Predators
Two recent episodes, in which an animal which is a natural predator has attacked a human being, reminded me of a great book on dogs that I got as a gift last Christmas.
The book is "The Truth About Dogs," by Stephen Budiansky. Budiansky questions how exactly dogs ever became domesticated; he doubts that this happened primarily because of human effort or planning. Rather, he thinks dogs found some advantage in changing their behaviour--first in acting more cringing and cowardly, as opposed to threatening, then in acting positively "friendly."
For one step of his argument, he stresses how few species have ever been domesticated in the whole history of mankind on earth.
"...out of more than 4,000 species of mammals and 10,000 of birds that have inhabited the earth for the last 100,000 years, only about a dozen have ever entered into a domestic relationship with man. The ancient Egyptians, as we know from depictions of their failed experiements that they ingenuously carved instone, tried unsuccessfully to domesticate antelopes, ibex, gazelles, and hyenas, none of them improbable candidates on their face. Wolves, aurochs, jungle fowl, wild rabbits, and wild horses did become domesticated; coyotes, bison, grouse, squirrels, and zebras did not. It is hard to escape the conclusion that success had as much to do with them as with us." (p. 17)
In fact, it seems certain that only one type of wolf was domesticated; other types have always resisted domestication. "...wolves that are raised in captivity lose some of their fear of approaching humans--and with proximity comes trouble....captive wolves who had the closest relationships with humans were by far the most dangerous and unpredictable....Both wolves and wolf-dog hybrids kept as pets have attacked young children without warning, apparently when the child's running, crying, or stumbling triggered a predatory response. Predatory attacks always come without warning, for to be an effective hunter in the wild, a predator must of course be stealthy. That even socialized wolves can display such extremely dangerous, and extremely instinctive, behaviors makes it highly unlikely that wolves could ever have made workable pets, even to a bunch of hairy guys with clubs." (pp. 19-20)
Which brings me, of course, to the recent episodes. More later.
Update: Roy Horn, of Siegfried and Roy Las Vegas fame, was mauled by a tiger, and nearly killed, during a show on Oct. 3. He and the tiger were the only ones on stage. The tiger refused an order to lie down, and Horn hit him on the face, repeatedly, with a microphone. At one point Horn reached for the chain around the cat's neck. He missed (this is where some accounts say he actually stumbled) and the big cat did what he would do in the wild when he was sure he was dealing with a weakling: he went straight for the throat and carried his prey off in order, presumably, to devour it in privacy.
"The tiger refused Horn's command to lie down, audience members said, and appeared to take a playful pat at Horn, swinging a paw at the entertainer.
"'He lost the chain (around the tiger's neck) and grabbed for it, but couldn't get it,' Cohen said.
"The tiger locked his jaws on Horn's right arm as Horn unsuccessfully struggled to free himself by striking the animal with the microphone. That's when the tiger lunged at Horn, clamping his jaws onto his neck."
Horn had announced, as apparently he always did, that this was the tiger's first time on stage--but in fact the tiger had performed regularly since it was six months old. This lie was described after the mauling as a "joke," but it was presumably intended to raise the audience's expectation that the big cat might be nervous, might do something unpredictable and dangerous. S and R also lied about the tiger's age, making it 7 instead of the actual 9 years old--I'm not sure why.
Another account includes the stumble, which is what really might make a predator think "snack":
"The white Siberian has been a cooperative cat. But on Friday night, he didn't want to walk in the right direction. So Roy hit him on the cheek with his microphone five times.
"After the fifth time, the tiger, which weighs about 600 pounds, attacked. The animal grabbed at Horn's arm, causing the entertainer to stumble.
"The tiger then lunged at Horn, who tried to beat the animal away with the microphone. It bit into the left side of Horn's neck and dragged him off stage by the neck. The attack barely missed severing Horn's carotid artery."
Roy's partner Siegfried, along with others who have made a fortune from this show, have offered reassurances that the attack happened because of unique circumstances. The cat was distracted by something in the audience (a woman's hair?), Roy decided to move the cat away, in a manouvre that was not part of the act, and it was this strange movement that the cat resisted. Roy "courageously" put himself between the cat and an audience member.
Jack Hanna, the zookeeper of TV fame, has backed up this story by saying that if the tiger had set out to kill his prey, that would simply have been done. Well, it came close.
Several of the more recent articles are like
this one: "Tiger Meant to Kill Roy Horn, Experts Say."
Then there is the grizzly bear attack. (Or Alaskan brown bear--same species, living on the coast).
Timothy Treadwell was known for saying these bears are basically harmless and playful. He made a point of getting close to them, and touching them. Experts had expressed concern in the past: "'At best he's misguided,' Deb Liggett, superintendent at Katmai, told the Anchorage Daily News in 2001. 'At worst he's dangerous. If Timothy models unsafe behavior, that ultimately puts bears and other visitors at risk.'"
If you have a dark sense of humour, you can enjoy other details here and here about this guy's life from the Globe and Mail: he sometimes kissed the bears, he lived with them for months every year, he once denied that he had a death wish, or that he was addicted to the danger he was exposing himself to. He began his wilderness studies after a drug overdose. (A woman was killed along with him).
My point is simply this: do these people think they are in a Walt Disney movie? They probably think they are better than the "bad" kind of human beings--you know, the ones who believe in controlling and exploiting nature. But isn't this the greatest arrogance of all--to think you can become one of the family with a wild animal? That you have some special charm or skill ("I know I have to be careful, but I won't screw up like those other losers") that protects you?
See also: swimming with dolphins, sometimes off of cruise ships. My sense is: yes, a pod of dolphins might adopt you as a member of the pod. But, if they have not yet adopted you, they might just attack you. And they can be violent creatures, contrary to what you might think from TV.
Also: one of the family that brought us "Born Free," about living with lions, was killed by one of the family lions.
UPDATE: I was thinking of Joy Adamson, and this turns out not to be true. Because of the way her body was found, it was initially assumed she had been mauled by one of her lions, but it was eventually concluded she had been stabbed to death, and someone was convicted of murder for it.
Not that maulings by lions are exactly rare in Africa. I don't know who the "conservation" group is that's responsible for this newsletter, but this piece is cynical and hilarious. "Meat is Meat" as far as lions are concerned.
UPDATE: Then there are elephant attacks. I read a review of a book a few years ago (I can't find any reference to it now) that apparently showed a consistent pattern. Supposedly domesticated elephants will suddenly attack and kill someone--not by accident, but quite deliberately. It is a bigger problem with males than females, so performing elephants today are almost all female; but the problem has never gone away.
Since I started out with dogs, I might as well end with them. Many people will say: aren't domestic dogs also unpredictable, and sometimes prone to violence? Yes. Even with a well-trained dog, I think you should never assume a dog will be good with strangers or children. All dogs have some version of the "us vs. them," "friend or foe" instinct, and it is fully engaged when meeting new people, or when encountering children who are themselves unpredictable. (I think quite a few kids like to try to poke a dog in the eye--I don't know why).
Still, the danger is mostly with a few breeds--contrary to what the owners of those breeds always say when they are threatened with a by-law. There are reputable dog books that say Doberman pinschers from Europe are more likely to have a "wild" hunting/attacking instinct than those from the U.S. With any Dobie, there are warnings that if you succeed in training them to chase and grab something, even in fun, you might find this brings something out which is more dangerous than you bargained for--and you can't bottle it back up again. I met a Dobie owner in a park once, and he said he wasn't going to train his dog to chase anything until about 3 years of age. I read a great article on Weimaraners once--a superb breed--which simply said: don't teach these dogs to chase young children or smaller pets.
We worked for a few weeks with a dog trainer who owned Rottweilers and portrayed himself as a real tough guy--I show these dogs who's boss, etc. Yet there were times, even in the few weeks I knew this guy, when the dogs didn't do what they were told. Great. I once foolishly opened the gate and went into the trainer's yard, where one Rottie was on patrol. (The owner was home, and we were there to pick up our Westie. Our messages had crossed about the pick-up time, and the guy had closed his gate). Fortunately I knew the Rottie's name, and stayed calm. When the trainer came out, he said I was lucky the dog hadn't gone for my throat; this was probably because the owner was in fact at home, with his car in the driveway. Great.
|
