Animal Vs. Unarmed Human Being - List animals that would "win" in fights vs. humans-varied perc (May/09/2011 )

Hippos do kill people for territorial behaviour yes.

There is a famous story about an ape that killed more then 10 people in a little town in africa.. however I forget the details about the story (cant remember where). The ape even had his own name and they hunted for the ape for months.... after a half year finally they managed to get it... but the ape allready killed more then 10 people.
There is also a documentary about this story.. but I cant remember the details

I don't remember this story, pito but going back to the polar bears, I really don't think they actively hunt people...they may be the most carnivorous of all the bears but their main food which they actively hunt are the seals esp the ringed ones...in fact, you'd find them in abundance where these seals are plentiful....and they live mostly on ice floes in the arctic...so definitely not a lot of humans living over there....It's also very interesting how they do this sneaky, stealthy still-hunting...they're guided by their very keen sense of smell to the seals breathing holes and as soon as they detect the seal's breath, they'd reach in and haul it out from the hole and kill it...

But polar bear attacks are quite rare and they're also not territorial like the grizzlies. And if there's scarcity of food, they can actually fast for long periods of time.....but of course, if extremely provoked and hungry, no unarmed man is a match for them..the adult male is about 3 meters tall and weigh more than 500 kg....however, the terrestrial animals can easily outrun them- they become hot and then tire very fast....

About the polar bears: since I couldnt figure out where I got that info, I checked a documentary on polar bears I onced taped and yes, there it was: "polar bears are the only know animals that will actively hunt people" ... said by the head researcher/polar bear team leader in some town where they sometimes pass by.

Too bad I only saved that part about the polar bears and not the entire documentary.

The thing is: grizzly bear kills you, but wont eat you (in general), polar bear: kills you and eats you..

pito on Fri May 20 18:06:51 2011 said:

ok sure, if they're hungry enough, they can consider humans as prey...I think that anything that moves and smells will be considered as food but to actively hunt people like they do the seals? I'm not convinced by this. If you check the web for bear attacks..you'd find that there are more cases reported for the brown and the black bears. Recently, due to the floe break-ups and the melting of the sea ice, more and more polar bear sightings are reported but I think that there are more cases of garbage rummaging and food theft in human habitats than the actual killing and eating of people....

Doesn't it depends how you define hunting? For me not only killing and eating is "hunting", but actively following someone, i.e. chasing, until the prey is caught. And then killing or just checking if you taste good. and then feeding on you or leave you alone. Dead, hurt or with a huge shock, depending on hunger of the animal of course . For me grizzlies, tigers and lions are hunting and they feed on humans, at least sometimes.
Check these sites:
Champawat Tiger
Tsavo maneaters with scientific reliable proofs
Indian Tigers
Gustave
and even a leopard
of course not meant as real proofs, lots of exaggeration, but anyway interesting.

and check this site:

wikipedia seems to be a unlimited resource

hobglobin on Fri May 20 20:30:48 2011 said:

which could be easily double-checked anyhow.....and we shouldn't forget the unreported stats bec in the case of the polar bears, if the attacks occur in far-off aboriginal communities, we will probably not hear a lot about them ...

BigshotHeavyhitter on Tue May 10 02:49:43 2011 said:

It's not as easy as you're all making out, as nobody seems to have noticed the 1/10 success rate the animal needs. All of the animals listed would probably win 10/10 times.

Tut tut, shame on you scientists.

Lapsang on Fri May 27 13:46:57 2011 said:

ppfftt...that's just a matter of semantics- the OP just phrased it wrongly...besides, who can calculate this 10% success rate unless you put the animal and the human in a boxing ring and let them fight it out for a specific number of rounds? And what would be your educated guess, Lapsang?

casandra on Fri May 27 14:04:38 2011 said:

and Mr Lapsang should read my first reply post on the page before...anyway, during a long discussion topics change sometimes...and only nitpickers complain about that.