Bigcats News

[peter]

TO EDUCATE OR NOT

The question is if behavior of wild animals towards humans can be changed without a rifle or a cage. Although the answer would depend on a number of factors, my take is it could be done in some cases. 

ELEPHANTS

Some years ago, young bull elephants in a part South Africa (could have been a private reserve) behaved in a very atypical way in that they often attacked and killed other large herbivores. Researchers concluded their behavior could have been a result of a lack of adult males and no rules of interaction. As it was too difficult to move a few males into the reserve, it was decided to 'educate' the young bulls in another way. Every time the bulls decided to have a bit of fun, a ranger appeared and told them to quit it in no uncertain way. I thought he used a mike. I never read anything about the effect, but I remember a documentary in which it was stated that the bulls didn't need a lot of time to change their behavior.

TIGERS

Elephants are social animals, which means their behavior can be affected to a degree. Most wild big cats, however, are not. Adults are indivuduals all the way. Individuals have distinct characters and habits. It's impossible to change a character, but habits might be affected to a degree.   

Let's talk tiger. Captive tigers first. Most trainers told me that about one in 6-12 tigers is dangerous. In many cases, it is about dislike. It usually shows right from the start. Over time, the dislike develops. A dangerous individual can be taught to change his behavior to a degree, but it isn't easy. Trainers who gave it a try very often paid. If they didn't, others did. The most effective way to prevent problems is to accept that some individuals can't work with humans. Ever. This means they have to be isolated. Not all dangerous animals are sold to zoos or facilities. The reason is the owner wants to prevent a premature end. For the tiger. The bond between trainers and big cats, even those considered very dangerous, often is very strong.

Based on what I read, my take is it wouldn't be very different in wild tigers. The great majority could co-exist with humans. Behavior very often depends on the situation. If they're not molested and live in a well-stocked reserve, tigers won't be interested in humans. In regions where tigers are hunted, quite many individuals can develop into dangerous animals.

MAN-EATERS

As to tigers who attacked and hunted humans. There are different reasons. Mating tigers can be dangerous. Same for tigers who lost a territorial fight. Some females with young cubs can turn to humans for food. At times, humans present themselves as potential food. There are transients without a farm.

A tiger who has attacked and killed a human before will often repeat the act. In spite of that, confirmed man-eaters are few and far between. Most man-eaters seem to be seasonal workers and even the most notorious of them mix humans with wild or captive animals. All in all, one could say proximity is important. Most attacks happen in regions where humans and tigers live in close proximity. As proximity and opportunity are good friends, many problems can be solved by distance. As simple as that.
 
As to regions in which tigers and humans live in close proximity. The best way to prevent problems is to seperate humans and tigers and be as strict as possible. If a tiger develops into a dangerous individual in spite of that, there are three options. The most easy of these is to take the tiger out. Another option is permanent relocation. The third is to capture the offender and release him or her after a few months. Tigers are intelligent animals, meaning they would get the message quite soon. If not, one could consider other measures.

It seems that at least one Indian State agrees with this solution, as they decided for a different approach regarding dangerous tigers. The decision no doubt is a result of the situation tigers face in quite many parts of India, which is densely populated. The very limited number of wild tigers no doubt also affected the decision.

KENNETH ANDERSON

Kenneth Anderson had very different ideas about man-eaters, but that was in the days India still had many thousands of tigers. One of the man-eaters he tried to take out had an impressive record. After a lot of hard work, Anderson was able to contact him. When the tiger returned to the young woman he had killed close to a railway, Anderson was waiting for him in a hollow tree. He managed to shoot the tiger, but didn't kill him. The male who survived the unslaught, however, decided to change a few things regarding humans and food. Anderson didn't find new reports about missing villagers for a long time. 

But a tiger never loses his stripes and education has its limitations. After a long break, a villager disappeared without a trace in the forest. Same region. Similar beat. Others followed. Not a lot, but enough to get Anderson interested. 

Want to know more? My advice is to buy the Anderson omnibus. There are two parts. Not saying you can get it for free, but it's quite close these days. Anyone even remotely interested in tigers and humans in southern India should give it a thought. This man hunted man-eaters for a long time and he knew a bit about writing as well. He'll take right into the heart of what used to be tiger country. All this for a few dollars. Reply