Dumbass Trespasses after hours in Zoo, meets Guard Tiger.

[Alyrium Denryle]

IOW, yes, it's more likely to kill again because it found the risk to be low.

Only if you attribute something to the predator. Something that makes it "different" from other animals in the same population. in the Wild, there is a good chance that animal will never encounter a human again, or if it does will make the same risk-benefit calculation. This is because they ALL view an animal our size as prey.

The only possible exception to this is an animal that is basically fed by people directly or indirectly. Even then I dont think it has much to do with any kind of Conditioning. it probably has more to do with the combination of location, human behavior, and increased encounter rate.

For example... When Steve Irwin fed his crocodiles those animals were not going after the chicken parts. They were going after HIM, they just missed him and got the consolation prize. Feeding the crocodiles is not going to make them associate a person shaped object with food more. They already explicitly view us as prey.

What counts is that the crocodiles know where food is, even if that food is the consolation prize. That, combined with the extra resources (food the humans give them if present, human pets, small animals that feed on human refuse) means more crocodiles, and bigger crocodiles. This, and the human traffic in areas where they get fed increases the encounter rate (IE the rate at which humans encounter crocodiles), and because there is an idiot in every group of tourists the likelyhood of a dangerous encounter increases. This need not just be in touristy places, but in popular fishing holes in northern australia. Stuff like that. We put ourselves in a position where we are more likely to be eaten, and then punish the animal for doing what we facilitated its doing.

Same basic principle with alligators in residential areas in FL, bears in national parks, etc. What needs to happen is that humans need to take responsibility for their safety. Put their food in a tree when they camp in Yellowstone, put locking lids on their trash cans in bear country... Fence in their fucking yards in S. FL... They drain the wetlands and they wonder why little Billy didnt come home after he went down to play at the canal. Then they act all shocked and horrified that there are displaced alligators that just so happen to have metabolic needs. They insist that the animal be further victimized (yes, it is a victim, its home was drained and the population density in the remaining wild areas increased to the point that it emigrated) by being killed. They need to take some responsibility and use a little thing called a fucking fence. Better yet, they need to stop draining the fucking everglades for human settlement. This way, neither little Billy, idiot old women out for a jog, or the alligators need to die.

</rant>

[Elfdart]

There's a line of thought that once a predator has tasted human blood that they develop a taste for it such that next time they won't avoid humans but actively seek to eat them.

I don't know how true that is in practice, but that's generally the reasoning I've heard.

Not necessarily eat, but they find humans are no danger and will therefore be more dangerous since they may well choose killing as first option rather than avoidance.

Can't comment on how valid that reasoning is, since I don't have relevant expertise.

Big cats are well known to develop favorite prey to point of ignoring other animals to hunt their preferred quarry. For example, one leopard hunted nothing but bush pigs, even though there were numerous antelope nearby. Other specialized in killing baboons when other game was available and much less dangerous to hunt. Some of this might be a matter of what animals Mom taught them how to hunt, or what they became good at hunting, but some of it undoubtedly comes down to taste. It's not farfetched, given that smaller cats (including house cats) can become such fussy eaters.

That's why, when a tiger, lion or leopard becomes a man-eater, it's such a big deal. One leopard in India supposedly killed over 300 people before it was finally shot. The lions at Tsavo killed 140 people before they were shot. With alligators or sharks it's purely a matter of what's available. With tigers and other big cats, it's a matter of going out of their way to kill certain prey exclusive of others.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That's why, when a tiger, lion or leopard becomes a man-eater, it's such a big deal. One leopard in India supposedly killed over 300 people before it was finally shot. The lions at Tsavo killed 140 people before they were shot. With alligators or sharks it's purely a matter of what's available. With tigers and other big cats, it's a matter of going out of their way to kill certain prey exclusive of others.

I see anecdotes, the plural or which is not data. lets break this down.

For example, one leopard hunted nothing but bush pigs, even though there were numerous antelope nearby.

Apply optimal foraging theory. Antelope are hard to catch. Pigs are not. The antelope may be abundant, but the bush pigs run a lot slower, are solitary (thus the leopard can ambush them more effectively) and said bush pigs are more likely than antelope to be rummaging around in a leopard's ambush site. I would not be shocked if any leopard that had the choice would preferentially target bush pigs. However you have not in any way shape or form referenced your specific anecdotal claim, therefore it can be ignored.

Other specialized in killing baboons when other game was available and much less dangerous to hunt.

Citation? Either way a baboon cannot do much to a leopard in much the same way an unarmed human cannot. baboons are also easier to catch than the standard antelope. However, also uncited. Therefore can be ignored.

Some of this might be a matter of what animals Mom taught them how to hunt, or what they became good at hunting, but some of it undoubtedly comes down to taste.

emphasis mine

What a wonderful non-sequiter you have.

It's not farfetched, given that smaller cats (including house cats) can become such fussy eaters.

Your housecat also has a 100% guarantee of food, and has been selectively bred for the past few thousand years.

One leopard in India supposedly killed over 300 people before it was finally shot.

One out of how many? Evidence that it was the same leopard? What was the local human population density?

The lions at Tsavo killed 140 people before they were shot.

Otherwise oblivious indian guys in high density working on a railroad under the usual conditions of the day. Yeah... Easy fucking food. Displaced (prideless) male lions (usually brothers) have a lot of trouble hunting without lionesses to do most of the work. Humans under those conditions are perfect sized snacks that dont run fast, dont defend themselves very well, and are not even alert enough to notice a lion stalking them during the day, let alone at night when most of the attacks occurred. moreover, those attacks took place over the course of a year.

With tigers and other big cats, it's a matter of going out of their way to kill certain prey exclusive of others.

And real evidence of this is where exactly?

[Wing Commander MAD]

Thanks. I agree, with the whole everglades bit, but that'd require people and society at large to take responsibility for our actions. Cutting our population, preferably by lowered birth rates, also needs to happen though.

Isn't one theory with the Tsavo lions that they were taking humans due to injury? If I recall correctly one or both had a damaged tooth (I'm thinking canine) that some believe would have caused great pain, thus the stalking of relatively easy human prey. I know there was some spree of around 50 lion attacks somewhere in Africa in the mid 90s and when they finally killed it, it too had a damaged (possibly absessed) tooth. Mind you this injury connection was made on some show on the National Geographic channel , so make of it what you may. Though this would fall into Aly's something that makes it "different" category, and seeing as humans without our tools are generally pretty wimpy, it makes sense that injured/sick animals would tend to be the ones that attack humans most of the time.

[Surlethe]

in the Wild, there is a good chance that animal will never encounter a human again, or if it does will make the same risk-benefit calculation.

Couldn't an animal learn? I doubt they're actually explicitly running through risks and benefits; instead, they'll be using some rules of thumb that are at base instinctual, but have been modified by experience over the years. So why couldn't an animal learn that humans are basically easy prey after one or two anomalous encounters?

[Alyrium Denryle]

in the Wild, there is a good chance that animal will never encounter a human again, or if it does will make the same risk-benefit calculation.

Couldn't an animal learn? I doubt they're actually explicitly running through risks and benefits; instead, they'll be using some rules of thumb that are at base instinctual, but have been modified by experience over the years. So why couldn't an animal learn that humans are basically easy prey after one or two anomalous encounters?

Their brains actually do calculate risks and benefits. What the actual cognitive process is is unknown, but pretty much every predator-prey experiment done (and bear in mind this is what my specialty is) shows that predator and prey species engage in complex risk-benefit assessment and that this is locally optimized and very context sensitive. It is one of the many reasons why prey species will actually signal their predators. Antelope for example Prong. When they spot a predator they move off while making high leaps. This signals to the predator that they have been spotted and that the energy they will spend chasing down the alerted Gazelle makes the possible capture (and high risk of failure) unjustified. That is one example I can cite many more, such as the backward facing masks people in rural india wear to ward off tigers. They actually work, the tiger thinks it has been spotted and breaks off its stalk.

Remember that their typical success rate for hunting is low. On the order of 10% (for big cats). A couple anomalous encounters is not going to be enough for them to preferentially target humans and actively seek them. They may view a particular location (like a construction camp) as a good hunting area (in the same way that they know where the Gazelle hang out) but they wont devalue the risk that they perceive on an encounter by encounter basis. They may, after a significant number of encounters, learn that these hairless apes cannot defend themselves very well and that even if spotted the humans cant do much to stop them and the risk of injury is low. However, that does not happen after a chance encounter or two, and it is pure stupidity to think that "the moment they taste human flesh they become more dangerous than they were before". That is the product of a uniquely human brand of hubris.

[SylasGaunt]

That's why, when a tiger, lion or leopard becomes a man-eater, it's such a big deal. One leopard in India supposedly killed over 300 people before it was finally shot. The lions at Tsavo killed 140 people before they were shot. With alligators or sharks it's purely a matter of what's available. With tigers and other big cats, it's a matter of going out of their way to kill certain prey exclusive of others.

If you're thinking of the leopard I think you are (the Panar Leopard) then the alleged kill count is 400. Same thing with the Champawat Tigress with 436.

Though this would fall into Aly's something that makes it "different" category, and seeing as humans without our tools are generally pretty wimpy, it makes sense that injured/sick animals would tend to be the ones that attack humans most of the time.

I'd have to go look it up but IIRC the majority of man-eaters aren't sick or injured.