|
Man-eaters
|
pckts.
In the book "Big Cats Kingdom Of Might" (Look throughout the tiger section) there was a man-eating tigress called "The Champawat" tigress who killed OVER 400 people in a 8 year period, before she was finally tracked and killed by the famed hunter named I think Patterson  (12-21-2016, 04:05 AM)Ba Ba Lou Wrote: pckts. I remember reading about her, what a terror she must of been to those villagers.  (12-21-2016, 05:24 AM)Pckts Wrote:(12-21-2016, 04:05 AM)Ba Ba Lou Wrote: pckts. The Champawat man eater was tracked and killed by Jim Corbett.
Some considerations on the subject:
The feline attacks on humans go back to a long forgotten past. Pre-humans (Australophitecus, Habilis) and archaic humans (Erectus and its variants) lived a dilemma, in my view simple: everything was meat - opportunity made its victims - we were just another animal on its variety menu) . Around 500,000 years ago archaic humans began to change this logic that had hitherto been established. Human behavior in the face of beasts, after two million years of recognized prey behavior, began to compete for food on an equal basis with felines. Led by our collective and organized force, we have come to dominate and subvert this order. When united we are strong, when we are alone we are an easy prey. The animal is born in a world where the fear of humans is taught by the mother. Human pressure dictates all animal behavior, and felines no longer feel free and lords of their time and place. Indian reservations compared to African ones are minuscule. Tigers are increasingly "masters" of ever smaller areas, and the constant presence of the man in his small world leaves him frustrated, distressed, stressed. Any animal that has been a direct victim of man (ecological imbalance, habitat, shooting or simple manipulation of dart for teaching and research) that - depending on his personality - will affect all his behavior in the face of the constant sighting of humans. Not to mention those who witness others being victimized by man. In the last hundred years the fall in their numbers are worthy of true holocausts. Lions today are only thriving in properly enclosed areas, whether public or private. It is good to point out that the Krueger is in fenced park, its fences are being meticulously removed following the project of the great Limpopo. Etosha is in the process of being banned. Lion numbers are increasing (despite being a small, restricted population) in northwestern Namibia and across the Kavango-Zambezi area, in addition, everyone is shrinking. Tanzania is in serious trouble due to poaching and poorly managed trophy hunting. Kenya faces a dilemma: the modification of its status / conservation model established in 1977 to adapt to conservation successes presented by South Africa, Namibia and Botswana. Every human death by felines (tigers and lions) has several contexts: environmental, geographic, ecological, etc. From the point of view of the lion or tiger we are a weak, light animal, without natural defenses (claws, teeth, speed). The only fact that drives these two felines away from humans is fear. We can suggest within these old reports (18th and 19th century) that not knowing, not having imprinted their mothers or proud to be afraid of humans, lead such cats to attacks on humans grouped as tigers and Lions do to groups of herbivores, acting in the same way. It seems to me that in these attacks the feline does not separate the hunting behavior of humans from other animals. Just as a tiger attacks a group of axis, sambar or nilgai deer, being in a group maximizes the opportunity to effectively kill prey. From the point of view of the men who were attacked, despite being in great numbers, he instilled a rationale of madness, insanity, thirst for blood ..... "men-eaters." I remember a movie that shows a solitary lioness hunting in a space of a few hours three gazelles, in a small well with water surrounded by mud in a state of hardening. In light of this, we deduce that even without the need for a lioness, she did not miss the opportunity. The question of whether bodies are partially or totally digested is a matter of hunger, as big cats (say lions and tigers) do not miss the opportunity, the digestion of food will meet purely organic criteria. It is also noticeable that felines with dental problems or other physical problems seek easy prey such as humans. Environments with low prey levels can justify many attacks. We greatly underestimate the sensory capacity of animals as a whole. The unique case of the Russian hunter who was killed near his home, ambushed by a tiger, after being hunted and wounded by the hunter, killed him in an essentially vengeful manner. I believe that the finding of "male eaters" is rooted in many subjective criteria, not in the fact of "choosing by will or desire the human prey as principal." Take the case of Tambling on the island of Sumatra (a private reserve of Mr. Tomy Winata - adjacent to the Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park) is fast not only for its conservation model, but above all for inserting / relocating tigers captured elsewhere Of the island and "identified" as men's eaters. Within its area of 45,000 hectares there is a village with about 200 inhabitants, and to date there are no tiger attacks on humans. Tambling offers: housing, security and plenty of food. This does not exclude the possibility of attacks, yet the human factor is detailed, and nothing can stop a tiger incapacitated / weak / sick from being forced to victimize a human. In Gir National Park there are a large number of would-be caged eaters. Shortly afterwards a court judged a lion and condemned it to the eternity of the cage. In many cases, the identification of the "murderer" meets a purely geographical criterion. As we say: it was the wrong time and place. There are many possibilities for analysis, a very wide range of questions, therefore a fascinating theme of multiple understandings.
Lions thrive in Tanzania (Serengeti, tarangire, selous etc)
"For modern times" It by far holds the largest number of remaining lions and it's one of the few remaining strongholds for them. But they go above and beyond to protect them, the parks are cut off to the public other than safari goers and only the Masai can enter a few places, they are regularly monitored and tourism is high which allows many more eyes than normal. Outside the protected parks is a different story, hunting grounds are all around but the lion density is strong with in the parks so obviously the protected areas are doing their job. I think the terrain of the park also plays a huge role, Selous apparently is more wooded and tougher viewing than the Serengeti and poachers can probably conceal their tracks better compared to a busier park but all and all, I think they are doing a good job of trying to curtail the poaching, not much they can do about the human encroachment outside the park, but that is pretty much the same story anywhere. 
Dietary behaviour of man-eating lions as revealed by dental microwear textures DeSantis & Patterson, 2017
 *This image is copyright of its original author Images of injuries to Tsavo’s 1st man-eater (a), FMNH 23970 and the Mfuwe man-eater (b), FMNH 163109. Image (a), Field Museum of Natural History image Z-94320_11c by John Weinstein documents a broken lower right canine (which had a periapical abscess) and loss of the lower three right incisors - presumably from the kick of a struggling prey - and subsequent over-eruption of the upper right incisors and rotation of the upper right canine both labially and mesially in the absence of the interlocking lower canine. In (b), multiple oval-shaped intraosseous lesions are visible on the right mandible, superficial to an occluded mandibular canal and associated with a chronically draining fistula15. Again, these injuries are consistent with blunt trauma from a powerful ungulate kick. Abstract: "Lions (Panthera leo) feed on diverse prey species, a range that is broadened by their cooperative hunting. Although humans are not typical prey, habitual man-eating by lions is well documented. Fathoming the motivations of the Tsavo and Mfuwe man-eaters (killed in 1898 in Kenya and 1991 in Zambia, respectively) may be elusive, but we can clarify aspects of their behaviour using dental microwear texture analysis. Specifically, we analysed the surface textures of lion teeth to assess whether these notorious man-eating lions scavenged carcasses during their depredations. Compared to wild-caught lions elsewhere in Africa and other large feliforms, including cheetahs and hyenas, dental microwear textures of the man-eaters do not suggest extreme durophagy (e.g. bone processing) shortly before death. Dental injuries to two of the three man-eaters examined may have induced shifts in feeding onto softer foods. Further, prompt carcass reclamation by humans likely limited the man-eaters’ access to bones. Man-eating was likely a viable alternative to hunting and/or scavenging ungulates due to dental disease and/or limited prey availability." 
@Rishi have you heard that famous ancient Indian linguist and grammarian Panini was killed and probably eaten by lion? Do you know any details of that accident? In Wiki is written that the accident was described even in ancient scripture Panchatatra ("simho vyakaranasya karturaharata pranan"):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pāṇini Panini is probably one of the most famous men in history fallen a victim of big cat.  (05-12-2018, 02:35 AM)Wolverine Wrote: @Rishi have you heard that famous ancient Indian linguist and grammarian Panini was killed and probably eaten by lion? Do you know any details of that accident? In Wiki is written that the accident was described even in ancient scripture Panchatatra ("simho vyakaranasya karturaharata pranan"): He lived in 500BC! The area he lived in was teeming with lions back then.
In Ancient India lions were quite numerous, maybe not less numerous than tigers. I red somewhere that after the army of Alexander the Great was leaving India his soldiers during their way back were more than once attacked by marodeuring lions.
Its much later during British Raj when the country became known abroad as Land of the Tiger. (05-12-2018, 05:29 AM)Wolverine Wrote: It's later during British Raj when the country became known abroad as Land of the Tiger. Because by then most of the Northern plains, cradle of Indian civilisation & their home, had been cultivated. The remnants in arid west managed to hold on, but their legacy was over...  (05-12-2018, 05:29 AM)Wolverine Wrote: In Ancient India lions were quite numerous, maybe not less numerous than tigers. I red somewhere that after the army of Alexander the Great was leaving India his soldiers during their way back were more than once attacked by marodeuring lions. I suppose the lions were able to attack in pride and yes I read this story relating the Alexandre the Great's army attacked by lions. And some caravans of goods too. Both acting in prides and being less elusive and discreet than tigers, the lions had to be spoken of them a lot in Ancient India. Nevertheless with the guns and weapons introduction they became easyer to hunt and kill and their slaugther was more massiv because they almost totally disappeared. Same thing happened in Africa during the XIXth century. The lions attacking in prides some cattle herds (think about "Out of Africa" movie), farms, some ostrichs farms in South Africa too. "The lions of Tsavo" by Bruce D. Patterson is also a very interesting both novel and study because this book highlights the legacy of these notorious man-eaters through the particular region in which this story took place... I believe that the man-eaters lions were more "cheeky", because they were able to seek and kill some men inside the camps and villages while the tigers simply waited some men invading their natural habitat. By doing that, the lions were more vulnerable. Perhaps I am generalizing too.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 11 Guest(s) |