Man-eating among tigers: a historical perspective
I first wrote an article on the subject of man-eating among tigers in 2006 when I was working as a Naturalist in the Kabini region of Nagarhole. During that time there was an alleged instance of man- eating in the Park. Man- eating is a relatively rare phenomenon in the South and, as could be expected, there was a lot of misinformation floating around.
Fourteen years later, successful conservation efforts have resulted in an increase in tiger populations across India. This along with an ever-increasing human population and the emphasis on ‘growth’ as an economic model, has resulted in an increase in the interface between the two. In today’s scenario, with tigers reclaiming their historical ranges which are now human dominated landscapes, conflict is inevitable. This conflict includes livestock predation, physical encounters and (in rare cases) man-eating. Among the three, man-eating is the most difficult and creates extremely bad press for conservation. While there has been no major outbreak of man-eating (bar a few isolated cases) and livestock predation can and has been tackled with an efficient compensation scheme the same cannot be done for man- eating.
I feel that the biggest challenge going ahead will be to our ability to manage conflict with this apex and charismatic predator. Competition for space or ‘Lebensraum’ is intense and will only increase, how does one manage this conflict?
This article does not provide any answers. In today's digital age public opinion is expressed freely on social media and has the ability to influence policy on the ground, both for the good and bad. This article is an attempt to explain conflict and man-eating as a part of the natural history of the tiger which, hopefully, will result in a more balanced discussion. A discussion grounded in facts rather than emotions.
During prehistoric times when man was extremely vulnerable and unable to defend himself against predators, tigers viewed humans as natural prey and hunted them as they would hunt natural prey today. Humans at that time probably constituted a good portion of a tiger’s diet wherever they shared space as they would have been easy prey, not having developed sufficiently efficient defense mechanisms against predation.
In the course of time, man’s discovery of the use of tools, agriculture and controlled fire led to a more settled and community based lifestyle. This resulted in a co-operative style of living and hunting. With these changes in lifestyle, humans were able to better defend themselves against predators. While these developments led to the tiger gaining a respect for humans, they continued to regard them as natural prey. In fact even during medieval times Marco Polo records that they were feared as man-eaters in China.
Another point of conflict was created during this stage. The domestication of animals by humans, especially cattle, opened another front— tigers began to prey on these domesticated animals.
The next major change in the relationship between humans and tigers occurred with the advent of gunpowder and firearms. With this advantage, humans now became the aggressors and actively began to harass and hunt tigers. It was at this stage that tigers began to avoid humans and stopped viewing them as natural prey. They however continued to kill livestock when they got the opportunity. This more or less became the norm over the next two to three centuries.
The changes in the relationship between the two were extremely gradual and not uniform over the tigers range with a result that more or less all three stages of the relationship were prevalent during the same time period depending upon the remoteness and development of the human settlement. It was also at this time that human populations started registering a rapid growth as a result of which humans started encroaching more and more into the tiger’s home. This led to a corresponding rise in conflict.
During the 19th and 20th century there were many reports of man-eating by tigers from Russia, South China, Singapore and parts of India. In certain cases, they rendered entire areas almost un-inhabitable and even caused weekly markets to close down in Manchuria. Man-eating, however, was not a major problem in Indochina, Malaysia, Indonesia and South India. There does not seem to be a satisfactory ecological explanation for this.
In India, the problem was reported from Bengal, the then Central Provinces and the Himalayan foothills. The books of Jim Corbett give a vivid picture of man-eating in the Himalayan foothills. The reasons he gives for this rash of man-eating is that it was result of the stress of circumstances. He goes on to state that nine times out of ten it was due to wounds that hampered them from killing normal prey and the tenth was old age that resulted in them being unable to hunt. He also records that the changeover to man-eating was accidental. The first victim was rarely eaten and was always killed when he was in a bending posture, usually while cutting grass or gathering firewood, and thus not easily identifiable as a human with its characteristic upright posture. He cites the availability of natural prey being a key factor in the frequency of kills among man-eaters operating in different areas. This leads us to believe that they did not survive on a purely human diet and that most importantly there was a drastic reduction in the availability of natural prey. This reduction in the availability of natural prey could have also been a key factor.
In the modern era , there was an eruption of man-eating in the Dudhwa National Park. It started in 1978, lasted for about ten years, and resulted in the death of nearly two hundred humans. The reason for this were many and varied, the major being that a rash of tree felling across the border in Nepal had resulted in the migration of tigers from there resulting in an unnatural and sudden increase in the tiger population of Dudhwa. The intrusion of woodcutters and cart men into the park to collect firewood blown down in a storm at precisely this time led to greater interface between humans and tigers.
With the migration of tigers from Nepal ,older and weaker animals were pushed to the edges of the park. Farmers along the park boundary had taken to sugarcane cultivation on a large scale and tigers found sugarcane fields nice places to lie up, and this further brought the two into conflict.
Man-eating is prevalent in the Sunderbans (mangrove forests of the Ganges delta)of India and Bangladesh. In the Sunderbans a significant portion of the tiger population indulges in man-eating and it cannot be considered aberrant behavior. The situation in the Sunderbans is more akin to the natural relationship between humans and tigers that prevailed during prehistoric times. Because of the inhospitable terrain human development in the area is not in an advanced stage and neither gunpowder nor firearms are available. Also because of the inhospitable terrain, the density of herbivores is low. Thus in the Sunderbans the tiger continues to view man as prey very much like he did during prehistoric times.
The situation in Nagarhole (in 2006) was slightly different and serves as a template for the future. Nagarhole has one of the highest densities of prey animals and careful protection from poachers has made it one of the best tiger habitats in the world. An increase in tiger densities resulted in the older and weaker animals being pushed to the edge of the park where interface with humans is high. There is also a significant amount of human habitation within the park. It was evident that the tiger in question was supplementing its natural diet with humans when it got the opportunity.
While the current situation looks ripe for conflict, there is hope for optimism. The govt. has successfully rehabilitated a lot of communities from various Parks and recent information show that tigers have navigated human dominated landscapes successfully. Taking everything into consideration, there has been a surprisingly low level of conflict, with tigers even adjusting their behavior to actively avoid humans. While this is good news, the potential for conflict is still huge.
As mentioned in the beginning, this article does not provide any answers it is merely an attempt to place conflict and man-eating in a historical perspective. Here’s hoping that we are successful in managing this conflict.
