ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

[peter]

(07-10-2019, 11:49 AM)Shadow Wrote:

(07-10-2019, 09:09 AM)peter Wrote: SHADOW

Some years ago, Guate graduated in business administration. I think he got a job as an assistent-professor at the university where he graduated. Guate, a devouted Catholic, and his wife have a son. As far as I know, they're doing well.

Nothing out of the ordinary then? Not quite.

Guate lives in Guatemala, a country known for issues often overlooked in the western hemisphere. However. Every country has issues. Let's assume I know a bit more about growing up in a place where things directly connected to poverty can be seen at just about every streetcorner. Young people living in a rough neighbourhood able to avoid serious problems are few and far between. Those able to realize a dream can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Guate could be one of them. In my opinion, he should be very proud of himself.         

When he was a student, he joined the former AVA. His posts quickly earned him a reputation in the department of big cats. When AVA was hacked, he joined Wildfact. The tables he posted, all originals, are all over the internet. 

A few months ago, a problem erupted in the tiger thread. Most unfortunately, Guate was right there when it happened. I saw it and had no option but to intervene. He said he would do an explanation.

Explanations take a lot of time, especially when things are complicated. In my opinion, his post was a, somewhat lengthy, attempt to explain a few things, but others might consider it as a kind of apology. Maybe it, to a degree, was. Anyhow. I now consider it a thing of the past.  

GUATE

The attempt to explain the Sankhala-issue, although a bit shady at places, was much appreciated. Took a while, but you delivered and I'm fine with what you offered. In order to prevent new problems, a few remarks do not seem quite out of place. Remember it's not an attempt to restart the debate.  

a - When you debate an issue at a public forum, try to avoid absolutes. The reason is they, apart from the things we experienced (animosity, bans and things like that), often kill the debate. The intention of debates is to explore, not the opposite.

b - Over the years, your posts earned you a well-deserved reputation. The disadvantage of status is people watch you. They will also use you. If you cross a line, chances are others will use it to light the fire. For this reason, members of forums, and those with some kind of status in particular, need to remember they need to act in a responsible way at all times. Posts can be edited, I mean.  

c - Our policy is to post good information. It is about quality in the end, that is. About 11 million views in just over 5 years say this policy is appreciated. The pm's I got suggest some threads attract professionals as well. I'm not saying all of them post, but I'm sure some, at times, do. My guess is they could be interested in issues overlooked or ignored by professionals. Although interesting debates will be appreciated by many, it is about good information. This forum offers those able to find it the opportunity to show it. Originality is appreciated, I mean. In order to enable posters to communicate freely, anything preventing an open and honest exchange has to be avoided at all costs.

d - As to good information, time, development, mammals, knowledge, experts and things like that. The tiger experts you mentioned are the ones who made sure we still have wild tigers in some countries today. The methods they developed produced both knowledge and tools to conserve wild country and wild animals. Compared to those who studied tigers in the fifties and sixties of the last century, they really are experts. But so were those who started from scratch half a century ago. What I'm saying is all of them contributed in some way.

Knowledge produced by scientists is different from knowledge produced by others. Scientific information can be checked. This is not true for information collected by others. Most of what hunters, forest-officers and explorers saw in the 18th, 19th and 20th century suggest mammals like tigers adapt their behaviour over time. If posters want to debate information collected by locals, forest officers, hunters, naturalists, explorers, rangers and biologists in the last 200 years or so, the best strategy to get to insight is to refrain from firm opinions and dismissals.   

e - As to Sankhala. After Independence, India struggled with many problems. Millions perished as a result of conflicts. The situation could have resulted in a collapse and total destruction (referring to the extinction of tigers in a number of countries in southeast Asia), but it didn't. Within two decades, tiger hunting was banned. Not much later, Project Tiger was started. 

I agree it was a team effort, but Sankhala was instrumental. His book, published in 1977, also stood out in many ways. It was one of the first attempts to get to a bit of knowledge on wild tigers. My copy is loaded with notes. Most of these indicate I had doubts on quite a few statements, but in the end it wasn't about that. It was about a man from India who dedicated his life to tigers. He told me about the things he saw and I never forgot it.

Did his character result in a somewhat tense relation with American researchers in the early seventies? Meaby. A result of national pride perhaps? Could be. But most would regard a bit of national pride as normal in a country trying to find its way in a complicated world. The effort to keep it an internal affair also resulted in new generation of researchers who made sure we still have a few wild tigers today. Quite an achievement. Many Indians are proud of their wildlife.

For comparison. If we talk wolf in the Netherlands, many people, local politicians included, cry murder. I'm talking about 2019, not 1819. A few wolves settled, but I wonder about their future. 

Another one.

In the Second World War, 102 000 people perished in concentration camps. Today, 74 years after the event, a monument to remember them will, finally, be build in Amsterdam. Local people living close to the new monument did everything they could to prevent it. Too big, too many visitors, too much traffic, too dangerous, they say. They found a much better location to remember those murdered. But not in their street. Just like back then. The judges disagreed, but many fear we haven't seen the last of it. Compassion? National pride? Ehh, well.   

Tigers, leopards, elephants, snakes, muggers and many other animals living in Wild India today pose a very real threat to humans. It's telling the Indians, in spite of the danger, decided to offer them a home. A result of religion? No doubt. But people like Sankhala assisted. What I'm saying is it isn't about the details. This time, it's about the general picture.            
                
f - As to the stories of Kenneth Anderson on wild dogs and tigers in southern India almost a century ago.

Most of what he wrote was based on what he saw. He witnessed a confrontation between a tigress and a number of wild dogs. He didn't see the second confrontation, but the men who followed the tracks found what was left of the tigress and the dogs she killed in her last fight next day. Anderson himself saw wild dogs cornering and attacking hyenas, sloth bears and leopards more than once. These were not mock attacks to keep their opponents at bay. Furthermore, he heard stories about wild dogs cornering and killing tigers in southern India more than once. Would a man who knew about India, stories and facts decide for stories he might have doubted himself? 

I read everything he published and concluded he compared to Jim Corbett in many ways. Anderson, like Corbett, often visited wild districts. He saw a lot. In the 19th century, forest officers, hunters and explorers also visited wild districts for a considerable period of time. In some of the books written by explorers and hunters, wild dogs were described as fearless hunters. Although they never attacked humans, locals feared them. Not seldom, they called them mad dogs.

In the first decades of the 19th century, a German naturalist and hunter lived in a remote part of Sichote-Alin for a considerable period of time. He wrote the locals distinguished between grey and red wolves. Red wolves were considered more wild at heart. Although they, in contrast to grey wolves, lived close to tigers, he never heard of conficts between Amur tigers and red wolves.         

A few years ago, I visited the second zoo in Berlin. It had many animals not seen in other zoos. The red dogs were different from grey wolves. Although smaller, they seemed much more aware and, in a strange way, present. At first, they made no impression. After a few minutes, in which they completely disappeared and re-appeared out of nowhere, visitors became uneasy. I wouldn't say they saw 'm as a threat, but then they did. Next day, I went there on my own. I talked to a man who knew them. He told me visitors avoided them. Same for the keepers. He was the only one willing to feed them. Elusive comes to mind when I think of them. Out of a different world.  

I'm not saying wild dogs pose a threat to a healthy adult tiger in India. Far from it. Everything we know points in another direction. But today is today and today is very different from a century ago. Humans are all over the place, forests are largely gone, the climate has changed and natural disasters have become normal just about everywhere. Two centuries ago, the situation was very different. In many regions, animals ruled. Who are we to doubt observations and ideas of those who lived in wild regions for years?

I am in that lucky position, imo, that I haven´t participated to any of those forums you mention :) So I don´t know what kind of reputations people here have in different places and truly speaking I´m not too interested. I am interested about wildlife and good information and good discussions. When I see something interesting or odd, I make a comment. I think, that I have agreed and disagreed already with most of people here time to time. Some like, some don´t, but nevertheless when in public forum we all have to accept it, that it can happen both ways. Especially in matters, which can´t be measured in weight or length.

Passion is good thing to have. Same time it has to be remembered, that there is thin line between passion and obsession. When that line is crossed, debates change often very heated up, even ugly time to time. When it happens, all have to go to look at the mirror and take some time. Many debates heat up from reasons, which are in reality irrelevant/indifferent/minor issues.

Sometimes when there isn´t possible to get consensus, it´s better to leave some subjects at some point and move on while accepting that others can think in different way. This "case Sankhala" is clearly one such thing, where different people have different perspectives, no matter what.

But overall I have said, what I think about Sankhala etc. already months ago, so I leave this issue here from my part :)

Good summary of the things that count during a debate, including the remarks on passion, obsession, perspective and mirrors (self-reflection). I propose to move on.

The next post will be on the size of Terai tigers and those from central parts of India. The info is largely from books written a century ago, when tigers were hunted just about everywhere in what was then British India. The difference between then and now is tigers are no longer hunted. This means exceptional individuals, when lucky, now have the opportunity to get to old age.  

Exceptional individuals do not affect averages to the degree often assumed, but they have an effect. Nepal tigers shot before 1940 were a bit longer than those shot in northern India in the same period. Hunting had an effect, because experienced hunters often selected large individuals. Reply