Are they poaching the dragons or stealing them while they're still alive? Usually you'd say "poaching" or "illegally hunting" or something if that's what it was, but stealing a live Komodo dragon sounds like a foolhardy endeavor.
Unless say,you were trying to put one in a bag. Also they don't need to hang on to you to kill you like a croc does.
What are you basing this on?
Related to the bacteria/saliva myth are misconceptions on how they hunt. They often eat their prey alive in a very brutal manner[3], rather than biting them once then hanging back for their prey to die. They also have exceptional endurance by reptile standards. Crocodilians are known for very rapid burst speed, but monitor lizards and particularly Komodo dragons can chase prey at very high speeds for much longer than you'd expect[4].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komodo_dragon#Saliva
[2] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2013/06...
That's incorrect.
>In 1969, Walter Auffenberg came along and made his detailed study of Komodo dragon behaviour. He made two critical observations:
>1) Komodo dragons can kill large prey, occasionally even buffalo, outright.
>2) buffalo that escape a Komodo dragon attack often die of infection.
>Auffenberg, based on the second observation, hypothesized that the dragon had septic saliva and used it to kill large prey slowly over days or weeks, even though his own published field observations contradicted this. The public caught wind of this idea, and the myth of the Komodo dragon as a slow killer with a virulent bacterial brew was born.
>Then, in the 21st century, Dr. Bryan Fry discovered the presence of modified salivary glands in the dragon's lower jaw. The compound produced by these glands proved to be a potent anticoagulant.
>Dr. Fry believed that this substance was venom, since many types of snake venom also cause uncontrollable bleeding. He also recognized that Komodo dragons kill prey quickly rather than over a long time, since he actually observed these animals hunting. Unfortunately, the press totally missed that last bit, so the myth lived on in modified form, with venom replacing bacteria.
>The original venom hypothesis has come under fire recently (Hargreaves et al, 2015), and many scientists now believe the anticoagulant is a digestive enzyme. There are many reasons to indicate that venom doesn't play a role when killing prey, which certainly fits with the observations of Komodo dragons killing prey violently and swiftly.
>In 2013, another study revealed that there was no septic bacteria in the Komodo dragon's maw. In fact, it has a cleaner mouth than most mammals due to constantly replacing its teeth, leaving no chance for trapped food to rot and fester before they fall out along with the dentition.
>It is a fact that Komodo dragons do not wait for prey to die, even though this myth is still being presented as true by pop culture. What really happens in these cases is something else entirely: prey escapes, gets infected, dies, and is eaten by a dragon (possibly the same one if it happens to be nearby). There is never any intent by the dragon to kill its prey in this way. They try to kill quickly, in some cases even near-instantaneously, and usually in just a few minutes.
[0] https://imgur.com/gallery/RUeB9
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/news/comments/b8joz9/komodo_island_...
Then in the afternoon they start running around and the rangers use the sticks to keep them away.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLxRAcBYhKE
> ...swallowing is still a long process (15–20 minutes to swallow a goat). A Komodo dragon may attempt to speed up the process by ramming the carcass against a tree to force it down its throat, sometimes ramming so forcefully, the tree is knocked down
Jesus, they're mental.
This is actually a common problem in Mexico: "They [drug lords] like charismatic animals that symbolise power and strength: big cats such as lions, tigers and jaguars, along with big snakes, monkeys and nice looking birds," [1]
[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/indepth/features/2011/09/20119...
https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/worlds-deadliest/...
I hear the same argument about ivory poachers being poor people faced with no other choice but it's simply not true, the amount of money gained from killing one animal is 20 years salary, it's not a choice between going hungry or not.
How stupid someone has to be to steal someone's food day in day out (and eventually get caught, beaten or worse) when they can "steal" something that belongs to no individual and get away with it?
If the animals actually had a private owner, poachers would mostly get caught and the island wouldn't be closed to tourists.
At least that's how it works in India (Sandalwood, ivory etc.,) so I'm guessing this is standard modus operandi across the world.
The point I'm trying to make is, ivory poachers are indeed poor people. However, the amount of money they make from killing one animal is good enough for a week or month's worth of living. Nowhere near 20 years salary. So they are driven by hunger.
The bigger players, politicians, corporations are the ones driven by greed. The movie Blood Diamond is quite accurate IMO.
It could be that you have—in theory at least—two options:
1) Try to plant corn. 2) Kill a rhino.
There is no option here that makes exactly $3 or whatever is may be that your food need is for that timestamp.
I think he means "people got to eat" as in you need some kind of income.
How is killing chicken not worse than capturing lizards?
Sounds to me like they should be farming these things. 100 animals is 3.5 million. Not a bad way to make money.