Animal trainers

[peter]

LIONS, TIGERS, FIGHTS AND TRAINERS - V

j2 - Facing the big cats (continuation)

More than once, Beatty was forced to find big cats that had escaped. Finding them often wasn't the problem: big cats never lose sight of the food problem and, for this reason, " ... never stray too far from what they know to be a dependable source ... " (pp. 42). Confronting and outbluffing them, however, was a different matter. On his own, he outbluffed a very clever and cunning tigress ('Gracie'); a tough male tiger who had removed the iron bars (...) of his cage ('Pep'); a large male Amur tiger very interested in donkeys ('Monarch'), and the 'brainiest' tiger he ever had ('Big Ross'). This Einstein, on his way to a very interesting hippo, was beaten with a spade when he came for Beatty. He immediately called it a day. Beatty wrote he hit him hard enough to stun him, but not with sufficient force to " ... injure that unusual brain of his that was capable of such brilliant analysis ... " (pp. 63-68).

j3 - About lions, tigers and preference

When I read the book, I often was puzzled by Beatty's remarks on lions and tigers. Preference is part of human nature, but in his book it is quite outspoken. Compared to the rest of the book, it doesn't fit. My guess is there could have been a bit more to it than preference. A few examples of what I mean.     

Lions, unlike tigers not involved in escapes, used most of their energy to question those who had the audacity to share the arena with them. Although he didn't actually say it with so many words, the number of fights must have been such that Beatty decided to remove the lionesses from his 'wild act'. Tigresses, however, were not included:

" ... Oddly enough, I have never found it necessary to dispense with the tigresses in my act for similar reasons. I use male and female tigers in the arena today as I did thirty years ago. The striped cats seem to have inhibitions that the less self-conscious lions do not have, and they reserve sexual relations for the privacy of the cage ... " (pp. 102).

The book was published in 1965. I don't know when it was written, but in the quote Beatty says he had had thirty years of experience. This means he knew that many tigresses used in his mixed act had been killed. It is beyond me why an experienced trainer concluded there was no reason to remove the tigresses from the act, when he knew that dozens had been killed by the brotherhood during the countless fights Beatty had witnessed. I also don't understand why a man who wrote he loved animals never missed an opportunity to inform the public about the number of tigers killed by lions.

When he was building a new act, Beatty bought a 6-year old male lion raised in Africa. The one who sold him told Beatty it was a 'monster'. Beatty ignored the warning and used him for the new act. He kept him under control for some years, but the lion later went berserk and killed two tigers. Why, I wonder, buy an adult male lion known for his disposition and use him for an act that has tigresses when you know that male lions will try to kill them at every given opportunity?     

Those capable of getting to statements on wild and captive tigers agreed that tigresses are very devoted mothers. They are known to be more than just a bit wary regarding strangers showing an interest in the cubs. When I was in the Berlin Tierpark this year, many visitors went to see the four cubs of the Amur tigress. They, however, kept their distance, because all knew the tigress, more than once, had made impressive demonstrations in the last months. On the cage, for this reason, was a strong warning to stay away from the bars. To write, as Beatty did, that a lioness is a better mother than a tigress, is very strange. It is the only remark of that nature I read and it strongly opposes all others.

In another chapter, Beatty wrote that tigers, if they don't achieve their purpose in the early stages, " ... give up ... ". This, he continues, is " ... typical for tigers. The lion is different. Once he commits himself to an attack, he is far more determined and much harder to shake off ... " (pp. 184).

The trainers I interviewed, however, agreed that attacks of tigers usually are not the result of impulses. Many, if not all, are planned. This is the reason they often are very reluctant to abandon an attack. Tigers attacking other animals often do so because they dislike them. This observation, oddly enough, was confirmed by Beatty when he wrote that the fued between male tigers 'Prince' and 'Frisco' developed into " ... the bitterest fued between two animals I can recall ... " (pp. 220).

One more to close this paragraph. Beatty, more than once, wrote male tigers, apart from a few exceptions in which they had a distinct advantage (pp. 286), are no match for male lions. The reason is a male tiger " ... does not seem to have the lions capacity for calm analysis and appraisal. This puts him at a disadvantage in a fight with a lion ... " (pp. 288). In a fair fight between a male lion and a male tiger, the lion " ... would win through a combination of superior power and tactics designed to get the tiger to wear himself out. The lion would fight calculatingly, and one of his objectives would be to conserve his strength ... " (pp. 289).

Maybe Beatty had exceptional lions, but to state, in a book at that, that a male tiger, as a general rule, doesn't stand a chance in a fight with a male lion is quite exceptional.

j4 - Contradictions

Nearly all trainers I interviewed had worked with bears and big cats. Most thought that bears, although they overplay their hand at times, are very intelligent and tough animals. They also were considered very capable in a one-on-one. Maybe even more so, I later concluded after reading the interviews again.

Judging from the chapter in which they feature ('Before they trusted me with lions and tigers', pp. 236-260), Beatty definitely agreed. But he also wrote they, to put it mildly, would struggle against tigers. Make that tigresses.     

In his mixed act, he used four Russian brown bears. They entered the arena before the tigers did and would often reach out for them:

" ... Not until they were clawed a few times did my Russian quartet become aware of the dangerous potentialities of the animals they had treated so lightly. The bears and tigers grew to hate one another. There was a continual growling and snarling when they were in the arena together. Bill (a large male Russian brown bear) was becoming a moody Russian by reason of three successive paw-cloutings and nippings administered by Nellie, a tigress that had no use for bears and made no bones about it. Bill never had a chance to get back at Nellie, but he had a fine opportunity one day to avenge himself on Lil, the other tiger in the act, and he took advantage of it with surprising speed and effectiveness ... " (pp 249).

Tigress Lil, as a result of a mistake of a cage boy, toppled from her seat to the floor. Bill immediately took advantage of the situation:

" ... Needless to say, the bear had a tremendous advantage in this brief encounter, but the occurrence astonished me none the less. While Bill was sure to have a big early edge when he attacked under the circumstances described, the chances were a hundred to one against his quickly getting that unbreakable hold. If he didn't succeed, he was a goner, for tigers are lightning fast and Lil would have quicky brought her claws and teeth into play and made an end of that over-ambitious bear ... " (pp. 249).

So what do we have? A trainer who had worked with many bear species amazed to see a large male Russian brown bear able to survive an encounter with a tigress. An encounter that was a non-encounter because the bear had every advantage one can think of. He attacked her when she had crashed to the floor and got a hold that was good enough to kill her. If he hadn't succeeded, he, judging from the quote, would have been " ... a goner ... " (pp. 249). 

So now, suddenly, the 'lightning speed' of tigers, according to an experienced bear trainer, would have been instrumental in that it most probably would have resulted in a quick end for an animal considered as tough as any of the male big cats, if not more so. But the 'lightning speed' speed of tigers made no difference in a fight with a lion, as tigers have no clue about 'tactics' and 'calm analysis'.

Although he strongly suggests that even a tigress is more than able to cope with a big male brown bear in a one-on-one (which counts if we know that Beatty was experienced with bears) and although he underlines it was a freak incident in which the bear had a 'tremendous advantage', Beatty presents the death of the tigress, disadvantaged by a mistake of one of his cage boys (meaning Beatty didn't take his responsabilities as a trainer very serious), as something worthy enough to include in his book.

Am I the only one who noticed double standards (in more than one way) of a sloppy man (not checking the work of the cage boy) contradicting himself on more than once occasion? A man who also indulged in creating circumstances not favouring tigers (see the previous paragraph) and, on top of that, took his time to describe, in detail, how a tigress severely disadvantaged by his slops met with her end? Another tigress?

I can only get to 'new dimensions in preference', but before we start on conclusions I propose to go to those who, experiencewise, might have compared to Beatty. Reply