Big carnivore vs. small carnivore

BigCatConniseur24

BigCatConniseur24

Well-Known Member
Hello everyone,

I truly hope this post doesn’t offend anyone,as this isn’t my intention AT ALL, I’m just trying to figure something out. I’m just curious and honestly want to know why so many of you on ZooChat prefer smaller, lesser known carnivores (e.g. marbled cat/fishing cat, etc.) over larger, more well known carnivores (Jaguars, leopards, tigers, snow leopards). I mean I’m not here to judge anyone for their opinions, and yes, smaller carnivores (and ALL carnivores) are awesome, BUT you do all do realize that in the wild a leopard or a jaguar will always prevail over a marbled or a fishing cat? You all do realize that, right? I’m not trying to imply or suggest that bigger is better, but I will say that in the wild it is tough to be a smaller carnivore. Anyways, what charisma and appealing characteristics do the smaller carnivores have that the bigger carnivores lack? I honestly don’t understand it. For example, big cats have all the same appeal and charisma that a smaller cat has, but they are also more physically impressive and gifted. They have the ability to not only consume larger prey, but also to fend off other predators (e.g. hyenas), and let’s be honest most smaller carnivores can’t really do either. Anyways, I truly hope this post didn’t offend anyone, and like I said I’m NOT here to judge anyone, I genuinely want to understand why smaller carnivores seem to be more preferred, so that maybe I can emphasize with them more. I hope you guys understand my intentions.
 
Large carnivores are just better represented. The majority of facilities keep a lot of them. Lion, tiger, all the bears are ABC species. It's much rarer for a zoo to have more than a handful of small species and there are also many more smaller species in the world than large ones to see.
I find them more interesting because they are less often represented.
 
I much prefer small carnivores for the same reason as most. Underrepresentation. Small carnivores aren’t as popular as larger ones due to the general public(usually) preferring larger species, so when you see a smaller carnivores it feels more special since they are much rarer. I’d much rather see a civet or a genet over a lion or a tiger, since most zoos have either a lion, tiger, leopard, while civets, genets, linsangs, polecats, rarer small cats & foxes, etc are much more of a treat to see since most zoos tend to not display them.
 
I'm not offended by your post, just a bit puzzled. o_O

The whole "baddass" thing is a bit of a tired cliché and it definitely isn't a metric that figures in my thoughts when finding a species interesting.

Moreover you should also consider that in the anthropocene (the "wild" is rapidly disappearing) it will actually be many of the smaller carnivores that in the end "prevail" through resilience and adaptability to anthropogenic environments and stressors.

In contrast it is likely to be many of the larger species that die off through local or total extinction or linger in zoos or overcrowded national parks (which for all intensive purpose are sort of like zoos anyway).

Foxes, ratels, coatis , mongooses and ocelots are probably going to be the kinds of species that end up prevailing under the conditions our species is creating rather than the lions, bears , wolves or hyenas.
 
Last edited:
I do agree that smaller carnivores are more adaptable to a multitude of different habitats and conditions and they will be more likely to survive than their larger counterparts. And yes, I do also agree that seeing smaller carnivores in a zoo can feel like more of a treat because yes they are underrepresented, so I understand that. I also understand that size, and physical attributes don’t automatically make you “the best (but they can certainly help you consume larger prey and avoid getting killed by another predator). Me personally though, when I’m looking at carnivores there are a few things that I base them off of: 1. How skilled and accomplished are they as a predator (I prefer mammals that are almost exclusively carnivorous), 2. Can they defend themselves or avoid from a larger and more stronger animal. Another factor I take into consideration, are can the animal survive alone (solitary vs. living in a pride/pack). Therefore, based on my own personal criteria I have determined that these are my favorite carnivores:
1. Jaguar
2. Leopard (aside from the Amur Leopard, the Leopard is THE most adaptable of the big cats)
3. Snow Leopard
4. Tiger
5. Cougar
6. Lynx
7. Bobcat
8. Caracal
9. Cheetah
10. Serval
11. Fossa
12. Wolverine
13. Badgers (all kinds)
14. Kodiak Bears
15. Grizzly Bears
16. Black Bears
17. Polar Bears
 
TinoPup said:
Most people don't base their favorite animals on what is "physically impressive". In the same vein, many smaller animals are just as impressive, even if they can't bring down a wildebeest or something.
Click to expand...

I agree and would add that some of the smaller carnivores despite their size achieve the equivalent of bringing down elephants on a weekly basis.

For example consider that the least weasel will regularly bring down prey that is 10 times its size and weight and has one of the strongest bite force of any mammal to boot.

This to my mind makes a weasel just as interesting a mammal species if not more so than an African lion or a polar bear.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top