Man-eaters

[Matias]

Some considerations on the subject:

The feline attacks on humans go back to a long forgotten past. Pre-humans (Australophitecus, Habilis) and archaic humans (Erectus and its variants) lived a dilemma, in my view simple: everything was meat - opportunity made its victims - we were just another animal on its variety menu) . Around 500,000 years ago archaic humans began to change this logic that had hitherto been established. Human behavior in the face of beasts, after two million years of recognized prey behavior, began to compete for food on an equal basis with felines. Led by our collective and organized force, we have come to dominate and subvert this order. When united we are strong, when we are alone we are an easy prey.

The animal is born in a world where the fear of humans is taught by the mother. Human pressure dictates all animal behavior, and felines no longer feel free and lords of their time and place. Indian reservations compared to African ones are minuscule. Tigers are increasingly "masters" of ever smaller areas, and the constant presence of the man in his small world leaves him frustrated, distressed, stressed. Any animal that has been a direct victim of man (ecological imbalance, habitat, shooting or simple manipulation of dart for teaching and research) that - depending on his personality - will affect all his behavior in the face of the constant sighting of humans. Not to mention those who witness others being victimized by man. In the last hundred years the fall in their numbers are worthy of true holocausts. Lions today are only thriving in properly enclosed areas, whether public or private. It is good to point out that the Krueger is in fenced park, its fences are being meticulously removed following the project of the great Limpopo. Etosha is in the process of being banned. Lion numbers are increasing (despite being a small, restricted population) in northwestern Namibia and across the Kavango-Zambezi area, in addition, everyone is shrinking. Tanzania is in serious trouble due to poaching and poorly managed trophy hunting. Kenya faces a dilemma: the modification of its status / conservation model established in 1977 to adapt to conservation successes presented by South Africa, Namibia and Botswana.

Every human death by felines (tigers and lions) has several contexts: environmental, geographic, ecological, etc. From the point of view of the lion or tiger we are a weak, light animal, without natural defenses (claws, teeth, speed). The only fact that drives these two felines away from humans is fear. We can suggest within these old reports (18th and 19th century) that not knowing, not having imprinted their mothers or proud to be afraid of humans, lead such cats to attacks on humans grouped as tigers and Lions do to groups of herbivores, acting in the same way. It seems to me that in these attacks the feline does not separate the hunting behavior of humans from other animals. Just as a tiger attacks a group of axis, sambar or nilgai deer, being in a group maximizes the opportunity to effectively kill prey. From the point of view of the men who were attacked, despite being in great numbers, he instilled a rationale of madness, insanity, thirst for blood ..... "men-eaters."

I remember a movie that shows a solitary lioness hunting in a space of a few hours three gazelles, in a small well with water surrounded by mud in a state of hardening. In light of this, we deduce that even without the need for a lioness, she did not miss the opportunity. The question of whether bodies are partially or totally digested is a matter of hunger, as big cats (say lions and tigers) do not miss the opportunity, the digestion of food will meet purely organic criteria. It is also noticeable that felines with dental problems or other physical problems seek easy prey such as humans.

Environments with low prey levels can justify many attacks. We greatly underestimate the sensory capacity of animals as a whole. The unique case of the Russian hunter who was killed near his home, ambushed by a tiger, after being hunted and wounded by the hunter, killed him in an essentially vengeful manner. I believe that the finding of "male eaters" is rooted in many subjective criteria, not in the fact of "choosing by will or desire the human prey as principal." Take the case of Tambling on the island of Sumatra (a private reserve of Mr. Tomy Winata - adjacent to the Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park) is fast not only for its conservation model, but above all for inserting / relocating tigers captured elsewhere Of the island and "identified" as men's eaters. Within its area of 45,000 hectares there is a village with about 200 inhabitants, and to date there are no tiger attacks on humans. Tambling offers: housing, security and plenty of food. This does not exclude the possibility of attacks, yet the human factor is detailed, and nothing can stop a tiger incapacitated / weak / sick from being forced to victimize a human.

In Gir National Park there are a large number of would-be caged eaters. Shortly afterwards a court judged a lion and condemned it to the eternity of the cage. In many cases, the identification of the "murderer" meets a purely geographical criterion. As we say: it was the wrong time and place.

There are many possibilities for analysis, a very wide range of questions, therefore a fascinating theme of multiple understandings. Reply