The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1892-07-15
THE FEROCIOUS TIGER.
Proof That He Kills More Men Than Any
Other Animal.

Proof That He Kills More Men IMAM ANY
Other Animal
The point of view from which the
lion or tiger looks on man is perhaps
not so far removed from that of the
non-carnivorous creatures as might be
supposed. Man is certainly not the
natural food for any animal-except for
sharks and aIligators, if he is so rash as
to go out of his native element into
theirs-and if the item man" were sub
tracted from the bill of fare of all the
carnivora they would never want a
meal The notion of the natural atti-
tude of lion to young lady
When as that tender vergin 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
of the way politely-if we may Judge by
the pacific behavior of those in our last
explored lion-haunt, Newfoundland.
Georges Leroy's contention for the nat
ural affinity, or semi-sympathy, which
should exist between man and intelli-
gent hunting animals is no doubt part
ly reasonable. Leigh Hunt was un-
pleasantly struck by the incongruity of
the notion of being eaten by wild beast,
the hideous impracticable fellow
creature looking one in the face, strug-
Cling with us, mingling his breath with
ours, tearing away scalp or shoulder
blade" But the ''fellow-creature' is
not nearly so impracticable as he is
supposed to be. More human beings
are probably killed by tigers than by
any other wild bea st. except by starv-
ing wolves Yet this is what Sir sam
uel Baker has to say on the subject:
There is a great difference in the
habits of tigers. Some exist on the
game in the jungles Others prey espe-
cially upon the flocks belonging to the
villages. A few are designated man
eaters These are sometimes naturally
feroc ious, and, having attacked a hu-
man being. may have eaten the body,
and thus acquired taste for human
flesh: or they may have been wounded on
more than one occasion, and may have
learned to regard man as a natural en-
envy. But more frequently the man
eater is very old tiger, or more prob
ably tigress, that, having hunted in
the neighborhood of villages and car
ried off some unfortunate woman, has
discovered that it is far easier to kill a
native than to hunt jungle game"
As 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 can
not be seen, neither can they see, until
the stranger is close upon them. An
ancient instance of the opposite be-
havior is that recorded of the new col
onists of Samaria, where the lions at
tackled land slew some of them" A
curious inversion of this experience oc-
CURED when the islands in the Brah-
maptura. which Were swarming with
tigers were firstcultivated. The natives,
mainly by the aid of traps set with a
bow and arrow. killed off the tigers so
fast that the skins were sold by auction
at from eight annas to one rupee apiece.
In this case the tigers were the first ag-
gressors by carrying off cattle. But it
seems evident that there exists no
priori reason, founded in natural an
tipathy, why man and animals. if we
could reconstruct state of nature in
which we could put civilized, not savage
man, should not dwell together in pro-
found peace. or at least in such peace as
obtains between accidental neighbors.
The only ground for quarrel that seems
inevitable is the everlasting one be-
tween the shepherd and the wolf, and
that. after all, is a question, not of pre-
judice, but of property.-London Spec
tator.