Rare tiger kills man, should we kill the tiger?

steddyeddy

An endangered Sumatran tiger has killed a farmer. This is tragic news and it’s a horrible way to go and I have massive sympathy for his family at this time. The tiger might be responsible for Local farmers are now calling for the tiger’s death but the Sumatran government want to move the animal to another location to prevent more deaths.
My opinion is that the animal is an endangered species. It is endangered because of de-forestation, loss of land and destruction by farmers (they should set up a twinning programme with Irish farmers!) and as a result only 400 tigers remain, down from a few thousand a hundred years ago. What the article doesn’t say is that farmers have been encroaching on the tiger’s territory for the last few years and as a result more and more tigers are being killed. The last few decades man has overfished, over farmed, cut down huge swathes of forest and killed every animal in their way. I don’t want to live in a world where there are just people and no other animals. Anyway article below and let me know your opinions

A rare Sumatran tiger has mauled a farmer to death on Indonesia's Sumatra island, prompting terrified villagers to call for the animal to be killed, a park official said on Wednesday.
The same animal is suspected in attacks on five other people.
The official at Batang Gadis national park, Yudi Santoso, said 32-year-old Karman Lubis was killed this week while working on a rubber plantation near the park in North Sumatra province.
His mangled body was found on Tuesday about half a mile (1km) from the plantation.
Fearful farmers have asked authorities to shoot the tiger, even though it is protected by law. The local government plans to try to trap and relocate it.
The same tiger is thought to be responsible for attacks on five other people as well as livestock over the past month in Jambi, another province on Sumatra island, said Nurazman Nurdin, an official with the provincial nature conservation agency.
A farmer and four plantation workers were taken to hospital with injuries in those attacks, Nurdin said.
Indonesia is home to about 400 Sumatran tigers, which are on the brink of extinction because of deforestation, poaching and clashes with people.
The World Wildlife Fund says their numbers have dwindled from about 1,000 in the 1970s.
The biggest threat to conservation is conflict with humans, according to the 2009 report by the forestry ministry. On average, five to 10 Sumatran tigers have been killed every year since 1998, the report said.
Indonesia is home to about 400 of the animals, which are on the brink of extinction because of deforestation, poaching and clashes with people.

seamus

Only idiots would call for a revenge killing to be carried out against an animal.

Stimpyone

Tigers gotta tiger

MJ23

The tiger only did what was natural to him. He saw yer man as his nosebag for that evening.

ejmaztec

They should feed more farmers to them.

Cavehill Red

Any farmer wants that tiger killed oughta be prepared to do the job himself, in a ring, mano a mano.

Antar Bolaeisk

If people don't want to run the risk of being eaten by tigers they shouldn't encroach on their territory.

admiralofthefleet

Whiskey apparently kills more people than lions and tigers put together

I never knew lions and tigers drank whiskey

Lollipops23

He was just being a tiger...he most likely felt scared and threatened and was protecting himself.

Dravokivich

I see little to no point in killing the tiger, for being a tiger. What needs to be considered though, is the potential of risk to the rest of the population and in my opinion, that takes precedence.

Mr Benevolent

The farmer was the tiger's takeaway snackbox. Would you kill someone for having a snackbox? Ok, a vegan might try, but they'd be too weak due to lack of meat.

Hitchens

it could have been a little child just as well as an adult that it killed. We can't blame the tiger but surely some steps will have to be taken

Lollipops23

Hitchens wrote: »

it could have been a little child just as well as an adult that it killed. We can't blame the tiger but surely some steps will have to be taken

Yeah like maybe increasing security measures where the humans live. But other than that? They live in an area that is close to dangerous animals....it's a risk.

GreeBo

Hitchens wrote: »

it could have been a little child just as well as an adult that it killed. We can't blame the tiger but surely some steps will have to be taken

Steps like maybe tell the farmers to stop invading the Tigers land mayhaps?

steddyeddy

Dravokivich wrote: »

I see little to no point in killing the tiger, for being a tiger. What needs to be considered though, is the potential of risk to the rest of the population and in my opinion, that takes precedence.

Grand so maybe they can do the clever thing and move away from the boundaries of the protected national parks?

B.A._Baracus

I'm divided on this whole thing ...

On one hand as humans we can stop species becoming extinct but then on the other hand it's mother nature for species to go extinct.

Then on another level is how much do you value a human life? - In this case it has no value to a tiger? What if that tiger killed again.

seamus

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Yeah like maybe increasing security measures where the humans live. But other than that? They live in an area that is close to dangerous animals....it's a risk.

Pretty much. Ask the Aussies what they do about Crocodiles - they stay the fnck away from them!

ScumLord

Rare tiger kills man

They should kill the chief for not cooking it properly.


The Tiger clearly isn't afraid enough of humans. They could hunt it down and scare the **** out of it. Really people just shouldn't be nice to these animals. They should chase and scare them at every opportunity so they live in fear of humans and run at the slightest chance of one of us showing up.

Ilik Urgee

The tiger has attacked 5 times and killed once.
Yet if I leave my rubbish bin out overnight my neighbors complain of the rubbish if it's windy out.
I'm gonna buy me a tiger costume and have a bit of fun of my own.

--Kaiser--

Here's an interesting article
http://artofmanliness.com/2013/03/07/man-knowledge-a-history-of-man-eaters/

A list of well-known man-eating beasts. Some of them killed an awful lot of people. Probably because they realised what easy prey a lot of humans are

Cavehill Red

steddyeddy wrote: »

Grand so maybe they can do the clever thing and move away from the boundaries of the protected national parks?

A bit off-topic, but your response reminded me of the late great Sam Kinison's cure for world hunger:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0q4o58pKwA

Dravokivich

steddyeddy wrote: »

Grand so maybe they can do the clever thing and move away from the boundaries of the protected national parks?

The last part of the comment you decided to be smart against, was in the event of animals that roam...

DEFTLEFTHAND

It doesn't matter what we think, that tigers day's are numbered. It's sad really because they'll probably kill a few more of them in their search for the rogue one.

Robbo

If only they'd had some kind of rock that keeps tigers away. I'd like to buy one of those rocks.

Liamario

Revenge against a tiger. Not surprising really. The levels of stupidity on this planet is astounding.
If you're going to kill that tiger, you might as well kill the rest of the species preemptively.
Morons.

ScumLord

Liamario wrote: »

Revenge against a tiger. Not surprising really. The levels of stupidity on this planet is astounding.
If you're going to kill that tiger, you might as well kill the rest of the species preemptively.
Morons.

The reason they kill the tiger is because that tiger now sees humans as easy food and will keep attacking. They can't convince a tiger not to attack them so they have to kill it. If this tiger was roaming around you children's playground you'd want it dead too.

dodderangler

ScumLord wrote: »

The reason they kill the tiger is because that tiger now sees humans as easy food and will keep attacking. They can't convince a tiger not to attack them so they have to kill it. If this tiger was roaming around you children's playground you'd want it dead too.

Your Wrong there
it doesn't see humans as food as it didn't eat the man
It mauled him to death same way tigers do with sloth bears
They are simply eliminating the competition

Now the lions of tsavo.
They killed and eat the humans they attacked
Colonel Patterson ( who was Irish ) who was there throughout the attacks and killed the lions that killed said he recorded over 135 people killed and most eaten though more people are said to have been killed
It's said that rinderpest disease that killed off cattle and other herbivores was the cause for the prey of the lion disappearing and so the lions who were both male but had no manes were apparently sick and so took humans at leisure to fulfill their dietary needs but with humans having feck all meat they needed to kill almost every day to feed to male lions

Son Of A Vidic

Hitchens wrote: »

it could have been a little child just as well as an adult that it killed. We can't blame the tiger but surely some steps will have to be taken

Steps be taken? Maybe keeping farmers and their encroaching tendencies out of the Tiger's territory might help.

Liamario

ScumLord wrote: »

The reason they kill the tiger is because that tiger now sees humans as easy food and will keep attacking. They can't convince a tiger not to attack them so they have to kill it. If this tiger was roaming around you children's playground you'd want it dead too.

No, I wouldn't. They were invading his territory, not the other way round.
Also, you said that the tiger now has a taste for humans. That didn't stop it before and whats going to stop the rest of them?

anncoates

I don't have to live (and rear a family) in an area where a large animal is preying on humans.

Also a bit funny to see so many people giving solemn homilies on people migrating to urban or semi-urban areas and encroaching on the animal's environment when most of you probably live - or have moved to - urban areas to find work, study and whatever. with all the attendant damage to the environment and so on.

All it takes is a few charismatic mega fauna to get the outrage rising, I guess.

That said, I'd hate to see any animal die, especially a rare one, just for exercising its natural instincts.

Maybe it could be moved to another area instead of being killed.

Artful_Badger

Liamario wrote: »

No, I wouldn't. They were invading his territory, not the other way round.
Also, you said that the tiger now has a taste for humans. That didn't stop it before and whats going to stop the rest of them?

Sure you would, their territory or not its our territory too and if they are a threat you have to remove the threat.

If its possible to remove it to another location where its no longer a threat then that would be better than killing it but human lives come first.

Capt'n Midnight

Hitchens wrote: »

We can't blame the tiger but surely some steps will have to be taken

do you know what steps I'd take ?

big ones and lots of them

Micky Dolenz

Tiger has to get it. If he killed once, he'll kill again, now that he has the taste for human blood and flesh.

Hitchens

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

do you know what steps I'd take ?

big ones and lots of them

:D:D

Pumpkinseeds

So long as humans and the big cats have co-existed, they've killed each other from time to time. Circle of life and all of that. Its nature, that might seem callous, but the tiger did what tigers do. I don't see any justification for killing it or any other tigers.

It isn't as if people are unaware of the risks posed by living in close proximity to wild animals. As for some animal populations decreasing almost to extinction, in the case of tigers and a lot of other species, it is largely as a result of human activities and not as nature intended.

IvySlayer

It attacked a human because humans are encroaching onto their territories. Tigers generally don't actively seek and hunt humans.

ScumLord

dodderangler wrote: »

Your Wrong there
it doesn't see humans as food as it didn't eat the man
It mauled him to death same way tigers do with sloth bears
They are simply eliminating the competition

Hadn't considered it that way but even so the end result is the same. The tiger needs to be so afraid of humans it wouldn't dare make a play for our territory.

Liamario wrote: »

No, I wouldn't. They were invading his territory, not the other way round.

Unfortunately in nature their is no such thing as ownership or this is my territory or your territory. The territory belongs to the animal that can kill any competition. People in these places are living fairly subsistence life's. They can't afford to consider conservation of anything other than themselves. There is no solution to this problem. Humans won't stop moving into the tigers territory and the tigers will be wiped out. I wish it was different but it's pretty much a law of nature, you take all there is until there is nothing left and then try and deal with the consequences.

I think we're going to have to learn conservation the hard way.

Jamie Starr

Tiger = rare. Human = not rare.

ScumLord

Agnostic Mantis wrote: »

Tiger = rare. Human = not rare.

Like steak and chicken?

Cavehill Red

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Tiger has to get it. If he killed once, he'll kill again, now that he has the taste for human blood and flesh.

On the contrary, he should be encouraged. Way too many humans on the planet, and insufficient tigers imho.

ScumLord

Cavehill Red wrote: »

On the contrary, he should be encouraged. Way too many humans on the planet, and insufficient tigers imho.

Are you willing to be one of the humans that gets gored to death for the good of the tigers?

Cavehill Red

ScumLord wrote: »

Are you willing to be one of the humans that gets gored to death for the good of the tigers?

I prefer to leave it up to classic Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. Let the tiger pick off whom he chooses.

The Dagda

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I prefer to leave it up to classic Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. Let the tiger pick off whom he chooses.

Are you against medicine too? :rolleyes:

Cavehill Red

The Dagda wrote: »

Are you against medicine too? :rolleyes:

Not in an essentialist sense, no. But there is definitely an argument that the attempts to supercede Darwinian survival of the fittest has led firstly to massive human overpopulation on the planet, which in turn is destroying landscape, fauna, and resources at an unsustainable rate, and also to a degradation of humanity as a species, as evidenced by everything from rising obesity to vertiginous increases in various debilitating mental and physical conditions.

ScumLord

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not in an essentialist sense, no. But there is definitely an argument that the attempts to supercede Darwinian survival of the fittest has led firstly to massive human overpopulation on the planet, which in turn is destroying landscape, fauna, and resources at an unsustainable rate, and also to a degradation of humanity as a species, as evidenced by everything from rising obesity to vertiginous increases in various debilitating mental and physical conditions.

You can't really supersede Darwinism. We've just spread the effect across the entire species rather than have it a case of every animal for themselves. At this stage huge chunks of the human population will die off as a result of our ineptitude.

The only way we can avoid the consequences of our actions at this stage is to start living in space.

The Dagda

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not in an essentialist sense, no. But there is definitely an argument that the attempts to supercede Darwinian survival of the fittest has led firstly to massive human overpopulation on the planet, which in turn is destroying landscape, fauna, and resources at an unsustainable rate, and also to a degradation of humanity as a species, as evidenced by everything from rising obesity to vertiginous increases in various debilitating mental and physical conditions.

Ignoring that Darwin didn't actually use the phrase "survival of the fittest"...

One could also argue that if you look at it from a macro, rather than a micro level, all of those factors that you mention, could in fact
be the ultimate expression of natural selection in a world where physically bettering your competition is, generally, no longer accepted.

Hitchens

Four little tigers sitting on a tree; One became a lady's coat,
Now there's only three...

Three little tigers 'neath a sky of blue; One became a rich man's rug,
Now there's only two...

Two little tigers sleeping in the sun; One a hunter's trophy made,
Now there's only one...

One little tiger, waiting to be had; OOOPS, he got the hunter first,
Aren't you kind of glad?

Bullseye1

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Tiger has to get it. If he killed once, he'll kill again, now that he has the taste for human blood and flesh.

Posts like this depress me.

Cavehill Red

The Dagda wrote: »

Ignoring that Darwin didn't actually use the phrase "survival of the fittest"...

And also ignoring that I didn't say he did...

The Dagda wrote: »

One could also argue that if you look at it from a macro, rather than a micro level, all of those factors that you mention, could in fact
be the ultimate expression of natural selection in a world where physically bettering your competition is, generally, no longer accepted.

I concur with the previous poster who suggested that by attempting to evade survival of the fittest we are lining ourselves up for a scenario in which a mass die-off becomes a possibility. It seems that you are in agreement also. I'd obviously fancy my personal chances better in a non-mass extinction event and hence would be of the opinion that such ought to be avoided. That's why, in a small way, I endorse the actions of this tiger and believe it ought to be encouraged.

Conmaicne Mara

steddyeddy wrote: »

(they should set up a twinning programme with Irish farmers!)

I think you should boycott all farmers by stopping eating and drinking any food or drink product related in any way to farming

That'll learn the hell out of us, that will.

Artful_Badger

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I concur with the previous poster who suggested that by attempting to evade survival of the fittest we are lining ourselves up for a scenario in which a mass die-off becomes a possibility. It seems that you are in agreement also. I'd obviously fancy my personal chances better in a non-mass extinction event and hence would be of the opinion that such ought to be avoided. That's why, in a small way, I endorse the actions of this tiger and believe it ought to be encouraged.

Surely the answer to that would be an argument for restricted reproduction rather than encouraging deaths ?