Indians For Guns

There was an incidence at RNP on 8th of May where by an male Tiger named Ustad (T-24) went on to attack and kill a forest guard, unfortunately guard died on spot. This reminds me of an incidence that was discussed at length on this forum few weeks back- Man eating Leopardess of FRI. I wish to have the views and opinion of IFG members on how this case should be handled, do you think Ustad should have the same fate as the Leopard of FRI...

You've got to be kidding me. Here we go again?

Where is our hunter? I forget his name.

Commonwealth_of_PA wrote:
Where is our hunter? I forget his name.

Attacking a forest guard does not make a tiger, man-eater ///

And declaring dangerous wildlife man-eaters is long and tedious process
and hunters aren't just blood thirsty zombies who shoot anything that move.

Harish Asnani wrote:There was an incidence at RNP on 8th of May where by an male Tiger named Ustad (T-24) went on to attack and kill a forest guard, unfortunately guard died on spot. This reminds me of an incidence that was discussed at length on this forum few weeks back- Man eating Leopardess of FRI. I wish to have the views and opinion of IFG members on how this case should be handled, do you think Ustad should have the same fate as the Leopard of FRI...

If it is Ustaad and not Sultaan, than this is not his first human kill.

I'm very confused. What did I do wrong?

I remember we had a man eater a year ago and we had a hunter here that was hunting it. That is not a blood thirsty zombie, that is a hunter. He seemed very noble to me in his endeavor.

The animal did not attack a forest guard. The animal killed a person. Dead. Perhaps there is a cultural issue I am missing here. In my country, when a wild animal kills a person, we make sure it doesn't happen again. How many people die in this long and tedious process of declaring an animal a man eater? It's something I obviously do not understand and I would never impose my opinions on others. I was just very surprised to learn I said something, offensive? I don't even know what I said wrong.

Do you think hunters are people that shoot anything that move where I live? I can assure you they are not. They are strict in the law and in ethics. Sometimes absurdly so it seems to me. But I would not know, I don't KILL things.

huntergill wrote:

Harish Asnani wrote:There was an incidence at RNP on 8th of May where by an male Tiger named Ustad (T-24) went on to attack and kill a forest guard, unfortunately guard died on spot. This reminds me of an incidence that was discussed at length on this forum few weeks back- Man eating Leopardess of FRI. I wish to have the views and opinion of IFG members on how this case should be handled, do you think Ustad should have the same fate as the Leopard of FRI...

If it is Ustaad and not Sultaan, than this is not his first human kill.

OK, great, no problem here. It's just human lives. /sarcasm

Hi Commonwealth_of_PA you have done nothing wrong, seriously, and no one is pointing fingers at you. The hunter you are referring to is prashantsingh his post is here http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=23206

I think it is just IFG members expressing their opinions and clarifying. I guess the issue raised by Harish Asnani needed an answer: Do we declare a tiger* in relative captivity a maneater and dispose off him in the same way as we do a tiger* in the wild?

EDIT - A tiger in a National Park is not in considered being in captivity, relative or otherwise. My error, apologies.

* I use the word tiger loosely here, it could mean any ferocious wild animal capable of killing man e.g. the leopard at FIR.

Commonwealth_of_PA wrote:I'm very confused. What did I do wrong?
The animal did not attack a forest guard. The animal killed a person. Dead. Perhaps there is a cultural issue I am missing here. In my country, when a wild animal kills a person, we make sure it doesn't happen again. How many people die in this long and tedious process of declaring an animal a man eater? It's something I obviously do not understand and I would never impose my opinions on others. I was just very surprised to learn I said something, offensive? I don't even know what I said wrong.

Maybe I missed something that has upset you. Probably the upsetting post has also been removed as I have not been able to notice any offending post.
Let me assure you that your posts are perfectly reasonable from my point of view.

Regards

Atul

Harish Asnani wrote:There was an incidence at RNP on 8th of May where by an male Tiger named Ustad (T-24) went on to attack and kill a forest guard, unfortunately guard died on spot. This reminds me of an incidence that was discussed at length on this forum few weeks back- Man eating Leopardess of FRI. I wish to have the views and opinion of IFG members on how this case should be handled, do you think Ustad should have the same fate as the Leopard of FRI...

Here is the article from The Indian Express:

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... est-guard/

Tiger mauls to death forest guard at Ranthambore National Park
The guard identified as Rampal Mali had gone to relieve himself under a tree when T 72, also known as Sultan, attacked him.
Written by Sweta Dutta | Jaipur | Updated: May 9, 2015 1:06 am

A tiger in Ranthambore National Park fatally attacked a forest guard on Friday evening. The guard, identified as Rampal Mali, had gone to relieve himself under a tree when T 72, also known as Sultan, attacked him.
The victim put up a brave fight but lost consciousness soon after.

Co-workers at the reserve rushed Mali to a hospital in Sawai Madhopur, but he succumbed to his injuries. Over two years ago, Sultan’s father, T24, had killed three workers at the tiger reserve.

Wildlife enthusiasts in the area said that since T 24 lives in the vicinity, T 72 shifted to the reserve’s periphery as male tigers are territorial and do not allow any other male adult to co-exist in a territory.

Experts in the area maintained that tigers usually do not attack forest guards patrolling the area, but since Mali was sitting down to relieve himself the tiger must have mistaken him for an animal and attacked him.

The government assured of compensation and a government job to Mali’s family members, who have refused to accept the body.

Thanks all for your opinion, I also feel there is nothing offensive from 'commonwealth' in questioning about the way this unforeseen situation need to be addressed, we are just sharing our views here. I read it in one of the quoted articles where it has been alleged that Tiger attacked the guard suspecting it to be a potential pray. I guess officials there are more experienced and know how to deal with such situations but in my opinion this is the beginning of an ugly trend and should be dealt with accordingly...

It can hardly be a surprise that something like a tiger, with millions of years of evolutionary perfection as an extremely powerful and potent killing machine, might attack an unsuspecting guard.

We have taken almost all of the environment that these creatures once ruled over and now they are restricted to what amounts to a glorified, oversized zoo. Shall we now impose rules on them, such as demanding that they license their claws? They are tigers, not men. Why should it be reasonable to expect them to live by men's rules?

I do not try to make a case here for equivalence between a human life and a tiger's. However, we do accept that there is a lethal risk in some jobs, like race car drivers or skyscraper window washers. We do not execute cars or skyscrapers for causing the demise of drivers and window washers. Rather, we examine what caused the loss of life and alter our processes to ensure it doesn't happen again. This is common in any other industry, and why it should be different because a tiger is involved is beyond me.

I'd also point out that this is different from the man eater leopards discussed in Prashantji's posts. Those cases involved leopards who began feeding on humans in open country, rather than practicing territorial behavior in a pitifully small reserve they've been reduced to living in. Additionally, there are issues of politics involved with Prashantji's leopards and the villagers in those areas. This condition isn't the same in this tiger situation, nor did the tiger appear to kill for the same reasons.

We've talked quite a bit on these boards about conservation, its importance, and the need to manage human / animal interactions. Headlong development that reduces or isolates areas for wildlife to exist is a huge problem. It was recognized as far back as the Washburn Expedition of 1872 in the USA, who proposed setting aside the World's first National Park for the nation's people to enjoy.

This is a complex issue which has many points of views. It doesn't involve a man eater who has resorted to eating people and will regularly kill again. It involves some poor chap who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, so in my opinion, it doesn't make sense to kill this tiger in this instance.

OK, well I am sorry for disturbing this, just a misunderstanding. I would have felt bad if I insulted someone and thus my response. Thanks!

Free speech

I don't think any one get insulted on "internet", usually more post numbers you have, expert you are

My points were simple that an "attack" on guard and a "stalk and repetitive prey on people" construe two different things.

And third that, unless goberment declare any wildlife a man-eater, it will not ever be legal to shoot such animal.