Tiger Attack

[CBulla]

My only issue with allowing big cats and other exotics is this:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=355&e=1&u=/kr/20031007/lo_krnewyork/asolitarytiger

 

[zeN||]

MAN AND TIGER: THE BRUTAL ENCOUNTER
As long as human population densities remained low, and the technological capability to extirpate prey species or hunt tigers was primitive, tigers were saved over much of their range. Their ecological adaptability and high reproductive potential ensured their survival.
The picture began to change with the colonial penetration of Asia in 18th and 19th centuries, when FIRE-ARMS (get that Walter?) teamed up with the traditional hunting skills, enabling the colonials, kings and commoners to launch a war of attrition on tigers http://sierraactivist.org/tigers/karanth.html#eight
Tigers have killed more humans than any other big cat (<=====how 'bout that Walter???? ) and are one of the few creatures to hunt humana as prey. http://www.szgdocent.org/cats/a-tiger.htm
The most notorious man-eaters are the 500 or so Bengal tigers in the Sunderbans Reserve, a mangrove forest in India. Each year, tigers kill about 50 people who enter the reserve to fish or collect wood; totalling 1,500 people over the last 30 years. http://www.szgdocent.org/cats/a-tiger2.htm
During the Second World War, tigers in Burma got an appetite for human flesh by feeding on the corpses left behind after fighting, or from dead prisoners of war.
In the past 20 years, more than 800 people have been reported to have been killed by tigers in the Sundarbans mangrove on the borders of India and Bangladesh. Most of these deaths could have been avoided. In the Bangladesh Sundarbans more than 100 were killed from 1989 to 1991 (Heavy Death Toll to Tigers in Bangladesh. Cat News 16, 1992, p.6). Understandably these tragedies create serious problems for the conservation of these animals.
About 8,000 people have permits to enter the Sundarbans Tiger Reserve to collect wood and honey and to go fishing. Sufficient prey seems to exist but tigers still prey on humans. They swim out to boats to seize fishermen.http://www.catsurvivaltrust.org/tiger.htm
Walter, thats a lot closer than your brainstem seems to be attacked to your skull zeN||

 

[Walter]

Zen,

There is a big difference between people not starting to win most encounters with tigers until the advent of firearms and firearms allowing the launching of a war of attrition on tigers.

There is no question that tigers are very dangerous creatures. One on one, unarmed, we don't stand a chance. OTOH, people rarely go one on one unarmed while tigers are solitary hunters.

Hearing that tigers have killed more humans than any other big cat is not a surprise. Tigers are the largest of the big cats and some of the subspecies live in parts of the world where humans have out done themselves in overpopulating their living space.

While the very interesting information you've posted does support the argument that tigers are very dangerous and that firearms have allowed us to drive them almost to extinction; it does not support your position that "we used to compete with the big cats for the top of the food chain, and didn't start winning until the advent of firearms."

While tigers do attack people and people do attack tigers, my brain stem has yet to attack my skull.

 

[zeN||]

Thanxs for supporting my tenent, the quote says a war of attrition was launched by humans in the 1700s (now why attrition? Because so many humans were killed by cats!), and this war of attrition was not successful UNTIL the advent of firearms, in our past before we over-populated the world and changed the environment, deforested the land, etc. we were definitely hunted and eaten by the big cats-your little quip about that not being even close is about as absurd as you are non sequitur (at least at c-1) zeN

 

[Walter]

Zen,

Are you trying to mislead or are you not able to understand not only what I've said, but what you've said as well?

Your original statement, "we used to compete with the big cats for the top of the food chain, and didn't start winning until the advent of firearms." indicates tigers were usually the winner in conflicts until firearms were in common use.

Your later statement, "As long as human population densities remained low, and the technological capability to extirpate prey species or hunt tigers was primitive, tigers were saved over much of their range. Their ecological adaptability and high reproductive potential ensured their survival." indicates that while we regularly killed tigers and kept them from expanding, their extinction was not an issue.

Maybe you are not able to understand the difference. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and explain in simple terms. Your first position was that tigers were wiping out people until we used firearms. That was not the case and is far from the truth. Your second position was that tigers were not in danger of extinction until we started using firearms is pretty much the opposite of your original idea. We were only wiping them out in portions of their range.

Let's break down your second stament to help you understand what you said and how it differs from your first statement.

"As long as human population densities remained low"

When people lived in low numbers in rural conditions.

"and the technological capability to extirpate prey species"

Our ability to wipe out the tiger's natural prey

"or hunt tigers was primitive,"

People actively hunted tigers with simple weapons.

"tigers were saved over much of their range."

People only wiped tigers out in parts of their original territory.

"Their ecological adaptability"

Tigers can live in different places.

"and high reproductive potential"

Tigers have lots of babies in a relatively short period of time.

"ensured their survival."

These factors meant it was unlikely we would cause the extinction of tigers.

There is a big difference between not winning the competition with tigers and not causing their extincition.

Your latest statement, "in our past before we over-populated the world and changed the environment, deforested the land, etc. we were definitely hunted and eaten by the big cats-" is true, but misleading in two ways. It leads one to believe tigers (or are you including all big cats? you really aren't clear, but that is no surprise) were using people as a major food source (which is not true) and that tigers no longer hunt and eat people (which is also not true). Yes, tigers are very dangerous and some do hunt and eat people. Those tigers are a minority and always have been a minority.

The concepts involved are really not that difficult. If you study, you'll eventually understand.

 

[zeN||]

Damm you're a blowhard Walter that likes to hear yourself talk, you always argue like this-a nasty quip then you come back like a 'lectual, then the disertation-Jam it Walter! The big cats were pickin bugers like you out of their noses for aeons before modern weapons were invented-ahhhchooo! zeN

 

[Dryglove]

It never ceases to amaze me what members can find to argue about. Let me ask you this, what came first..... the chicken or the egg?

 

[Kat]

lal7176, you've gone too far.

You've thrown down the gauntlet.

Why I'm sure this egg/chicken thing will rage on for days.
(Ha, notice how I put the egg first)

What about the toilet paper debate? Should it unroll from the top or the bottom?



ROFLMAO

 

[ScubaScott]

...... a real tragedy, for the tiger.....

this goes right along with all the other self proclaimed "experts" of domesticating wild animals. For the first time ever, I agree with PETA and don't see a real big tragedy here, except for the tiger.....

SS

 

[MgicTwnger]

Kat once bubbled...
What about the toilet paper debate? Should it unroll from the top or the bottom?

The top, and I'll argue that forever. :toilet:

Walter, back me up here (sic).