The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1892-07-06
THE TIGER.
Proof That He Kills More Men Than Any
Other Wild Animal

The point of view from which the
lion or tiger looks on man is perhaps
not so far removed from that of the
noncarnivorous creatures as might be
supposed, says the London Spectator.
Man is certainly not the natural food
for any animal-except for sharks and
alligators, if he is so rash as to 90 out
of his native element into theirs-and
if the item "man" were subtracted
from the bill of fare of all the carniv-
ora they would never want meal.
The notion of the natural attitude of a
lion to a young lady
When as that tender virgin he did spye,
Upon her he did run full greedily,
To have at once devoured her tender corpse
is still popular, but hardly correct.
More probably the lion would get out
the way politely-if we may judge by
the pacific behavior of those in our
last explored lion-haunt, ,Mashonaland.
Georges Leroy's contention for the
natural affinity, or semi-sympathy,
which should exist between man and
intelligent hunting animals is no doubt
partly reasonable. Leigh Hunt was
unpleasantly struck by the incongru-
ity of the notion of being eaten by wild
beast-"the hideous impracticable fell
low-creature looking one in the face,
struggling with us, mingling his breath
with ours, tearing away scalp or
shoulder blade" But the fellow
creature" is not nearly so impractical
BILE as he is supposed to be. More hui
man beings are probably killed by
tigers than by any other wild beast,
except by starving wolves. Yet this
is what Sir Samuel Baker has to say
on the subiect: "There is great diff
ference in the habits of tigers, Some
exist on the game in the jungles. 9th
ers prey especially upon the focks be-
longing to the villages. A few are
designated 'man-eaters.' These are
sometimes naturally ferocious, and,
! having attacked human being, may
have eaten the body, and thus ac-
| uuired taste for human flesh; or they
NAV have been wounded on more than
one occasion, and may have learned
to regard man as natural enemy.
But more frequently the 'man-eater'
is very old tiger, or more probably a
tigress, that, having hunted in the
neighborhood of villages and carried
| off some unfortunate woman, has dis
covered that it is far easier to kill q
native than to hunt jungle game%
As a rule, the tiger is only anxious
to avoid men, and it is noticed that in
high grass tigers are more dangerous
! than in forests, because in the former
they cannot be seen, neither can they
see, until the stranger is close upon
them. An ancient instance of the op
posite behavior is that recorded of the
new colonists of Samaria, whom the
lions attacked, "and slew some OF
them" A curious inversion of this
experience occurred when the islands
in the Brahmaptura, which were
swarming with tigers, were first cult
waited The natives, mainly by the aic
of traps set with bow and arrow
killed off the tigers so fast that the
skins were sold by auction at from
annas to rupee apiece. In this cast
the tigers were the first aggressors b,
CARRYING off cattle. But it seems evi
dent that there exists no a priori rea
son, founded in natural antipathy, why
man and animals, if we could recon
struct a "state of nature" in which W.
could put civilized, not savage man
should not dwell together in profount
peace, or at least in such peace as OBJ
tains between accidental neighbors
The only ground for quarrel that seem
inevitable is the everlasting one be
} tween the shepherd and the wolf, ant
that, after all, is question, not o
prejudice, but of property.