The Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae)

[peter]

ON THE VINDICTIVENESS OF TIGERS

Very interesting post and good questions, Phatio. As to the rumours on the alleged vindictiveness of wild tigers molested by humans. The books and reports I read suggest there's a bit more to it than many assume. In this post, a few words on what is known. 

a - Sumatra and India 

Most old books in which Sumatran tigers feature have some information on the way tigers and humans interacted a century ago. Back then, Sumatra was a very wild place. In spite of the numerous animals capable of inflicting serious damage, incidents indicative of a kind of warfare between wild animals and humans, apart from the occasional man-eater, were few and far between. Those who wrote about their experiences agreed dangerous animals were respected and left alone by their human neighbours. And the other way round. 

After Indonesia became independent, it was decided to populate Sumatra. Most of the immigrants (from Java) knew next to nothing about the natural world. They also had a different culture and not seldom faced poverty. In the period they cultivated Sumatra, conflicts with wild animals, and tigers in particular, were quite common. 

The reports I read suggest tigers in Sumatra responded in a different way than tigers in India. In some regions of India, there was a state of war for quite some time. According to some Forest Officers and hunters, the battle was quite even. So much so, they were unsure about the outcome. Although many succumbed, the war didn't seem to have a 'personal' character. If anything, it was about business. Tigers treated humans and their domestic animals as just another source of food. One could say they adapted to the new situation in a quite, ehh, practical way and be close.

In Sumatra, the situation compared in that the immigrants and the locals (referring to tigers) competed for space and resources. Although some tigers, like their relatives in India, developed into specialists (referring to man-eaters), the war seemed to have a different character. I read many books, articles and letters about the struggle in India, but never saw anything suggesting tigers targeted a specific individual or a specific village. In Sumatra, they, to a degree, did.   

The war between humans and tigers in Sumatra seemed to have, and still has, a very local, if not 'personal', character. What I read suggests Sumatran tigers, although anyone involved in the transformation of Sumatra is considered a 'legal' target, selected those ignoring the old code or involved in crime in particular. Some of the reports published after, say, 1960, point towards what we would consider to be a conflict between neighbours. Not a few incidents seemed to have a selective, if not personal, character.  

The question, as you said, is how did tigers knew who was responsible. Another question is if Sumatran tigers, 'solitary' animals like all other wild tigers according to those who know, really are able to 'contact' other tigers in order to 'discuss and solve a problem' with their human neighbours. Is it true these 'coalitions' consist of independent adults or were family members involved? Could these 'coalitions' compare to battlegroup with a specific target? Is anything known about the results of what seems to be a kind of guerilla warfare?
 
b - Russia 

There are many rumours about the vindictiveness of tigers molested by humans in Russia. Vaillant did a case study. He wrote an interesting book about a male tiger wounded and robbed by a hunter. The tiger was shot, but survived. When he had recovered, he decided to get even. Everything Vaillant knew pointed towards a deliberate decision. According to those who knew him, the psychological warfare had an effect on the hunter in that he felt demoralized, if not doomed, before he was killed and eaten. 

Although not a biologist or an authority on wild Amur tigers, Vaillant knows about the natural world. Before writing the book, he did a lot of research. He knew everything one would want to know about the incident described in his book. It's one of the first books in which the interaction between a human and a wild animal is described in detail. It's also one of the first books based on facts and interviews with those in the know.  

Although some biologists seem to have some doubts about the conclusions on what seems to be 'vindictiveness', others have a different opinion. It doesn't seem superfluous to underline there is quite a difference between darting a tiger in order to collect information and robbing and wounding a tiger. 

My guess is tigers know. They seem quite capable in the department of reasoning and also know how to communicate. More than once, they informed biologists about the disadvantages of Aldrich foot snares. My guess is the message was received. I don't know if Aldrich foot snares are still used, but I do know the number of tigers captured in that way has decreased.   

Anyhow. Miquelle isn't the only one who concluded Vaillant produced something of interest.     

c - Conclusions

Based on the book of Vaillant and the reports from Sumatra, one could conclude the rumours on the alleged vindictiveness of wild tigers pushed out of their home or molested by humans do not seem to be entirely unfounded. There seems to be a difference between Sumatra and Russia in that Russian tigers operate on their own, whereas Sumatran tiger sometimes seem to prefer cooperation. In both regions, tigers appear to select those involved in crimes. Crimes against tiger societies, that is. Their relatives in India, on the other hand, seem to have a more, ehh, general approach towards humans. 

My guess is the time for a debate has arrived. Reply