PUT EXTRA MONEY IN YOUR POCKET
https://www.ebates.com/r/SYBIL414?eeid=29041

Why Tigers Aren't That Dangerous

Tiger, lion, cougar, leopard, anything cheetah size or larger

Moderators: Ash, TamanduaGirl

User avatar
Splashstorm
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:56 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Why Tigers Aren't That Dangerous

Postby Splashstorm » Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:52 am

There are 10,000 tigers in the US (that are pets).
There are 15 tiger attacks a year.
.0015% of privately owned pet tigers attack a year.


There are 78 million dogs in the US.
There are 4 million dog attacks in the US a year.
.05% of dogs attack a year.

I rest my case. :bear:
Past Pets: Sea-monkeys, 7 Cottontail rabbits, a Wakin goldfish, 2 cats & a betta fish.
Wishlist: Malinois, Alaskan wolf, hyena, liger (& other big cats), Arabian horse, dolphin, & much more!

~RIP my Cottontail rabbit Brownie AUG 15 2011~
ImageImage
User avatar
Nìmwey
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:17 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Why Tigers Aren't That Dangerous

Postby Nìmwey » Mon Jun 23, 2014 4:14 pm

The 10.000 tigers number is most likely grossly exaggerated, often thrown out by AR people. :icon-wink:
But still, even if we take a much lower estimate (I think it was the Feline Conservation Federation that put the number of tigers in the US at 2800), your point stands.

1 per 186.66 tigers attack every year.
Or, .0053% of them.

And I thought it was 75 million dogs in the US, and you may be correct about 78, but let's say it's 75. :icon-wink:
1 per 18.75 dogs attack every year.
Still .05(3)%, like you said.

Then of course, the fatality numbers are vastly different. About 20 people have died from big cats (not tigers specifically) in the last 20-22 years, 14 by tigers.
That's 0.75 deaths per year by 2800 tigers.
Which I guess would be equivalent to one death per year by 3730 tigers.

I don't know exactly how many people die from dogs every year in the US, but it seems to be around 35.
That's one per 2.1 million dogs in a year.

Now, tigers are obviously more dangerous as they can view humans as prey, and cats will always be more dangerous than dogs of the same size (felines are just perfect killing machines), even then, a tiger is three times the size of the largest dog.

You are exactly 10 times more likely being attacked by a dog than a tiger.
So dogs attack more, but when tigers do attack, they are far more deadly.
However, everyone killed by big cats have willingly put themselves in that situation. No one has been an innocent bystander, unlike people killed by dogs (or horses).

I really am quite sick of this idea that just because an animal is a natural predator, it is a ticking time-bomb that will explode and kill the nearest human for no reason whatsoever, at any given moment. Read the comment sections of ANY YouTube video featuring big cats (or wolves, bears, hyenas, etc.) interacting with humans for examples of this.

...while they leave small children unsupervised with their dog, which is domesticated and therefore *completely* harmless and has no instincts left. :icon-wink: (Sarcasm for those who didn't get that.)
My main interest is in parrots, dogs, toothed whales and snakes.
Future animals I want to have when we have land are camels, wolfdogs/wolves, coyotes or jackals, striped hyena or aardwolf. Also poultry, rabbits water buffalo and/or yak for livestock.
Nicophorus
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:01 am
Location: Florida

Re: Why Tigers Aren't That Dangerous

Postby Nicophorus » Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:37 pm

And then you read the following and realize why Tigers were exterminated (in china) and near exterminated in India as pests:

2014 Jim Corbett National Park, India attacks

Forest officials say a female tiger has killed its 10th human victim in a month while evading three hunters tracking its pug marks in northern India; the tiger had strayed from the park, prowling near villages on the border between the north Indian states of Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. The latest victim, killed Sunday night, February 9, 2014, was a 50-year-old man mauled while collecting firewood; the tiger ate parts of the man's leg and abdomen before being scared off by villagers waving metal rods and shovels


Another reason for captive breeding perhaps? Where in the world are we going to put a sizeable and viable population of tigers in the wild, with the earth getting smaller and people more numerous all the time? Would YOU like to live in the range of just this one quoted tiger above? I sure as hell would not.
User avatar
Ash
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7954
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Utah

Re: Why Tigers Aren't That Dangerous

Postby Ash » Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:42 pm

Agreed, Nicophorous. As much as it'd be great to see them thriving in their natural habitat, I honestly don't blame the humans who don't want them in their area.

Education though about predators is a valuable tool, at least here in America. For example, wolves are not as bad as the general populace thinks, and so people go and kill them off. Same with blackbears--people are terrified of bears, so people want to kill them (in all honesty the ones that attack people are the ones that get fed, so people just need to stop feeding the bears).

But as for the people in India living out in the bush, what are you going to tell them? Are you going to tell them to put up with big cats attacking them, for the sake of the wild cat population? No way.

It's another reason why captive breeding is a must. Their habitat is shrinking, and human encroachment is a problem for them. You can't tell people not to farm or not to have kids, so the only option is captive breeding.
3 red fox, 4 pectinata iguanas, nile monitor, BW tegu, sailfin dragon, leachie gecko, 6 snakes, salamander, 3 tarantulas
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10420
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Why Tigers Aren't That Dangerous

Postby TamanduaGirl » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:45 am

Wild big cats are probably the most dangerous predator since they will see humans as prey. It's similar with mountain lions though fatal attacks aren't as common they do happen. It's not as big a problem because we aren't living off the land as much here so aren't pushed face to pace with them as much. Attacks on people recreating in most common instead. I've not seen one in the wild yet but heard one and we hopped back in the SUV and left.
User avatar
Nìmwey
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:17 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Why Tigers Aren't That Dangerous

Postby Nìmwey » Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:26 pm

There seem to be some lions and tigers in the wild that have killed and eaten a lot of people, but the cats themselves that do that are very rare. Often weak, sick or old, so they can't hunt their natural prey.
My main interest is in parrots, dogs, toothed whales and snakes.
Future animals I want to have when we have land are camels, wolfdogs/wolves, coyotes or jackals, striped hyena or aardwolf. Also poultry, rabbits water buffalo and/or yak for livestock.
User avatar
Nìmwey
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:17 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Why Tigers Aren't That Dangerous

Postby Nìmwey » Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:22 am

Melissa Smith has done it again.
A very lengthy, in-depth "study" of big cat attacks and fatalities from 1990-onwards.

http://melissaasmith.hubpages.com/hub/b ... ttacks-USA

I find, from her list of 23 fatalities, that 6 were from "pet" big cats.
My main interest is in parrots, dogs, toothed whales and snakes.
Future animals I want to have when we have land are camels, wolfdogs/wolves, coyotes or jackals, striped hyena or aardwolf. Also poultry, rabbits water buffalo and/or yak for livestock.

Return to “Large Exotic Cats”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest