Talk:Tiger attacks in the Sundarbans

Untitled
"Recently, attacks have been on the rise" vs. "The human death rate has dropped significantly". Does that mean that although there are more attacks, death rates have dropped? Or are there different sources claiming different things?

Precautions
Although the paragraph has been marked as needing citations (May 2010 and November 2009), none have been provided. Is this information merely vandalism, or does it have some basis in fact?

Ed8r (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

One of these statements must be wrong
"Tiger attacks in the Sundarbans, in India and Bangladesh are estimated to kill from 0-50 (mean of 22.7 between 1947 and 1983) people per year.

"

"Even if only 3% of a tiger's diet is human meat, that still amounts to the tiger killing and eating about one person per year, given the amount of food a tiger typically eats. "

"Even at the rate of fifty or sixty kills per year, humans would provide only about three percent of the yearly food requirements for the tiger population of the Sundarbans. Thus, humans are only a supplement to the tiger's diet; they do not provide a primary food source. "

If all of these statements are correct, that would mean that there are around 22 tigers in the Sunderbans.

Let's disect the statements:

22.7 people are killed per year by tigers

3% of the Tiger's their diet consists of humans

Each tiger kills around 1 person per year.

Now from the linked article Sundarbans, it's stated that "The Sundarbans forest is home to more than 400 tigers.".

Now if we combine all of this data we get that 400 people are killed per year if each tiger kills one person. In reality 0-50 people are killed there per year. Snailedlt (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)