WildFact
›
General Section
›
Debate and Discussion about Wild Animals
Eyes on or hands on? A discussion of human interference
Eyes on or hands on? A discussion of human interference
|
Eyes on or hands on? A discussion of human interference
|
IMHO, this absolutely valid debate is simply whether or not the species-wide rewards obtained through trapping, tranquilizing etc. outweigh the real risks (as effectively shown by Pckts) to the individual animal.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." -Spock 
As simple as that.
But arguments, most unfortunately, quickly disappear when ego's take over. The most common result is a shoot-out. Then mods need to step in order to clean the room and warn those involved. As disputes erupted a bit too often in the last months, it was decided to add a few more rules. As for the comments you and PC added in the section on rules. Members usually get interested in rules after the event. Those involved usually don't think they apply to them. When addressed, they cry murder. PC has contributed to the forum and earned a lot of credit for this reason, but rules apply to all and there's no room with a view over here, let alone roomservice. I told Waves and I do not distinguish between members in this respect. If we forget about rules, chances are disputes will erupt and when that happens, problems need to be addressed. Not a nice job, I can tell you. It usually takes a long time to get the message across. I, by the way, agree debates are about opinions and using facts at the right time, but disagree with the way in which many evade the consequences. The aim of the forum is quality. In order to get there, we need rules, good moderation, skilled debaters and, above all, good members posting good info. I admit I like to read good posts every now and then. Talking about posting. I can't remember your contributions, Siegfried. This although you seem to know your business. I also noticed you pop up in the most unexpected places at the right moment. Interested in your response.
Thank you. While I would definitely consider myself more of a reader of animal information than a provider of such, I do try to search out interesting photos, videos, and will only occasionally add some commentary. I generally leave the major contributions to those more knowledgeable in these topics.
 (06-20-2015, 09:52 PM)'Apollo' Wrote: The video is graphic. Its very sad, but lets flip the script. Ask the Tigers family how they feel about the constant bombardment of humans on their territory, harrassing them, blocking them in, how do they feel now that their Guardian is gone, how will the mother feel if the cubs are killed? We have a voice, we use it, they don't so in turn, we get the only say. Why not explain the fact that Ustad has been tranq'd numerous times, collarred, harassed? He is not a family dog, he is the ruler of the Jungle, I feel very sad for the forest guards and families but that is a risk they take doing the job they do. Tigers are not domestic, lions are not domestic, they are WILD, they behave as such. We don't like their behavior, we remove them? How many tigers have we killed? Where is the uproar for all the Tiger murderers, where is the imprisonment of all the Legal hunters, where is the $, Time and energy vested in tiger protection compared to human protection? Maybe Ustad Had to go, maybe he was becomming a man killer, maybe he only targeted Forest Dep't officials, all of this is uncertain. What is certain is that the most infamous man killer in Ranth, was captured, collared, tranq'd and constantly harrassed for his life. Did we drive him to this or was he a black sheep? Until we look at what we're doing to them, we don't have the right to pass judgement unless we do it on ourselves as well. A side note, Ustad is now being moved to a public viewing Zoo so the India Gov't can now make money on this "man killer" Odd to see how that worked out [img]images/smilies/dodgy.gif[/img]
PC
Tigers and humans don't mix, not in wild India and not in captivity. Not saying all tigers are dangerous for humans, but in captivity 1 in 12 is (in my opinion the percentage is way higher) and one has to assume wild tigers are no different from captive tigers. If anything, they could be more dangerous. The only way to prevent problems is strict separation at all times. This is where problems start. Wild tigers first. India has well over a billion humans. If they want to keep wild tigers, they will have to select reserves and remove humans from the reserves and the fringes. A difficult and costly affair which also will often result in animosity and conflict. The goal can't be achieved everywhere in India. As a result, there are human-tiger interactions in some places. Most tigers will avoid humans, but not all. People are killed every year and it will never change if separation can't be implemented. The only reason tigers in other Asian regions kill less people is more room and less people. As soon as conflicts over territory start, like in India and Sumatra, casualties will be the result. Tigers will lose all conflicts, but people will get hurt as well. Every time it happens, tigers lose support. As for captive tigers. Although many know about the risks, those involved often refuse to accept the consequences. The reason is familiarity. Some treat big cats as their peers and others treat them like pets. I've seen it time and again and always wondered why so few get injured. In the rescue centre I visited every now and then, a keeper in love with a tigress was bitten when she had to be moved to another cage. The result was anxiety. They showed me the wound. The tigress could have taken the arm right off, but didn't. She administred a warning to the one who thought they were friends. Self control of an animal able to kill animals way larger than itself. In the UK, John Aspinall encouraged close contact between keepers and animals. In some animals, it worked. To a degree. But in others it didn't. Keepers knew which animals were not that interested. But they couldn't do much. Accidents often are announced weeks before they happen. One day, a reluctant Amur tigress killed a keeper in Aspinall's zoo. They didn't kill her and continued the good work. Until another keeper was killed. The tigress was shot. Three dead for no reason at all. I know about exceptions to the rule, but that's what they are. Some trainers will never get hurt. They are special and really know about animals. The ones they're close with are exceptions as well. All others have to be treated with respect and respect is distance. Good trainers know and act on it. India is a special place. I respect the Indians for their willingness to mix 1,2 billion humans (my neighbour, who'se Indian and visits the country often, says the real number is way higher) with wild animals and act accordingly. But strict separation can't be achieved in all reserves. It's just impossible with so many people. Ranthambore in many ways is an island. Wildlife is doing ok, but villages surround the reserve and poor people will enter when they have no other option. One day, things will go wrong and they know. It happened more than once and it will happen again. What to do? In Ranthambore, tigers have no option but to adapt to villagers feeding their cattle in the park every now and then. They also need to adapt to tourists trapping them in their jeeps at times. And they have to adapt to rangers. Most tigers respond, but villagers are attacked when wrong place, wrong time and wrong tiger meet. One day, a tiger will attack a jeep and the people in it. When accidents happen, tigers often get the benefit of the doubt. In a reserve, they should. But it is also known that a tiger who crossed a limit often will do it again. There's no question whatsoever that T-24 crossed limits. There's also not question it was him and not another. I've read a few things and saw pictures about the tiger that was removed. Tiger T-24 inspected the ruins in Ranthambore as a director, not as a visitor or tourist. There's no question he was ready for a challenge. In the village he visited, he made it known that it was part of his territory. Same for the roads he used. Anyone in his territory not paying his respects would be regarded as a challenge. Furthermore, one has to remember that every creature making his home in the territory of a tiger has to pay a fee. All were on the list and therefore fair game, humans included. The problem is he included humans, as it meant he had crossed bridge that shouldn't be crossed. We all know the situation in Ranthambore isn't going to change. For this reason, tigers have to adapt. T-24 didn't and four people paid. And so did he. Any other option? Yes. They could have decided to close the park or, if not, to keep tourists and rangers away from T-24. They could have decided to fence the village he included in his territory. They could have trained an elephant and a ranger to monitor the tiger and tell him to stay away from humans. But they decided against it. That left a tiger habituated to humans and waiting for V-5 (V for victim). Or a bullit or a dart. They opted for a dart. The tiger was removed and order was restored. The villagers will continue to feed their cattle in the reserve when water is scarce, the great story on T-24 will no doubt attract more tourists to Ranthambore and rangers will continue doing their work. Business as usual. For those who had another solution in mind. The days of wild places and wild animals are past and gone. Not everywhere and completely, but as good as. Today is the day of humans, remember? Not saying it's good or bad. Just saying it is what it is. Animals, big carnivores included, will have to adapt to a degree. I agree T-24 was a man-made man-killer and I also agree it is very sad a tiger who was harrassed and responded was removed, but it is quite another thing to dismiss dedicated rangers as poor bastards who knew they were at risk when they were attacked and killed by T-24. I sincerely apologize to the family members of the rangers who were slain by a tiger who lost his fear of humans. I do not intend to lecture you, PC, but you have to be aware of the fact that this is a public forum with visitors reading posts. You also have to remember tigers, and all big carnivores for that matter, need all the publicity they can get. Good publicity, if possible. In a human-dominated landscape, the 3200 wild tigers will need to adapt to a degree or else. It no doubt will result in slight changes in their make-up after some time, but it can't be avoided. Also remember those in and around Ranthambore have no bad intentions. They do what they do in order to make a living (rangers and villagers) or to find out a bit more about their national animal (tourists). And they can't help it that the human population is exploding at the cost of others. When you post at a public forum, you have some responsability. We want to give wild animals a voice and we will defend them at all times, but we don't want to get alienated. We want to show those interested that the natural world is something special. If destroyed, it will never return. If we convey the message and readers become aware to a degree, we achieved one of our goals.
"o dismiss dedicated rangers as poor bastards who knew they were at risk when they were attacked and killed by T-24. As that is what you, in my opinion, did, PC."
I take great offense to this statement @peter. I have never nor will I ever dismiss any public servents death especially under such circumstances. The first words from my statement state how "Sad" it is. That comes first and foremost. Now in regards to Ranth and Population compared to other reserves, I think we need Indian Citizens to explain the difference Between Ranth compared to Kahna, Tadoba, Corbett, Assam, Bandhavargh, Bandipur, Panna etc. What is the public proximity compared to these reserves? How do they deal with tigers compared to Ranth, from what I read, Ranth is an extremely poor run facility that caters to VIP tourists and people go above and beyond to get glimpses of tigers. The whole issue of T24 brought that to life and their are numerous images and accounts providing proof of that. Until we actually take a look at geographical areas and actually do in depth analytics on the people living there and how often they actually cross path's with tigers, we don't know how it works. Villagers have lived with Ustad for his entire life, he has only attacked forest Guards, this cannot be ignored. So it sounds like where you and I disagree is the worth of Human life compared to animal life. I take the stance that neither is greater, one shouldn't make way for the other, they need to coexist. I assume India is like any other country, the population is exploding and areas are running out of space, but does that mean that they must destroy forests, remove native creatures and molest the last of our natural world? (this goes for most parts of the world, not just India) No it doesn't this world is massive, there is plenty of space, travel the world, you can see vast areas filled with nothing, go close to the coasts and you see homes all over. People want to live in the most comfortable situation possible, they don't care about what they destroy. Imagine humans giving back a little, sacrificing the best areas to live and moving a bit off the beaten path. Instead they take, take and take. I will never agree that a human beings well being is more important than an animals, we are all the same. We are made of the same things, our path is not more important than others. In fact, the entire world of animals have been able to coexist for millions of years, yet we cannot? I refuse to believe that, we are to greedy as a species, we always want bigger and better, more, more, more............. So yes, any loss of life is tragic, but no loss is less or more important. Its all sad, all of it. We got a little off topic there, in regards to Ustad, I don't know what is the right move. I see both sides of the coin, you can make great points for either side and not be wrong. My personal opinion is shared by some and argued by others, which is what makes it such a highly debated issue.
Debates about abstract things like conservation and species are not that interesting for many, PC. Maybe some in the west think so, but in most parts of the world people (have to) focus on the basics. Like surviving a day without (too much) hunger. In spite of their poverty, many care about the world they live in. But not at the cost of a life. Many thought T-24 had become a dangerous tiger and villagers were included, as he didn't only kill forests guards. T-24 visited a nearby village and didn't care too much about humans being present or not. Watch the video again. The villagers were afraid and angry for a good reason.
As to your remark on the value of human life and that of animals. What I think, I keep to myself. As co-owner of a forum, I have to consider responsability. Apart from that, I want to connect to people. Same for Sanjay. The fact is we live in a human-dominated world. Our domination is of such dimensions, that overpopulation and pollution have become very real problems threatening not only other creatures. It's in our best interest to respond and one way to get there is changing our outlook and attitude. This forum could contribute a bit. Not by discussing values and things like that, but by debating things connected to the issues at hand. Not by entering philosophy and politics, but by posting about those without a voice in general and big carnivores in particular. It is known they kill humans at times, but it doesn't happen often and it can be prevented in many cases. A lot depends on decisions and attitude. The debate, however, shouldn't focus on the dark side of humans and predators. Apex predators are forest officers, scientists, hunters and game keepers in one. If they are able to survive, it means the system is ok. If they disappear, it will collapse sooner or later. If it collapses, we too will pay. This means it's in our interest to keep 'm there. By debating their (way of) life, we learn. What we learn can be used in what has to develop into a new outlook. As we know a bit about big predators, we contribute by posting good information. Responsability is not something forum-owners only should care about. Posters benefit from a good forum and so do readers. If we do things right, that is. The thing to remember foremost is many people consider humans as a failed experiment. They see others (as well as themselves) as greedy, shortsighted and destructive aliens completely uninterested in the destruction unfolding before our eyes. As they have no clue as how to change what they see, they flee at an ever increasing rate. Many have lost hope, that is. We have to change our outlook and we have to do it now. Every attempt to get there, no matter how futile, could make a difference. Our forum can be regarded as an attempt to flee reality, but it also can be seen as a contribution to a new outlook. It's a glimpe into a lost world, but it also is a glimpse into the future. It depends on the intention. What I saw so far says we're on the right track. Quite many readers apparently agree. I propose to focus on the things we're interested in and forget about the usual things that happen when people communicate. The key words are respect and passion.  (06-20-2015, 11:16 PM)Pckts Wrote:(06-20-2015, 09:52 PM)'Apollo' Wrote: The video is graphic. If if wasnt for the tranquilizing and providing assistance, T24 wouldve died a few months back from his infections. There is no denying that Ranthambore forest officials pampered him and gave him multiple chances (dumb move, they shouldve sent him to the zoo after the first kill). T24 lost his fear of humans and in my book. A tiger like that cannot be roaming around in public. specially not around tourists. Unless you have a death wish, sure. (06-21-2015, 11:31 PM)'Roflcopters' Wrote:(06-20-2015, 11:16 PM)'Pckts' Wrote:(06-20-2015, 09:52 PM)'Apollo' Wrote: The video is graphic. Or they should of let nature take its course. Maybe he dies from the infection maybe he heals on his own. One could say the Dumb move was putting a colar on him or getting involved at all. Its not like his issue was human caused, it was natural.  (06-20-2015, 11:16 PM)'Pckts' Wrote:(06-20-2015, 09:52 PM)'Apollo' Wrote: The video is graphic. The case of Ustad isn't as clear cut as you are making it out to be. The fact that he had killed four people, ate two of them, means that he was a danger to humans. But to blame all of that on "harassment" by people is wrong, imo. Tigers are tranquilized for a purpose, not for fun or harassment. The last time ustad was tranquilized (harrassed), his life was saved. Tigers who feel harassed by humans, simply avoid them. It is very easy for them to do so. If a tiger doesn't want to be seen by humans, he won't be seen even by the most experienced naturalists or guides. They are that elusive. Remember hairyfoot of Panna? Another thing, India has had a problem with man eating tigers since centuries. Even when India had large tracts of intact forests and a population that is a fraction of what it is now, we had man eating tigers. Yes, if there were no people around in Ranthambore, T-24 wouldn't have been a killer. But then if there were no people in this world, there would never have been any man eaters. [/quote] "The case of Ustad isn't as clear cut as you are making it out to be. The fact that he had killed four people, ate two of them, means that he was a danger to humans. But to blame all of that on "harassment" by people is wrong, imo. Tigers are tranquilized for a purpose, not for fun or harassment. The last time ustad was tranquilized (harrassed), his life was saved. Tigers who feel harassed by humans, simply avoid them. It is very easy for them to do so. If a tiger doesn't want to be seen by humans, he won't be seen even by the most experienced naturalists or guides. They are that elusive. Remember hairyfoot of Panna? Another thing, India has had a problem with man eating tigers since centuries. Even when India had large tracts of intact forests and a population that is a fraction of what it is now, we had man eating tigers. Yes, if there were no people around in Ranthambore, T-24 wouldn't have been a killer. But then if there were no people in this world, there would never have been any man eaters." [/quote] It's not clear cut at all, I thought I was pretty clear about stating that. So while the intervention of human beings may or may not have saved his life (we don't know if he would have died or not) it still wasn't natural. Animals die in nature all the time, if its a natural occurrence than its fine in my book. If a tiger/big cat is caught in a poachers snare, being poached, something that is unnatural then I think we have the right to protect and save, but look at the long run. We interfered in with Ustad and now that all the cards have been played, he is gone. So was it good or bad to interfere in the first place? Will every single tiger react the way ustad has? Absolutely not, animals have the same emotional gauntlet as we do, they react differently to each scenario, just like human beings do. "They are that elusive. Remember hairyfoot of Panna?" Hairy foot was seen on camera, Madla was filmed. Given more time on this earth, they would have been scene more and more. Trying to compare safaris then to now, is impossible. The amount of people that track tigers now is so much more than there ever has been before. Just look at the image of the first male tiger ever caught on camera in Tadoba, read the story of what it required to search him, the naturalists where on their own, tracked by foot and could only carry so much film. Today we know every tigers back story that is in Tadoba who isn't in the buffer zone. Its just the way it is, its good for the tigers protection but bad for the tigers emotional state. Unfortunately they can't have it both ways any more, they will have to get used to being constantly tracked but 1000s of people unless drastic changes happen, which I don't think will occur any time soon. Of course there will be tigers that human beings will never see and that is great but the amount of tigers we now know by name and history is astonishing compared to a few decades ago.
"It's not clear cut at all, I thought I was pretty clear about stating that.
So while the intervention of human beings may or may not have saved his life (we don't know if he would have died or not) it still wasn't natural. Animals die in nature all the time, if its a natural occurrence than its fine in my book. If a tiger/big cat is caught in a poachers snare, being poached, something that is unnatural then I think we have the right to protect and save, but look at the long run. We interfered in with Ustad and now that all the cards have been played, he is gone. So was it good or bad to interfere in the first place? Will every single tiger react the way ustad has? Absolutely not, animals have the same emotional gauntlet as we do, they react differently to each scenario, just like human beings do." Well, you were implying that humans were responsible for T-24s killings, which I had objected to. Because if that were the case, we would have lot more cases like T-24, but we don't. He was a one-off. Regarding Hairyfoot, he was only captured on a camera trap, not by a photographer. Some tigers shy away from humans and their presence is only indicated by pugmarks, scats, claw marks or camera trap images. The Indian safari is a relatively recent phonomenon; till early 2000s hardly any people used to visit the tiger reserves. The safaris essentially haven't changed much, the reason you see more pictures now than before is only because more people are visiting now. Even then, some tigers are photographed so much more than others only because they don't mind human presence. (07-15-2015, 02:27 AM)'Shardul' Wrote: "It's not clear cut at all, I thought I was pretty clear about stating that.Hairyfoot was captured when the recently introduced camera traps then he died. I have no doubt he would of been captured on film more and more if given more time, but like you and I agree, terrain will always dictate the amount of footage shot of a tiger and the personality of the tiger. But remember, not only are Safari a recent phenomenon but portable cameras are, endless film and increase in safari's all are playing massive roles. Pugmarks have been removed as a vilable source for id'ing tigers, To many errors occur. "e would have lot more cases like T-24, but we don't. He was a one-off. " Technically, T-24 is a one off but his case isn't extraordinary, T-42 is another one who has a very similar life and attitude towards humans and he also was invaded by human beings and lives in the same place. Could simply be coincidence or something else, but I don't pretend to know the answer. But you can certainly make a case either way.  (07-15-2015, 09:41 PM)'sanjay' Wrote: @Pckts why you forget the request I made few days back asking not to quote just above posts in case you are replyingI thought that was in regards to images attached and large content. Didn't think it was in regards to paragraphs. I see people quote all the time (he quoted me for instance), Is there a guideline you're trying to express in regards to quoting? |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |