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

Options

peter

Co-owner of Wildfact

2,610 Replies

34 Topics

Joined: Mar 2014

Reputation: 52

#2,068

01-17-2019, 11:27 AM

(01-17-2019, 03:09 AM)paul cooper Wrote:
(01-16-2019, 08:14 PM)Wolverine Wrote:
(01-16-2019, 09:55 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Little question, how many events between tigers and dholes witnessed Mr Anderson?

From the other side, Dr Karanth, Dr Chundawat and others had witnessed more events and in all the cases the tiger dominate. Remember that in these days there are still groups of up to 15 dholes, but the problem is how many are "adults" and how many are large "cubs". I think that Dr Karanth is correct in suspect the event recorded by Mr Anderson.

I do think that a weak/ill tiger/lion can be attacked and maybe killed by packs of dogs, like Mazák stated, but certainly that will not be the norm and modern evidence do not support the old claims.

The fact that Mr Karanth (and Mr Chundawat) has not witnessed personaly a tiger attacked by dholes doesn't mean that such an events have never happened. Such a statement from his side will be a sign a high self esteem and a basically ridiculous. In order to make general conclusions about tiger-dhole relations we need to collect all information in the last 2 centuries from hunters, local people and scientists. Blaming Kenneth Anderson, a man who spent his entire life in the the Indian jungles Mr Karanth became himself vulnerable for accusations. While highly talented stories of Anderson will be read even after century, frankly speaking Karanth texts are one of the most boring and clumsy scientific texts I have ever try to read.

Zoological survey of India, tiger injured by dholes in Kanha, 1963

*This image is copyright of its original author

I think you just made yourself vulnerable for accusations. Karanth, a guy who has been in the field for decades and observed the interactions between the animals, dholes never threatened tigers. And that is all there is to it. Learn what science is. Dholes most likely only attack injured or juvenile tigers.

Wrong. The goal of a debate is to explore the topic in every possible way. Exploration means nothing can be dismissed up front or out of hand.

Is exploration needed regarding tigers and dholes? Most definitely. There are plenty of observations on interactions between dholes and tigers, but I never saw something even close to a good explanation. Interspecific relations between tigers and dholes are not well understood.

We could, as some did, disqualify some sources and opt for one only, but the best way to get to knowledge is to collect as much information as possible and try to find an explanation for what we see. Here's another attempt.

TIGERS AND DHOLES

a - Sources of information

I started with Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhole

Not a great source most of the time, but what I read about dholes was interesting. Apparently, dholes have been around for quite some time. In the Late Pleistocene, they were almost everywhere. Here's a comparison between the Javan dhole and Pleistocene dholes:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Over time, dholes retreated to the eastern part of Asia. According to Velter (see my last post in this thread), 'red wolves' were well-known in the Russian Far East less than a century ago. Today, the Ussuri dhole seems to be gone:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Not too far away (north- and southwestern China and further west), however, dholes are still present. Numberwise, the situation is not good. Like many other species, dholes are walking the edge.

As to the name. In many regions, they were known as 'mad dogs'. This qualification most probably refers to the way they behaved in the recent past. Dholes are very good hunters. The skill and tenacity displayed during a hunt often surprised observers. They were so good at it, that many thought they would destroy everything in reach. For this reason, bounties were paid. Another likely reason many perceived them as 'mad' was the way they opposed large and dangerous competitors like leopards, tigers and bears. Anderson saw them corner sloth bears, leopards and hyenas and chase tigers in southern India less than a century ago.

Although they had a bad reputation everywhere, dholes, as far as I know, never posed a threat to domestic animals and humans. Wolves still kill people in the southwestern part of Asia in particular, but dholes seem to have a clean sheet in this respect. People still fear wolves. For this reason, information about there whereabouts was and is considered useful. Dholes, on the other hand, posed no threat. The result is poor knowledge.

Dholes are not the only canids poorly understood. In Surinam, French Guyana and the northern part of Brazil, Indians told me about bushdogs. Today, there is some info on them, but it still isn't much. Same for wild dogs in Java and Sumatra. I talked to people who spent most of their life in Sumatra. All of them told me about the wild dogs, but it was difficult to find good information about them. The Indian dhole is more visible, but so far biologists more or less missed them.

Most canids are very visible. The result is an impressive series of books and articles. Those who make their home in the forest, however, are not well-known. Same for dholes living in elevated regions in central parts of Asia. These mountain dogs are very elusive as well. The result is no information.

b - Behavior

One of the few who knows a bit about dholes in India is Ullas Karanth. In his experience, dholes today live in smallish packs. Although some of us posted visual evidence of exceptions, small seems to be the general rule today. Dholes still are good hunters moving from one place to another. The problem is competition. In Nepal and India, they face tigers, leopards, Himalayan black bears, hyenas, wolves, jackals, sloth bears, wild boars, different species of small cats and muggers. Humans no doubt also displace them at times.

At 30-45 pounds, dholes are too small to defend their kill from other predators. Furthermore, they are hunted by larger predators. In order to respond to both threats, dholes decided for cooperation and attitude:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24097214?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

An average family group (2-10 individuals) is more than capable to keep most competitors at bay. In spite of their small size, they are also capable to engage quite large competitors. The big cat problem, however, hasn't been quite solved. Although they tree the occasional leopard and even tiger cubs, dholes are still hunted and displaced by adult tigers. Doesn't happen often, but it happens.

Today, biologists say large carnivores dominate smaller carnivores, but a century ago dholes had a different opinion on the matter. Packs were larger and there is no doubt they confronted big cats at times.

But surely these stories about packs of 30 or more dholes are a result of fantasy? I mean, these hunting writers like Anderson would do just about anything to sell a few more copies, wouldn't they? Furthermore, how many examples of exquisit story-telling have we seen in the past?

I agree an opinion is the easiest and quickest way to get rid of stories, but the question is if it would be the correct decision. Let's just assume for one minute that at least some of these stories about dholes and tigers could have been true. If so, it would mean that animals would be able to change their behavior over time. Any examples?

c - Boomgaard on animals changing their behavior over time

Peter Boomgaard wrote 'Frontier of Fear - Tigers and People in the Malay World, 1600-1950'. It was published in 2001. Boomgaard took ten years to read all the old official documents on tiger attacks in Java and Sumatra. During these years, he felt completely isolated. In the end, he produced something of great value. His achievement will not be repeated, as the sources he used have been dispersed. Besides, who would be prepared to read old documents for ten years?

When reading, he noticed that tigers in Indonesia seemed to have changed their behavior over time. Tigers are intelligent animals, but so are all others and carnivores in particular. Interesting read:

*This image is copyright of its original author

d - Interactions between tigers and dholes

Before the internet, we had books and the occasional documentary. Today, we have the internet and You Tube. I've seen quite a few videos featuring tigers and dholes. What did I see?

Dholes are way smaller than tigers. Tigers not only displace them, but also kill them every now and then. Same for leopards. Tigers, leopards and dholes are neighbours. No matter where they go, wild dogs will face tigers and leopards just about everywhere in India. Chances are they will treat them in the same way as in their former neighbourhood. How to respond?

Wolves operate in packs in winter, but not in spring and summer. The result is that wolves have been killed by tigers in the Russian far East. Dholes, however, live in packs all the time. Every pack has sentinels. When an enemy is spotted, the pack is informed. The pack doesn't run, but approaches the enemy. This is needed to get information. During the inquest, individuals approach the cat from all angles to see in what way he responds. When they're sure about the intentions of the cat, they leave him. One or two dholes, however, will keep an eye on the cat.

Every time the cat is close, the dogs will use the same strategy. Every cat responds in a different way to pressure. One individual will respond in an aggressive way, whereas another won't respond at all.

My guess is dholes are more wary of a tigress with cubs than of an adult male. Adult male tigers have large territories and hunt large animals. They're not interested in dholes. A tigress, however, has a much smaller territory. When she has cubs, the territory will be even smaller. If she can kill a wild dog or displace a pack, she will. If she's healthy and aggressive, the dogs might move out for a few months. If the tigress is struggling, the pack will keep an eye on her. Chances are they will harrass her and even visit her den. All this to convince the tigress to move out of the district. In a way, it's an all-or-nothing attitude.

Here's a photograph of a tigress and two dholes:

*This image is copyright of its original author

When a young adult male tiger or tigress settles in a district occupied by dholes, the dogs will visit the newcomer. When it's a tigress, they will try to convince her to move elsewhere. If the tigress is inexperienced or insecure, they will harrass her whenever possible. Tigers don't like to be seen. If they know they're monitored, they often leave.

In lean times, there could be competition for food. Dholes might decide to cooperate with other packs in order to be able to hunt larger animals. Today, most reserves are well-stocked, but a century ago things could have been very different. In southern India, a severe drought might have resulted in starvation and extreme behavior. As social hunters, dholes no doubt suffer more than solitary hunters. In these conditions, they could have decided to defend their kill no matter what or displace leopards and tigers. If they succeeded, chances are they would have tried again. Learned behavior.

When wolves or dholes try to defend their kill or try to displace large opponents, they usually use probing attacks. In some conditions, however, they will not hesitate to fight a bear or a large cat.

I recently saw a documentary about a wolf pack in northeastern Italy on the BBC. In late autumn, close to starvation, they killed a large deer. A big male brown bear appropiated the deer, but he wasn't allowed to feed. The alpha male wolf in particular was very aggressive. He took risks, was injured and died some days later. But the bear left after the incident. Self sacrifice? No. Hunger and despair.

Some of you now doubt saw 'Dynasties', also BBC. One episode is about lions. Two young males were close to starting their own business. When out on his own, one of them entered unknown territory. He was met by the clan. Although he was massive, there were too many. When the end seemed near, his mate suddenly appeared out of nowhere. It was a close call.

Could a pack of dholes injure, displace or kill an adult tiger? Today, it's very unlikely. The packs are too small and tigers are bigger than a century ago. During a serious encounter, dholes would be crippled or killed outright.

In different conditions, behavior can change. When a pack close to starvation has to choose between another energy-consuming long hunt, migration or a confrontation, They could opt for a confrontation.

Big cats are very suited for a one-on-one. They have the weapons, the attitude, the experience and, last but not least, can focus like no other animal. The also know how to attack and get the upper hand. Defence, however, is a different story. When attacked by multiple smaller opponents, they would struggle. A wolf or African wild dog will never attack a big cat, but hyenas and dholes have a different attitude. When they have an advantage, anything is possible.

Adult hyenas have a crippling bite, but dholes don't. For this reason, it would take a long time to convince a tiger. Adult male tigers most probably are out of the question, but I'm not so sure about a subadult or a tigress. If a pack has over 20 members, anything is possible.

e - Kenneth Anderson

Kenneth Anderson wrote dholes operated in large packs up to 30 individuals in the dry season. He saw 6 dholes driving a tigress in front of his eyes. During a brief fight, one dhole was killed. When she heard the main pack closing in, she ran again. Anderson saw the pack. He counted 23 individuals. The tigress was later killed. Including the one killed in front of Anderson's eyes, 6 dholes lost their life in the battle:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Here's one more on tigers and dholes. It seems dholes feared nothing in those days. In the Madras Presidency in particular, they had quite a reputation. I never found anything that compares in other parts of India:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Today, Ullas Karanth no doubt is right. This, however, doesn't mean that Kenneth Anderson was wrong.

In his day, things were very different. Based on what I read, Í think India in 1860, 1900 and even 1930 was completely different from today. In southern India, in the first decade of the 20th century, Wiele walked for weeks without seeing a soul. Tigers at times reached an age unheard of today.

When the British started cultivating wild places, a war erupted between the newcomers and wild animals. Half a century after it had started, not a few hunters still wondered who would come out on top. After the British left India, a period of destruction followed. Tigers barely survived, but other species did not.

Today is the day of humans. Although the human population well exceeded one billion, India still has wild country. Forests are recovering and the number of tiger reserves is still growing. Quite an achievement, I think.

Animals adapted to the new situation. I'm not saying all of them know how to count to ten these days, but they're no doubt different from their relatives a century and a half ago. Different conditions will result in different behavior. But it could change. Today, reserves are smallish and scattered. In a decade or two, however, India could have a few large reserves. My guess is that animals will adapt once again.

f - Two pictures and one link to a study in northern Laos

India - Animals hunted by dholes enter a river. Not seldom, dholes drown them: