Dholes (Cuon alpinus)

[smedz]

(02-04-2019, 04:02 AM)Shadow Wrote:

(02-04-2019, 03:32 AM)smedz Wrote:

(02-04-2019, 03:07 AM)Shadow Wrote:

(02-04-2019, 02:59 AM)smedz Wrote:

(02-04-2019, 02:44 AM)Shadow Wrote:

(02-04-2019, 01:13 AM)smedz Wrote:

(02-03-2019, 11:08 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(02-03-2019, 10:36 PM)smedz Wrote:

(02-03-2019, 09:34 PM)Rishi Wrote:

(02-03-2019, 08:39 PM)smedz Wrote: ...if people begin to fear something, naturally they want it gone. So I think many hunters and hunting guides like those shakari's made those tales not to make tigers look bad, but to give Dholes a bad reputation.

People are not afraid of dholes. There's literally been no cases of them attacking people. It's the opposite actually.
Read ahead, about prey take refuge with humans as the packs waited distance & watch the documentary "The Pack" that posted for then giving up hunt white people are around (don't skip through the informations gathered in threads. Go through those first)

They persecution of them were mostly due to their killing livestock gestating in forests.

I was talking about the past, not the present, I already knew Dholes fear people and I have seen that documentary. They got that fear after being persecuted by people for a long time. Just hear me out, back then, tigers were known to become maneaters just as they do today, that obviously made people fear them. Now since hunters, (not including Anderson) blamed Dholes for killing loads of game because apparently they didn't realize Dholes and their prey have coexisted just fine for millions of years, just like hunters in modern times. I do think some people wouldn't like the mass killing of Dholes, but if hunters got many people to believe Dholes were ruthless and bloodthirsty, that could have made those people think Dholes deserved to be exterminated. If they made stories about tigers of all things being killed by Dholes, that could have made some people fear them because if they could do that to a tiger, they could do that to a person, not that they'd actually do that. Hunters where I live have done something rather similar, they convinced some people that coyotes deserve to be killed, which they don't. Some people even fear coyotes thanks to what hunters tell them. So I can see something similar happening back then, only that it became illegal to kill dholes, and now people (in India at least, locals in Thailand think Dholes are overabundant and kill off all the deer which is bullcrap) know better, and Dholes, just like in the past, fear humans and have never attacked a person. But I do think some people in India think Dholes would, but thankfully most locals don't.

In the past dholes were persecuted to protect livestock and British wanted to kill those because they thought, that it kills too much game animals. I have never seen mentioned, that people would have been afraid of dholes to threat to people.

And if so, then logical explanation would be horror stories how dholes catch and eat babies and little children, not tigers. But if you have some observations, that people have been afraid of dholes as threat to humans, please share your source. Maybe I and others have missed something? Rishi is from India and some others, they have never mentioned anything like that.

Still these people who have observations about these fights have never mentioned, that people would be afraid dholes as threat to humans. Dhole has reputations as a very efficient predator, which terrifies prey animals and sometimes challenges even tigers and fight in very fierce way. But I have never seen, that they would have been accused as man eaters. So I think, that you write now purely your own speculation based on nothing else than your personal thinking. Or?

Relax, it was just a theory. Still, I still do think that hunters tried to give them a bad reputation, making people think Dholes deserved to be eradicated. You want a source, I've got one here on Anderson.  

http://frontline.thehindu.com/static/html/fl2706/stories/20100326270609400.htm.  
Also, I've been around hunters for pretty much my whole life, so you better believe I know how they think, especially when it comes to predators.

I don´t find from your source any mentioning about made up stories about it, that dholes would be dangerous for people and that´s why those shoud be killed. Anderson and some others have exaggerated things concerning tigers most probably, because it was a very wanted target for trophy hunters. I do agree, that many observations about man eating tigers and some other things about tiger strength etc. are quite questionable. So why on earth would same man/men undermine reputation of their... should I say "hero"?

Well, no need to answer, everyone can only guess that. Luckily we have also people like Sankhala and other biologists, not only colonial hunters.

I posted that because if people who knew him say he exaggerated about the animals he killed, that kinda says a lot about him, and if that was the case, then he could have easily have made up those stories.

Anderson is luckily only one of many sources. Btw, from your link this quote:

"Mahesh Rangarajan writes in his introduction to the first volume of The Oxford Anthology of Indian Wildlife: “Given the incredible diversity of terrain and habitats in India, hunting can now be seen – ironically – as one way of knowing the country. There were indeed many insensate killers. At the same time, some had a keen sense of natural history, an eye for detail, and even an appreciation of the wild.” (Two of Anderson’s stories form a part of this anthology, along with two of Corbett’s). In another place, Rangarajan writes about Anderson’s works: “His descriptions of animal behaviour are excellent, the drama of woodland life being of keen interest to him.”"

Look at who is Mahesh Rangarajan. Quite interesting, that he say that. There is some criticism about exaggerations what comes to hunting by Anderson, but actually they praise him also quite a lot about other things and his knowledge too But nice to notice, that also his criticizers give him also credit. This actually raised his value in my eyes a little bit from what it was earlier.

Not sure how the description on Dholes is excellent, especially when in over 50 years of scientific studies there isn't a single case of Dholes killing an adult tiger, and none of the studies done really even support them being true. Just because he said those events happened doesn't mean they actually did. In that source, S. Theodore Bhaskaran, a film historian and wildlife conservationist feels that literature like Anderson's are exaggerated accounts and that instead, people should read authentic accounts of the forest written by other people. So, still not believing Anderson here.

And that is exactly why some of us here are now trying to find all possible sources there are :) Not only Anderson, he is only one piece of puzzle. But because this process is still ongoing interesting to see what more can be found. I think, that there is still more to be found :)

If I were you, I wouldn't trust Anderson one bit, the tales just seem way to suspicious to accept them just like that. When there are a good number of experts who don't believe in those stories, then why should I believe the stories myself? Reply