Talk:Tiger attack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] In myth?

Should we mention the manticore, a legendary creature whose name literally means "man-eater" in Persian, and which is believed to have been based on the tiger?--Pharos (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] man eaters are injured or old?

My understanding is that this is a myth, that the long history of tiger predation on human population indicates sufficient frequency of attack to preclude the assumption that man-eaters are generally old or injured. Studies of man-eating lions are another matter. Some believe that it is hunting pressure that has decimated tiger populations that targetted humans and so most areas have only tigers who were "selected" for their avoidance of humans. In previous centuries it has been documented that tigers have killed hundreds of thousands of people during a human lifespan in India, suggesting that predation on humans, at least in the Indian context, was part of the tigers normal behavior. That we see contemporary examples of injured tigers hunting human does not mean that humans are atypical prey for tigers per se, just that human prey is atypical within what is left of otherwise savagely hunted populations of tigers that have survived by avoidance. It also bears mentioning that that decline in tiger attacks in the Sunderbans has been the result of shutting access to the core of the tiger reserve, not from any change of diet on the part of the tigers themselves. This closure itself is predicated on the understanding that it is too dangerous for people to occupy the core area and so speaks volume for the ongoing nature of tiger predation, particularly of this population remnant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.94.127 (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)