Having seen the discussion between
Hardcastle and
grippingwhiteness , I appreciate the thoughtfulness in these posts.
But I should say that there is one critical factor that both are living out of the picture. One critical factor that can change the entire course of a predator’s existence.
While it is true, that the size of, or danger posed by a certain prey animal is a very important factor in deciding whether or not a certain predator targets it at all, or if it does, how often it does so, one VERY HUGE (and to me, annoying) mistake that is REPEATEDLY made within the animal fanbase is that this is the ONLY factor.
Often times, people tend to judge a predator/animal ONLY by what it does or what they see it do, and give NO allowance that it has the potential to do much more than it currently does, or that there are reasons why what it's doing currently seems to be the best it is capable of.
For me, that is a narrow-minded way of thinking or even living. I prefer to look at the big picture, and ask the smart questions: why isn't this predator not doing more than it currently is? Is there a reason why? Is there anything in the real world that shows that this predator has the capacity to do X and Y that it currently isn't doing?
I just don't feel convenient with this mentally-relaxed attitude of "Predator A doesn’t do it, therefore the ONLY conclusion that can be drawn is that it CANNOT. If it could, we would see it doing so, but since we don't, therefore it HAS to be because it can’t."
To me, that is the voice of somebody who is not eager to learn, or refine their knowledge, and (honestly) somebody who will not make any progress. I see it far too often in the animal community.
Now, let's get to the main discussion.
Regarding leopard predation on zebra, you both concluded that it is anomalous, the main reason being given that zebra is, on a normal day, too large and powerful a prey item for most leopards to tackle.
And in all honesty, this is flat out wrong. In fact, I would go so far as to say this is NOT the reason AT ALL.
The TRUE reason is something that goes several miles deeper than just the formidability of a potential prey. The true reason involves us looking at what Africa is today from a leopard’s perspective.
One thing that I love to base my conclusions on is a real-world phenomenon. Indeed, it is the cornerstone of many of the arguments that I propose. The line of thought is: "
Okay, so we know this thing doesn't happen. That's an established fact. But, is there by chance, ANYTHING in the real world that resembles it or looks like a replica of it? Is there a sort of "precedent"?"
The reason I ask this kind of question is because if there is a "precedent", it only means that if the animal we're talking about today starts doing what it previously wasn't doing, it would ONLY be an antecedent. Not a first timer.
If there's a previous or already existing occurrence that is analogous to the one we're expecting of a certain animal, it just means that the CONCEPT of our animal doing it is not novel or outlandish.
It just means that if our animal starts doing it, it would be nothing more or less than history repeating itself. And boy, history has repeated itself countless times, over the duration for which life on earth has endured. It has happened in virtually every sphere of life. So, expecting it to happen in the animal kingdom is not crazy or childish.
The question then becomes, "
when we cast our gaze unto the real world, do we see anything that resembles, or looks like a replica of a viable leopard-zebra relationship?"
And the answer to that question which is joyfully resounded by my voice is "Yes we very clearly do, and we don't even have to look hard!"
In fact, the 2 animals that we have in our "real-world replica" are the perfect substitutes for leopard and zebra: Cougars and Wild horses, AKA feral horses.
Now, going through scientific literature, YouTube videos, news pages, and the likes, you easily find that there is a wealth of information that is available for offer on cougar predation on adult horses.
Go through the same process, and you'll find out that there isn’t as much info that can be offered regarding leopard predation on adult zebra. And this, despite the fact that both the cats, and the equines are comparable in size/formidability.
Overall, when you ask the typical person who has got something to do with cougars and leopards, "Between cougar predation on adult horses, and leopard predation on adult zebras, which happens more often?", the response he is likely to give is that cougar predation on horses just outshines leopard predation on zebra.
Again, this is so, despite the fact that leopard predation on zebras is effectively a replica of cougar predation on horses; it's essentially just a cougar in a spotted coat killing a horse in a striped coat, because, let's face it, that's exactly what leopards and zebras are.
Cougar predation on horses is a given, a well known and indisputable phenomenon through history. It's also one that is well documented in scientific literature.
As with all carnivores, while it is true that the majority of horses taken are foals (in ANY carnivore's diet, the amount of young and females taken is ALWAYS more than the amount of adult males taken. In only a few, almost insignificant cases do we have exceptions), adult horse predation is by no means a "freakish occurrence" that should cause the foundations of the earth to be shaken.
Take it or leave it, it IS something that indeed happens with a good deal of regularity. Well, for those who own horses, they would understand what I am saying better, because it is regular enough for them to notice a great reduction in their pasture, as you will see in these pages.
Horse owners hate cougars to the core, they are the bane of their existence. In fact, C.H. Townsend says "It is
PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to raise colts in the Shasta County hills on account of these pests."
He later went on to say that despite the destruction cougars inflict on domestic pigs/hogs, and on cattle, they pose an even bigger threat to horses.
He even recalls being informed by a horse breeder who stated that he never got to see more than 2 or 3 of his colts on his stock range at any one time, because the colts were being killed by cougars almost immediately after they were born.
Foal predation aside, cougars killing FULL-GROWN horses is a very real thing.
A very severe case of depredation was recorded by Vernon Bailey, on both brood mares and saddle horses (full-grown males and females):
In October 1890, 70 mares and 40 saddle horses were left in a community pasture in New Mexico.
Seven (7) months later, in May of the following year, 1891, when the owners of the horses arrived, more than half (21) of the saddle horses had been killed (only 19 were left), only part of the mares were found (which would suggest that out of 70, the vast majority had been taken), and no foals remained, all of them taken by the cougars.
Keep in mind that this is an account that involved the killing of full-grown horses, males and females alike, and that all this destruction to a community pasture took place over the course of just seven months.
According to J. Stokley Ligon, cougars love the taste of horse flesh so much that they actually lose all caution in their pursuit of it; they effectively become reckless, not concerned about their own safety.
He also believes that it is not unusual for cougars to take down full-grown horses (I.e, it is not a rare occurrence), and he records up to 9 cases where saddle horses (adult horses) were killed during the winter of 1912-1913.
Another hunter, B.H. Beauchamp reported his full-grown horse being killed by a cougar. He and his dogs had been chasing a cougar when they reached a spot where he couldn't pass through on horse back. He decided to tie his horse to a tree while he continued on foot alongside his dogs.
The pursuit lasted longer than he had anticipated, it soon got dark, and he had to call off the hunt. However, due to it being dark, he couldn't climb up the mountainside, so he decided to leave his horse (hoping it would be safe until morning), and spend the night in a cabin.
To his surprise, the next day, the horse had been killed by another cougar. The scene clearly depicted that a terrific struggle had taken place between the horse and the cougar, and the horse had serious claw and bite marks on the neck and shoulders:
Taken From:
The puma, mysterious American cat. Part I: History, life habits, economic status, and control (Pages 140-141):
archive.org/details/pumamysteriousam00younI think it's pretty clear by now that cougar predation on adult horses is a given. So, why does it take place more often than leopard predation on zebra?
The answer to that question is that both cougar and leopard have different degrees of "equine predation mitigators."
What do I mean? That the factors that prevent leopard predation on zebra are heavier than that which limits cougar predation on horses.
It's a well known phenomenon that when a lower ranking predator lives in a habitat that is well populated by a higher ranking carnivore, there is an effect on the prey species that it kills.
In such scenarios, the lesser carnivore is consistently killing smaller and weaker prey, in order to make the most of living. It is a universal pattern that repeats itself across carnivore communities. It is effectively "a law of nature."
Basically, the rule is that when a certain predator is at the peak in an ecosystem, it has the liberty to take whatever prey item that it has the ability to take. In such scenario, whatever it does would be indicative of what it can do.
However, upon the emergence of an even higher or stronger predator, the afore-mentioned predator immediately shifts its diet in favour of smaller and easier to kill prey. This is something that instinctively happens in response to the sudden shift in "power" or "authority", or the new competition, in order to make the most of living.
Funnily enough, despite all the previous things that I said regarding cougar predation on horses, cougar predation on horses is actually hampered in portions of the USA known as the Great Basin and the Sierra Nevada.
And a study conducted did show that cougar predation on horses is actually greatly affected by the presence of scavenging black bears.
One conclusion the study reached is that cougars living in areas where black bear density was high have a higher chance of losing their kills to black bears, and hence tend to favour mule deer more often. Read the pages below (particularly the highlighted parts):
Taken From:
Recolonizing carnivores: Is cougar predation behaviorally mediated by bears? (Various pages):
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.7424#Now does this mean that this cougars can't kill horses, or that they can’t kill them with a greater amount of frequency than they already do? Absolutely not! It is that they DELIBERATELY choose to turn a blind eye to horses because they don't want to live at a loss.
This, I believe is the exact same thing that is going on in Africa. This, I believe is why leopard predation on zebra is "anomalous", not because leopards for the most part do not have what it takes to be in a viable prey-predator relationship with zebras.
They 150% do. It's not about lack of ability, it's about existing in an "improper environment" for the relationship to take place.
If black bears as the ONLY superior carnivore to cougars in the Great Basin, can force many cougars to rather prey on mule deer than take down a full-grown or sub-adult horse, then how could you possibly be expecting leopards to prey on zebras in an environment where lions, hyenas, and wild dogs wax strong in numbers?
It's just an unreasonable expectation if you have any knowledge on how predator societies run/are governed. At the same time, it is NOT an indicator of inability on the part of the leopard.
It only serves to prove the "stronger predator mitigates list of items on weaker predator’s menu" argument stronger.
Now, the argument that "leopards still prey on impala, warthogs, and gazelles even in the presence of lions, hyenas and wild dogs, so them not preying on zebra is a reflection of inability" is fallacious. To be more specific, it is the straw man fallacy.
It is fallacious because the argument being put forward is that stronger predators "RESTRICT" what weaker predators kill, and not that stronger predators "PREVENT" weaker predators from killing anything in the habitat. It's about restriction, not an all-out prevention.
The argument that "after years, and years of not preying on zebras due to the factors that restrict them from doing so, the end result for leopards is an animal that for the most part, cannot prey on zebras" is also fallacious, because the leopard is essentially like a seed kept in a fridge where it cannot germinate (the current Africa). The thing is, that seed can remain kept in that fridge for 20 years, and it will not lose its viability.
The argument that "being in an environment where you don't have to do something, or are forced to not do something gradually takes away your ability to do it" is flat out wrong, because your ability to do it is innate, something that is part of who/what you are, something that makes you, you.
And it is not something that can be taken away by the environment. The freedom to do so, yes, can be snatched by your surroundings, but the potential, the ability, is not something your environment can take from you.
The ability to be a regular predator of zebras (with just as much regularity, and almost just as much success rate as lions) is part of what makes leopards, leopards, and it's not something the current dynamics of the African savannah can take away from them, much the same way a fridge doesn't take away a seed's viability no matter how long the seed spends inside of it.
