There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
03-23-2016, 08:45 PM( This post was last modified: 03-23-2016, 08:48 PM by peter )
(03-23-2016, 05:09 AM)Shardul Wrote: Malaria infestation kept the terai animals safe for a long time. Plus the rich prey base might have played a part in making large tigers.
Only after malaria was conquered, human habitation followed. Tigers in northern India, but outside the Terai did not have such luxury and were easy targets.
Although tigers In Nepal and northwestern India are very similar, Nepal male tigers shot between 1900-1940 were about 2 inches longer than male tigers shot in northwestern India in that period. Malaria most probably wasn't the reason, as it was common in both regions. This means there had to be another reason.
The only explanation I found was hunting pressure. Nepal tigers could not be hunted without a permit. Only few hunters got one and the result was that tigers were not hunted at all in some regions. In northwestern India, however, tigers were hunted all the time. An indirect confirmation of this conclusion can be found in Nepal itself in that regions where tigers were not hunted at all, like Chitawan, were distinctly longer than in regions were they were hunted every now and then.
If you want to know about the effect of hunting, read the tables I posted again. In males, the difference overall was 2 inches. In regions were tigers had not been hunted at all for a considerable period of time, the difference was close to 4 inches.
As to the effect of unhealthy conditions. Malaria was common in many regions in India in those days. It affected farmers, but hunters interested in tigers were prepared to take the risk more often than not. Cholera, however, was a different matter. The reason is it was more dangerous. In the period 1900-1940, some regions in Nepal suffered from severe outbreaks of cholera.
Talking about malaria. In the sixties of the last century, India decided to cultivate wild country in the northwest (close to Nepal). In order to get there, malaria had to be eradicated. Swamps disappeared and unhealthy forests were cut. As a result, herbivores moved out of the region. Tigers, facing empty stores, had no option but to turn to humans. The outbreak of man-eating was a direct result of the decision to clear the country. An American researcher working for an American-funded institute wrote a story about the consequences. I'll try to find it.