the part of a viewer. He has managed to track down someone who sighted the film three-years-ago and the information below is courtesy of this gentleman. Attempts are still being made to locate the current whereabouts of the film so as to clarify the information.
The tape was North Korean in origin and presented as a propaganda recording designed to show how strong their animal 'symbols' were against those from other 'forces'. The audio was Korean and there were no subtitles. The holder of the tape had obtained it from a South Korean who provided the propaganda explanation. Assuming it is correct, then the tape was probably either smuggled out of North Korea, or captured, then copied.
*Despite extensive rumours to the contrary the film was not about lions and tigers specifically. It covered a wide variety of animals including the mongoose, snakes, wolves, dogs, and finally, a lion and tiger.
The fight was staged in a caged arena and the tiger is said to have injured the lion's hind leg. This disabled the animal enough for the tiger to apply a hold to the neck, shake the lion, and perhaps break the spine. The tiger suffered some claw and bite marks, but had seemingly gained the advantage from having administered the leg injury.
The website also has comments from a lion/tiger trainer called Clyde Beatty, as well as from the University of Leeds:
Famous tamer Clyde Beatty made his name for working alone in a cage surrounded by forty wild lions and tigers. He is quoted as saying: "I can cite a few instances of male tigers whipping male lions, but I can't think of one such case where the tiger didn't have a distinct advantage. I also recall a case where a tiger had a marked advantage and lost the fight. The lion seems to have no fear of the tiger.
*Expert opinion is that the modern male lion has no equal in the cat world when it comes to his fighting ability. Lions evolved as fighters. Among the pride, their primary job is to protect their females from marauding males who would assume control of the pride and kill any cubs. As a result, the male lion spends the great majority of his time in combat situations. Nature has supported the lion in this, with the evolution of a thick heavy mane for added protection and to intimidate. Moreover, in any fight with a tiger, the lion would have the backing of the entire pride, though it should be noted that pride defence is almost entirely the job of the male lion, and not often assisted by the lionesses. Tamer Dave Hoover once commented: "Lions are the troublemakers, the most dangerous. When the public sees the cats, they always think the tiger is the worst, because a tiger looks bad. He looks sneaky. But, the male lion of the big cats is the worst. The male lion has a pride. He's in charge of a group of females until another male lion runs him off. It could be its own son. But the female lion is under domination. She may make the kill. The male lion comes down to eat, and then the females can eat. It doesn't work that way in humans, but it does work that way in animals."
*In the case of a lion killing another maned male many have learnt to attack beyond the mane, usually at the back of the front leg. This happens particularly in southern areas where the lions have very thick manes. It is a purely learnt behaviour and the tiger would not know this technique, having never needed to use it.
Tigers, historically, are extremely wary of the male lion and this has created problems for some zoos and circuses. * Seated next to a tiger, the lion is composed. The tiger, on the other hand, is usually nervous and apprehensive. The tiger does not seem to have the lion's capacity for calm analysis and appraisal. This puts him at a disadvantage in a fight with a lion." Beatty recalled his experience with a lion named "Sultan the First" who once took on every tiger in his act and defeated them one after another. "It was an amazing performance since my entire entourage consisted of big, young powerful animals. So these were not pushovers that Sultan defeated. This remarkable lion, feinting like a clever boxer and making his opponents miss, would then send the off-balance enemy sprawling across the arena with a tremendous clout." The well-known Clyde Beatty film, "The Big Cage", documents a circus on the verge of bankruptcy. Beatty's attempted performance erupted into a shocking fight which was recorded on film. In the story, Beatty tames the cats and continues in the tradition of 'the show must go on'. Privately Beatty admitted even he had no possible hope of separating the big cats and the lion went on to maul the tiger to death. For over 50 years the scene was thought by viewers to be a well-staged dramatic scene, but is now recognised as a documentary showing an actual killing.
In conclusion, I would say that if it is a Siberian tiger against any lion, I would put my money on the Siberian tiger (but maybe hedge it with a small amount on certain prides of Eastern African and Southern African lions, particularly the swamp lions ....but most of my money, 85%, would be on the Siberian tiger). However, against any other species of tiger, I would put my money on the lion.
By the way, there is an interesting reason why Ligers (hybrid of a male lion and a tigress) are so huge, and why Tigons (hybrid offspring of a male tiger and a lioness) are small. Apparently, the lioness' genetics regulate the size of the cubs developing inside her, primarily because the male lion also tends to have something that will make his cubs grow as big as they can as quickly as they can. Tigresses do not have it. Thus, when a lion and a tigress get together, from the lion's genetics comes the growth spurt but without the tigress having a way to impede it. Result ...a cat larger than any lion or tiger that ever lived. In the inverse, a tiger and a lioness you have no genetics from the male tiger to induce a growth spurt, but the lioness is impeding growth. Result, a tigon, which is smaller than either species. This growth dysplasia leads to huge ligers, but tiny tigons.
Thanks! I was missing a textwall. Glad you found it for me!
The Lion was asking for it.
Maybe, but this guy killed them on foot with a spear:
“The Ottoman Empire disagrees.”
the ottofail empire is failed...
The Ottoman Empire disagrees.
the ottofail empire is failed...
The Ottoman Empire lasted 623 years. Hows yours doing?
“I don’t have an empire.”
You like turkey huh?
“American’s [sic] demonstrating how to fail”
Apostraphes are not used for plurals.
They are used for concatenations: “Turkey is failed” to “Turkey’s failed”
or for possession: “Turkey’s military will shortly be islamic”.
Why did the Lion get the works?
That’s nobody’s business but the Turks.
The quick and the dead.
Grammar policing? Typical for a thought trapped in-the-box young engineer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.