Maneater

Thirty Bills Unpaid

There's a man-eating tiger in India that has killed 9 people in 7 months.

The last decade, has seen improvements in tiger conservation and growth in the tiger populations. If that is good news in many ways, it has also increased the chances of encounters between tigers and people.

I think I can predict what is going to happen. What should happen?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2559526/The-mark-killer-Paw-print-man-eating-tiger-claimed-ninth-victim-Indian-village.html

brianlux

Let the tigers continue to thrive. I know that sounds callous but wait! I live in the Sierra Foothills. We have mountain lions here- the few that haven't been shot anyway- and once in a long while people get killed by them. But we are living in their habitat- what is left of it. If our numbers weren't so large and we hadn't over-run their habitat far fewer incidents like this would happen. If I go walking along the American River (which I do) I take my chances with the big cats (actually I've never seen one and would like to). If I go up higher and go hiking I take my chances with bears. So I'm not unaware of the dangers but I do recognize the right for these creatures to live as well.

hedonist

I think these encounters, for better or worse, come with the territory we (attempt to?) claim.

Same with shark attacks. And like Brian said, mountain lions.

When we lived in Laurel Canyon, there were many nights returning home where a coyote or three had gathered in the cul-de-sac beyond our house. Granted, they weren't that aggressive but I always got my ass inside post-haste.

Their wandering around in our neighborhoods, looking for/finding food...only doing what they needed to survive.

mickeyrat

its never fails to amaze me the ego of human beings. We somehow expect wild animals to "know" humnas "place" in the scheme of things.

We will kill a tiger for simply doing what a tiger does. Insert any predator in that sentence. But will balk , in some peoples opinion, at the same for the human animal. Hypocritical.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mickeyrat said:

its never fails to amaze me the ego of human beings. We somehow expect wild animals to "know" humnas "place" in the scheme of things.

We will kill a tiger for simply doing what a tiger does. Insert any predator in that sentence. But will balk , in some peoples opinion, at the same for the human animal. Hypocritical.

Elaborate a bit here- if you would- Mickey. I think I know what you are getting at, but I'd like to be sure before commenting.

backseatLover12

After watching Blackfish, with Sea World not only exploiting orcas but their employees who sign up to be orca trainers (they covered up the dangers of working with these dangerous and wild beauties), both humans and animals are at mercy of humans. Because of nothing other than greed.

The only way to work with wild species? To respect them.

mickeyrat

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mickeyrat said:

its never fails to amaze me the ego of human beings. We somehow expect wild animals to "know" humnas "place" in the scheme of things.

We will kill a tiger for simply doing what a tiger does. Insert any predator in that sentence. But will balk , in some peoples opinion, at the same for the human animal. Hypocritical.

Elaborate a bit here- if you would- Mickey. I think I know what you are getting at, but I'd like to be sure before commenting.

Well I'm for the death penalty in particular rock solid no chance for mistake instances. Isnt that what we do with animals? Oh wait a human is usually doing something fucked up to put themselves in harms way. But we will execute an animal for being exactly what it is.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mickeyrat said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mickeyrat said:

its never fails to amaze me the ego of human beings. We somehow expect wild animals to "know" humnas "place" in the scheme of things.

We will kill a tiger for simply doing what a tiger does. Insert any predator in that sentence. But will balk , in some peoples opinion, at the same for the human animal. Hypocritical.

Elaborate a bit here- if you would- Mickey. I think I know what you are getting at, but I'd like to be sure before commenting.

Well I'm for the death penalty in particular rock solid no chance for mistake instances. Isnt that what we do with animals? Oh wait a human is usually doing something fucked up to put themselves in harms way. But we will execute an animal for being exactly what it is.

Not only will we execute the animal, but we'll execute all the other animals like it as well such as in the great white cull in Australia.

It's clear that we have placed the value of a human life well above that of any other species. This might be a very natural thing to do.

Do other species value themselves as high as we value ourselves? In other words, do our protective measures indicate an instinctual response to a threat much like any other animal? Or are we excessive and unnatural with regards to our survival instincts and tactics?

mickeyrat

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mickeyrat said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mickeyrat said:

its never fails to amaze me the ego of human beings. We somehow expect wild animals to "know" humnas "place" in the scheme of things.

We will kill a tiger for simply doing what a tiger does. Insert any predator in that sentence. But will balk , in some peoples opinion, at the same for the human animal. Hypocritical.

Elaborate a bit here- if you would- Mickey. I think I know what you are getting at, but I'd like to be sure before commenting.

Well I'm for the death penalty in particular rock solid no chance for mistake instances. Isnt that what we do with animals? Oh wait a human is usually doing something fucked up to put themselves in harms way. But we will execute an animal for being exactly what it is.

Not only will we execute the animal, but we'll execute all the other animals like it as well such as in the great white cull in Australia.

It's clear that we have placed the value of a human life well above that of any other species. This might be a very natural thing to do.

Do other species value themselves as high as we value ourselves? In other words, do our protective measures indicate an instinctual response to a threat much like any other animal? Or are we excessive and unnatural with regards to our survival instincts and tactics?

I think its a fair mix of both but leaning toward excessive and unnatural. On the other hand, of the billions that walk this planet , the vast majority would probably live and let live. It the few that give us as a species a bad name, in my book.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mickeyrat said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mickeyrat said:

Well I'm for the death penalty in particular rock solid no chance for mistake instances. Isnt that what we do with animals? Oh wait a human is usually doing something fucked up to put themselves in harms way. But we will execute an animal for being exactly what it is.

Not only will we execute the animal, but we'll execute all the other animals like it as well such as in the great white cull in Australia.

It's clear that we have placed the value of a human life well above that of any other species. This might be a very natural thing to do.

Do other species value themselves as high as we value ourselves? In other words, do our protective measures indicate an instinctual response to a threat much like any other animal? Or are we excessive and unnatural with regards to our survival instincts and tactics?

I think its a fair mix of both but leaning toward excessive and unnatural. On the other hand, of the billions that walk this planet , the vast majority would probably live and let live. It the few that give us as a species a bad name, in my book.

So taking it back to the situation in India... can we reasonably expect to weigh in on those people's concern for safety? These people are doing everyday things like working when they are getting snatched by a tiger.

I understand that the tiger is just doing what a tiger will do, but if it is me and mine that are under threat of attack, I'm probably not leaning towards conservation as much as I'm leaning towards personal safety.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not suggesting a wholesale slaughter of tigers; but I am suggesting that the situation is slightly more problematic for those people living with the real threat than it is for us. I'm just not sure it is our place to accept one person dying per month as natural when it might be natural to counter such a threat with some form of action taken as a measure of self-preservation.

It's complicated.

backseatLover12

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

So taking it back to the situation in India... can we reasonably expect to weigh in on those people's concern for safety? These people are doing everyday things like working when they are getting snatched by a tiger.

I understand that the tiger is just doing what a tiger will do, but if it is me and mine that are under threat of attack, I'm probably not leaning towards conservation as much as I'm leaning towards personal safety.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not suggesting a wholesale slaughter of tigers; but I am suggesting that the situation is slightly more problematic for those people living with the real threat than it is for us. I'm just not sure it is our place to accept one person dying per month as natural when it might be natural to counter such a threat with some form of action taken as a measure of self-preservation.

It's complicated.

So, is the tiger in human territory or is it us in tiger territory? Isn't that the first problem to address?

brianlux

As we all know India is hardly what you would call over-populated. Those damn tigers. Where to they get off horning in on human territory. The nerve!

Thirty Bills Unpaid

backseatLover12 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

So taking it back to the situation in India... can we reasonably expect to weigh in on those people's concern for safety? These people are doing everyday things like working when they are getting snatched by a tiger.

I understand that the tiger is just doing what a tiger will do, but if it is me and mine that are under threat of attack, I'm probably not leaning towards conservation as much as I'm leaning towards personal safety.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not suggesting a wholesale slaughter of tigers; but I am suggesting that the situation is slightly more problematic for those people living with the real threat than it is for us. I'm just not sure it is our place to accept one person dying per month as natural when it might be natural to counter such a threat with some form of action taken as a measure of self-preservation.

It's complicated.

So, is the tiger in human territory or is it us in tiger territory? Isn't that the first problem to address?

How can one say who's in what's territory? And how does one go about solving such a problem if an answer to that question could be procured?

Trust me, I love tigers; but I don't have the fear of getting ate by one like these people do. The only thing I am saying is that it is easy for us to point our fingers at the farmers in India and tell them to suck it up... but these are people like you and I, born to where they were born, and trying to survive in a land that isn't quite as easy to survive in as our cushy places.

I'm a little conflicted over this one. I don't want to see Tigers killed, but I don't want to see humans as a food source either.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

brianlux said:

As we all know India is hardly what you would call over-populated. Those damn tigers. Where to they get off horning in on human territory. The nerve!

Over seven weeks she has traveled, almost completely unseen, for more than 120 miles. She has crossed villages, small towns and at least one highway.

A killer is stalking the villages of north India. She has killed at least nine people, all of them poor villagers living on the fringes of one of the world's last wild tiger habitats. They are people who cannot afford a day off work, people who have no indoor plumbing and must use the fields as their toilets. They are people who know little about India's recent successes in tiger conservation.


We can be a little sympathetic for these people... can't we? I'm pretty sure they like to laugh and enjoy the sun on their face just like you or I. I don't think we should dismiss them as easy as what we are doing.

Jason P

I would consider this to be atypical behavior of a tiger otherwise this would be a neverending headline. And considering what humans do to atypical humans that go on killing streaks of other humans, I find the hunting and execution of this particular tiger to be warranted.

Jason P

automatic cameras have captured images of the maneater in the wild ...

oysterjar

backseatLover12 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

So taking it back to the situation in India... can we reasonably expect to weigh in on those people's concern for safety? These people are doing everyday things like working when they are getting snatched by a tiger.

I understand that the tiger is just doing what a tiger will do, but if it is me and mine that are under threat of attack, I'm probably not leaning towards conservation as much as I'm leaning towards personal safety.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not suggesting a wholesale slaughter of tigers; but I am suggesting that the situation is slightly more problematic for those people living with the real threat than it is for us. I'm just not sure it is our place to accept one person dying per month as natural when it might be natural to counter such a threat with some form of action taken as a measure of self-preservation.

It's complicated.

So, is the tiger in human territory or is it us in tiger territory? Isn't that the first problem to address?

In this situation I don't believe that it is a matter of who is on what property. If there is an animal that is attacking and killing humans it must be dealt with. Although I would hate to see it get killed I could see why it could happen, as defense. There are other ways to deal with "nuisance" animals such as trapping. I have seen and had bears trapped and removed from my property without harm, which is what I would like to see happen. Is it really our fault that predators don't have the comprehensive skills to not attack us and at that point is it not ok to defend ourselves by potentially killing it? I am not willing to give my life to animal for the sake of crossing its path, or it crossing mine.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

oysterjar said:

backseatLover12 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

So taking it back to the situation in India... can we reasonably expect to weigh in on those people's concern for safety? These people are doing everyday things like working when they are getting snatched by a tiger.

I understand that the tiger is just doing what a tiger will do, but if it is me and mine that are under threat of attack, I'm probably not leaning towards conservation as much as I'm leaning towards personal safety.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not suggesting a wholesale slaughter of tigers; but I am suggesting that the situation is slightly more problematic for those people living with the real threat than it is for us. I'm just not sure it is our place to accept one person dying per month as natural when it might be natural to counter such a threat with some form of action taken as a measure of self-preservation.

It's complicated.

So, is the tiger in human territory or is it us in tiger territory? Isn't that the first problem to address?

In this situation I don't believe that it is a matter of who is on what property. If there is an animal that is attacking and killing humans it must be dealt with. Although I would hate to see it get killed I could see why it could happen, as defense. There are other ways to deal with "nuisance" animals such as trapping. I have seen and had bears trapped and removed from my property without harm, which is what I would like to see happen. Is it really our fault that predators don't have the comprehensive skills to not attack us and at that point is it not ok to defend ourselves by potentially killing it? I am not willing to give my life to animal for the sake of crossing its path, or it crossing mine.

This animal is really smart.

They have failed to trap it or find it.

I'll suggest a book: The Tiger. It's a really really good read and makes a strong argument for the nature of the tiger being highly intelligent, powerful, vengeful, and dangerous.

oysterjar

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oysterjar said:

backseatLover12 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

So taking it back to the situation in India... can we reasonably expect to weigh in on those people's concern for safety? These people are doing everyday things like working when they are getting snatched by a tiger.

I understand that the tiger is just doing what a tiger will do, but if it is me and mine that are under threat of attack, I'm probably not leaning towards conservation as much as I'm leaning towards personal safety.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not suggesting a wholesale slaughter of tigers; but I am suggesting that the situation is slightly more problematic for those people living with the real threat than it is for us. I'm just not sure it is our place to accept one person dying per month as natural when it might be natural to counter such a threat with some form of action taken as a measure of self-preservation.

It's complicated.

So, is the tiger in human territory or is it us in tiger territory? Isn't that the first problem to address?

In this situation I don't believe that it is a matter of who is on what property. If there is an animal that is attacking and killing humans it must be dealt with. Although I would hate to see it get killed I could see why it could happen, as defense. There are other ways to deal with "nuisance" animals such as trapping. I have seen and had bears trapped and removed from my property without harm, which is what I would like to see happen. Is it really our fault that predators don't have the comprehensive skills to not attack us and at that point is it not ok to defend ourselves by potentially killing it? I am not willing to give my life to animal for the sake of crossing its path, or it crossing mine.

This animal is really smart.

They have failed to trap it or find it.

I'll suggest a book: The Tiger. It's a really really good read and makes a strong argument for the nature of the tiger being highly intelligent, powerful, vengeful, and dangerous.

I didn't know that they couldn't trap it, nor had I read up on this particular tiger. I believe that they are highly intelligent and that this is a difficult situation. What you said poses another question, if this animal cannot be found or trapped, how could it ever be shot and killed? The only likely scenario I see is would be victims carrying firearms to defend themselves. As all other animals in the world, I see it as only fair that one would defend themselves in any way possible.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

oysterjar said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oysterjar said:

backseatLover12 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

So taking it back to the situation in India... can we reasonably expect to weigh in on those people's concern for safety? These people are doing everyday things like working when they are getting snatched by a tiger.

I understand that the tiger is just doing what a tiger will do, but if it is me and mine that are under threat of attack, I'm probably not leaning towards conservation as much as I'm leaning towards personal safety.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not suggesting a wholesale slaughter of tigers; but I am suggesting that the situation is slightly more problematic for those people living with the real threat than it is for us. I'm just not sure it is our place to accept one person dying per month as natural when it might be natural to counter such a threat with some form of action taken as a measure of self-preservation.

It's complicated.

So, is the tiger in human territory or is it us in tiger territory? Isn't that the first problem to address?

In this situation I don't believe that it is a matter of who is on what property. If there is an animal that is attacking and killing humans it must be dealt with. Although I would hate to see it get killed I could see why it could happen, as defense. There are other ways to deal with "nuisance" animals such as trapping. I have seen and had bears trapped and removed from my property without harm, which is what I would like to see happen. Is it really our fault that predators don't have the comprehensive skills to not attack us and at that point is it not ok to defend ourselves by potentially killing it? I am not willing to give my life to animal for the sake of crossing its path, or it crossing mine.

This animal is really smart.

They have failed to trap it or find it.

I'll suggest a book: The Tiger. It's a really really good read and makes a strong argument for the nature of the tiger being highly intelligent, powerful, vengeful, and dangerous.

I didn't know that they couldn't trap it, nor had I read up on this particular tiger. I believe that they are highly intelligent and that this is a difficult situation. What you said poses another question, if this animal cannot be found or trapped, how could it ever be shot and killed? The only likely scenario I see is would be victims carrying firearms to defend themselves. As all other animals in the world, I see it as only fair that one would defend themselves in any way possible.

There are problems with arming themselves.

Firstly, guns and ammunition are not as readily available as they are in, say, Texas. To top it off, these farmers are essentially subsistence farmers that do not have the means to purchase the necessary guns. They live day to day.

Secondly, it is believed that the tiger(s) pounce on these victims when they least suspect it. The tigers use stealth to sneak up on their prey to avoid expending large reserves of energy. They burst to action when very near their target- a human would fumble desperately and succumb to the attack before even having a chance to defend themselves. Even hunters with high-powered rifles that are actively pursuing a tiger are at incredible risk given the tiger's incredible ability to be elusive.

Of course, think of the weak and inferior human being as its prey: the animal has likely discovered that it can offer little to no resistance- it can't run away, it can't fight back, and although a little bony... it's nice and soft to chew (no thick hide).

mickeyrat

oysterjar said:

backseatLover12 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

So taking it back to the situation in India... can we reasonably expect to weigh in on those people's concern for safety? These people are doing everyday things like working when they are getting snatched by a tiger.

I understand that the tiger is just doing what a tiger will do, but if it is me and mine that are under threat of attack, I'm probably not leaning towards conservation as much as I'm leaning towards personal safety.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not suggesting a wholesale slaughter of tigers; but I am suggesting that the situation is slightly more problematic for those people living with the real threat than it is for us. I'm just not sure it is our place to accept one person dying per month as natural when it might be natural to counter such a threat with some form of action taken as a measure of self-preservation.

It's complicated.

So, is the tiger in human territory or is it us in tiger territory? Isn't that the first problem to address?

In this situation I don't believe that it is a matter of who is on what property. If there is an animal that is attacking and killing humans it must be dealt with. Although I would hate to see it get killed I could see why it could happen, as defense. There are other ways to deal with "nuisance" animals such as trapping. I have seen and had bears trapped and removed from my property without harm, which is what I would like to see happen. [b]Is it really our fault that predators don't have the comprehensive skills to not attack us and at that point is it not ok to defend ourselves by potentially killing it? I am not willing to give my life to animal for the sake of crossing its path, or it crossing mine.[/b]

but human animals have the intelligence(it would seem) to not live in or go to an area where other predators roam.

mickeyrat

being India, what hasnt been brought up is are they Hindu? If so then killing anything would be out of the question. Though I dont know about asking authorities to do this , would this be against their faith?

oysterjar

mickeyrat said:

oysterjar said:

backseatLover12 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

So taking it back to the situation in India... can we reasonably expect to weigh in on those people's concern for safety? These people are doing everyday things like working when they are getting snatched by a tiger.

I understand that the tiger is just doing what a tiger will do, but if it is me and mine that are under threat of attack, I'm probably not leaning towards conservation as much as I'm leaning towards personal safety.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not suggesting a wholesale slaughter of tigers; but I am suggesting that the situation is slightly more problematic for those people living with the real threat than it is for us. I'm just not sure it is our place to accept one person dying per month as natural when it might be natural to counter such a threat with some form of action taken as a measure of self-preservation.

It's complicated.

So, is the tiger in human territory or is it us in tiger territory? Isn't that the first problem to address?

In this situation I don't believe that it is a matter of who is on what property. If there is an animal that is attacking and killing humans it must be dealt with. Although I would hate to see it get killed I could see why it could happen, as defense. There are other ways to deal with "nuisance" animals such as trapping. I have seen and had bears trapped and removed from my property without harm, which is what I would like to see happen. [b]Is it really our fault that predators don't have the comprehensive skills to not attack us and at that point is it not ok to defend ourselves by potentially killing it? I am not willing to give my life to animal for the sake of crossing its path, or it crossing mine.[/b]

but human animals have the intelligence(it would seem) to not live in or go to an area where other predators roam.

The article states that over 7 weeks the tiger has roamed more than 120 miles. I live in middle NH and the Atlantic Ocean is closer than that. It is less a matter of locality and more a predator that has found a heard that it can pick off members when it wants. The members of the communities in which it is stalking are dirt floor poor and have no other life or way to escape. These families have lived there for generations, as the article tells, and number of people attacked is well above the norm. The tiger is also no longer afraid of the humans. Taking your assumption about where to live and go, these third world farmers have no choice or place to go. It is not a matter of intelligence.

mickeyrat

If it cant been seen trapped or hunted I wonder how they can be sure that same tiger roamed that far?

Rather simplistic but humans can stop fucking and procreating if where they are is that difficult.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mickeyrat said:

If it cant been seen trapped or hunted I wonder how they can be sure that same tiger roamed that far?

Rather simplistic but humans can stop fucking and procreating if where they are is that difficult.

They are identifying the animal through its paw mark left at the scene.

oysterjar

mickeyrat said:

If it cant been seen trapped or hunted I wonder how they can be sure that same tiger roamed that far?

Rather simplistic but humans can stop fucking and procreating if where they are is that difficult.

That wouldn't change the fact that there is a tiger hunting people in the places the live now. They didn't just build a mega-plex in the middle of tiger haven. They have been there a while...Procreating would only stop future children from being eaten, possibly.

PJ_Soul

Oh, I thought this was going to be a thread about my sister. HA!

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Does anybody here remember when the tiger jumped over its enclosure in the San Francisco zoo and killed those teens that were teasing it?

After it killed the first teen, it got up and trailed the other two to kill them as well. It passed by 'typical' prey such as warthogs to finish the job it was intending: to work those kids over for pissing it off.

1. The enclosure proved to be inadequate- think of how many people passed by harm's way prior to the tiger's determined escape.

2. Don't mess with tigers. If you piss one off... you better be really fast.

3. Think of the shock that those three teens must have felt when the tiger climbed over the fence supposed to safeguard them.

4. Think of the smile that crossed the tiger's face as he cleared the hurdle that separated him form his tormentors.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2011/02/tiger-maul-teens-san-francisco-zoo-provoked-report.html

mickeyrat

We must also consider the natural prey of tigers and where did THAT go? Could be a cause of this tiger hunting humans. At least in part.

hedonist

PJ_Soul said:

Oh, I thought this was going to be a thread about my sister. HA!

)

Thirty Bills, I remember when that happened at the zoo, and remember thinking (wrong as some may say) that those shits had no business treating an animal like that, and they paid the price for their stupidity and cruelty.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

hedonist said:

PJ_Soul said:

Oh, I thought this was going to be a thread about my sister. HA!

)

Thirty Bills, I remember when that happened at the zoo, and remember thinking (wrong as some may say) that those shits had no business treating an animal like that, and they paid the price for their stupidity and cruelty.

You won't get an argument from me here.