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

[peter]

KENNETH ANDERSON (1910-1974)

a - Life and work

Some decades ago, I bought 'Man-Eaters of Kumaon', written by Jim Corbett. I read it more than once and still remember every story. Later, I bought all other books he wrote. I found it easy to enter his books, because he wasn't a professional writer who indulged in detours. To me, Corbett was a modest man who sat down at night to tell me a true story about something he had experienced a long time ago. What he had seen, was so fascinating that a factual report of what had actually happened would have been just fine. And this is exactly what he delivered time and again.

I read many books written by hunters. Although most are interesting to an extent, not one even came close to Corbett. Not one, apart from Kenneth Anderson. Although he, in contrast to Corbett, enjoyed detours every now and then, his stories about man-eaters he had hunted almost compared to those written by Corbett. I could tell you a lot about his life, but I decided for the brief summary in Wikipedia. To the point, I concluded:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Anderson_(writer)

b - Communication

This is a small detour, but an interesting one. Like most others, I knew and know a few people I respect. Most of these operate(d) in those fields I know quite well. They are, to be sure, not personal friends, but unknown entities who entered my soul at some stage. They didn't stay, but I didn't forget about them. I admit the description is a bit wanting, but it is the best I can do for now.

I've been lucky in that I was able to meet some of them in person. Some of those I didn't meet were interviewed by others. I met most others through their books or their music. In quite many cases, I was deliberately met by people I didn't know. They introduced themselves and we talked. Directness is not a typical Dutch treat. It's typical for people with a purpose. Anyhow.

Most conversations were about things I did or do. Others were about things I'm interested in. All conversations were quite long and after we parted I felt all questions had been answered. What I noticed time and again was all were very direct and to the point. I won't say they operated in the mono-syllable department, but it was close in most cases. This, I concluded, is typical for interaction when both know their business. But is it?

Let's take music. In the style I like, technical skill is much appreciated. Those operating in our Premier League are able to do deliver flawless demonstrations and then some. It takes a lot of talent and years to master an acoustic instrument and produce what is needed at the right moment. For that reason, they take pride in what they do. But those I like best could have delivered their message with their toes, if you understand what I mean. And some actually did. For some reason, they were able to communicate and connect without skill. They had skill, but decided they didn't need it after all. I noticed most of them were raised in a different time. Today is the time of the individual. They're more skilled than before and also know how to play in a band, but quite often seem unable to get to the core of things. The result is they enter my ear, but not my soul. Half a century ago, it was the other way round. I don't know what it is, but I do know it takes a lot of skill to play in a band and really contribute. With skill, to be more accurate, I don't mean the ability to deliver flawless executions. I mean the ability to connect to others and get the best out of them. Your collegues to start with. It's the ability to get the band sound like an individual. Not easy in a time when it is isn't about the team, but the individual. It's not worse than it was. It's different. But I really miss the ability to be there and contribute to real good music without showing your teeth all the time. But I admit I'm not a dentist.          

Same for those operating in other departments. Although I had never saw 'm before and I never announced my intentions, all of them knew I would show up before I actually did. They also knew why I came. Remarkable. Some of the writers I met wrote lengthy books. But every sentence was a hit and they kept it up right till the last one.

I'm not saying everyone involved in mono-syllables is a spiritual giant, but it is a fact that nearly all of those I met, heard or read didn't need a lot of time and room to deliver the message. The lack of words, to be sure, wasn't a result of a lack of interest. Most enjoyed talking to me and many contacted me after we had talked.

To give you an example. One day, I played on a party of someone who, moneywise, compared to Warren Buffett. He came over during a break and told me he was involved in circuses. He knew many trainers and also knew I would be interested (...). I was. He gave me an address and I wrote the trainer I wanted to interview a letter with 10 questions. Months later, I got the answers. The letter had less than a hundred words (...). Some days later, the trainer called from Schiphol Airport. He said he wanted to talk when he would return from a trip. We agreed to meet a few days later, but he never showed. The reason was old age had got him.   

I don't think Corbett or Anderson operated in the mono-syllable department, but every sentence they wrote was a hit. Everything they wrote, so it seems, had purpose. Same, but in another way, for Vaillant. I said 'in another way', because Vaillant doesn't have the first-hand knowledge Anderson and Corbett had. But he clearly knows his business. It shines through the words.

c - Tigers and wild dogs in South India

Most of us probably know about the letter published in the JBNHS a long time ago. The letter about a life and death struggle between a male tiger and a pack of wild dogs in India, I mean. The result was one dead tiger and twelve dead dogs, the 'eye-witness' wrote. The letter was discussed by many. They agreed it probably was a fake. Wild dogs do not seek out tigers and they most certainly do not lose half their number when they can't avoid a confrontation. Recent observations confirm wild dogs avoid tigers in India. 

Case closed then? Not quite. 

Kenneth Anderson had a different view on wild dogs and tigers than most. Although many seem to doubt his stories, it is a fact that his opinions were based on what he saw himself. He also distinguished between what he heard and had seen himself. Here's a few scans of interest:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

I can hear you say that the picture Anderson painted isn't based on an accurate description of an incident he witnessed himself. There are no details and we also don't know if the part right at the bottom of the second scan (" ... I have known of more than one case ... ") is based on what he heard or actually saw. I agree.

The information below, however, is based on what he saw himself:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

There is more. In another book, when describing the animals of the jungle, he again wrote wild dogs, in his day, didn't hesitate to attack leopards and tigers in Chittoor (Madras Presidency). He knew of three cases:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

For me, the information of Anderson is good enough, meaning I believe wild dogs at times attacked tigers in Anderson's day in the Chittoor District in South India. The question is why they did. Anderson wrote wild dogs were intelligent animals. If they attacked tigers every now and then, they probably knew some would perish in the fight. What could have been the reason they decided in favour of the attack? 

Maybe part of the answer is in the description of wild dogs Anderson himself offered. In the hot weather in South India, wild dogs congregated in packs of thirty or more animals. Large packs need large prey animals and they need them at regular intervals. Maybe they killed a few deer in a short space of time and maybe the others dispersed after they witnessed the hunt. This is what many thought in those days. It was the main reason wild dogs were seen as vermin. That was the reason they often were shot on sight.   

If the large packs stayed in a particular part of the forest for a number of days or weeks, herbivores often dispersed. When faced with empty forests, desperation would have been the most likely result. Maybe some desperate dogs followed tigers in order to steal their prey and maybe this is how they learned how to confront them. Maybe some tigers decided to defend their kill and maybe they found out too late they had opened a door they couldn't close. Maybe some packs, after a fight, decided meat is meat. Nearly all carnivores are opportunists and my guess is wild dogs are no different from others.

Let's assume a particular pack learned to hunt tigers. Maybe they met a young animal the first time and maybe they killed the youngster. Every carnivore tries to improve when the opportunity presents itself and maybe the pack that killed a youngster progressed to big tigers. Maybe they succeeded to kill a large tiger a few times and maybe they concluded the benefits didn't quite compensate the losses in the long run. 

There's another possible explanation and that's attitude. Tiger attitude, I mean. Those with first-hand experience agree wild tigers are intolerant of competitors and nosy and noisy neighbours. It apparently doesn't take a whole lot to get into a fight with a tiger. They actively seek out competitors in order to scare or kill them. In Russia, male Amur tigers quite often engage bears. Not to hunt them, but to convey a message. To others. The bears involved, Vaillant wrote, were not the largest males, but they were by no means no small animals either. No animal in its right state of mind would deliberately engage a dangerous animal, but tigers apparently do it quite often. There are many examples.

Some of the fights witnessed no doubt were a result of a predatory attack gone wrong, but most probably were a result of a male tiger seeking out an opponent. Bengt Berg wrote about the Killer of men, who only killed the largest wild buffalos. Ullas Karanth wrote about a male tiger killed by a gaur. This animal apparently was a specialist. Anderson wrote about male tigers, male gaurs and fights. R.C. Morris also did. Many wrote about tigers and wild boars and we also know they at times hunt sloth bears. Male tiger Abu, trying to defend the sambar he had killed, confronted muggers in their element. Elephants never try their luck with tigers and not at all in Assam, where many calves are killed by male tigers following the herds. In northern India, some large male tigers specialize on rhinos. They apparently do not hesitate to attack adult females with calves. Quite many calves are killed each year.

If an animal prepared to fight large animals is confronted by a pack of wild dogs, chances are he would be prepared to fight the pack. Maybe some overplayed their hand and paid, but I do not doubt some would have come out on top. Seen from this perspective, a fight between a pack and a tiger can't be dismissed out of hand.

This is what Anderson had to say about tigers and fights:

*This image is copyright of its original author

  
      
Tigers and wild boars:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Male tiger and male gaur:
  

*This image is copyright of its original author

   

d - Conclusions

Today, wild dogs seem to avoid tigers in India. Half a century ago, things could have been different. In the Chittoor District in southern India, dholes attacked, killed and consumed tigers. Anderson knew of three cases. This also means the famous letter about a fight between wild dogs and a male tiger in the JBNHS can't be dismissed out of hand. I didn't find evidence for incidents in other regions in India. Those who expressed their opinion on dholes and tigers all agreed dholes avoid tigers. Then and now.

The question is why the situation in the Chittoor District was different. Based on the information Anderson offered, it was concluded that wild dogs often congregated in large packs (of up to 33 individuals) in the hot weather in his day. These large packs needed to hunt large animals every few days. As a chase often is a noisy affair, it is likely that those who witnessed or heard an attack would have dispersed. This would have resulted in empty forests and desperation. In times of need, wild dogs could have followed tigers in order to steal their kill. If tigers would have been prepared to defend their kill, a chance confrontation could have resulted in a fight and, at times, in a dead tiger. Maybe this is the reason some packs learned to hunt tigers. A career in tiger slaying, however, would have been quite difficult if every attack, as Anderson indicated, resulted in a number of dead wild dogs for the simple reason the disadvantages (less and less dogs as time progressed) would have outweighed the benefits (a dead tiger) in the long run. Dogs also are able to count. When tiger hunting was abandoned, the knowledge needed to hunt them would have been lost. 

Another reason why confrontations can't be excluded is the attitude of tigers. Those in the know agree wild tigers often are very intolerant of competitors. At times, but more often than one would expect, they engage dangerous animals, like wild boars, bears, leopards, elephants, rhinos and crocs. For this reason, one has to expect that some tigers would have been prepared to defend their kill against wild dogs.           

Today, wild dogs usually hunt in smallish packs. They do not seem to avoid water:

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

When they meet stripes, they usually say hello. Name calling is out of the question, especially when her majesty is too close for confort and in her prime. The situation, therefore, is back to normal:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply