I can see maybe S Africa or maybe on a preserve somewhere. But in the true wilds, does any animal actually die of old age?

Animals don't die of "old age", they die mostly from running out of teeth. Herbivores less able to chew get less nutrition from browsing, resulting in a one-way decline until either disease or a predator win, predators have obvious problems when their teeth go.

With my reputation for buffalo shooting around here they just might
Chipolopolo

If they die because their teeth wore out or they became to old to avoid a leopard, then I would say that old age was the cause of death.

465H&H

Like any animal anywhere in the world, nature usually takes over as they get old sick and weak. If there are predators, they will take opportunity when it presents itself.

I guess it is possible and more likely in an area where there are few or no big predators.

Big old Kudu will die off in an extreme drought.

Unlike humans, animals die in precisely the same way as they have been for generations.

If you look at how long animals live in caprivity, compared to the same species in the wild, you will see that there is quite a difference.

Animals in the wild have three main aims in live.

Food, stay away from being eaten, and breed.

All the above can be affected by weather patterns.

I think every animal we have shot showed SOME sign of being in some sort of a fight. Some had extensive wounds, that seem to have healed very well.

So to answer your question, the average age an animal lives to be in the wild is muc shorter than in captivity, and that is due to natural selection.

quote:

But in the true wilds, does any animal actually die of old age?

This Kudu isn't far from it. It's teeth are nearly gone and it's starving away. The photo is from RSA where many natural preditors no longer exist however.

I will probably get into trouble with this, but I honestly do not consider animals on a South African farm are living in the wild.

So I would count those as "in captivity".

They do not have to put up with trying not be eaten on a daily basis like those living in true wilderness.

Ruark has a nice discussion of this very topic when he talks about hyenas. It may be in Horn of the Hunter, but if not it shows up in magazine articles he did. I just reread the volume of stories edited by MacIntosh and saw it there.

We have found elephant skeletons in the wild.

In some cases, they appear to have died of anthrax or some other disease; in others, old age seems to have been the cause.

We have seen a couple that were likely killed by poachers.

I am not a naturalist, but here is my opinion.

Elephant seem to be the exception rather than the rule. Prey animals are generally killed and eaten in old age, but before the final and fatal ailments of old age have had a chance to bring them down on their own.

Even predators, such as lion and hyena, are killed (and often eaten) before their bodies finally break down. Fights and predation take their toll.

Elephant are generally the only ones big and strong enough to die on their own.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I will probably get into trouble with this, but I honestly do not consider animals on a South African farm are living in the wild.

So I would count those as "in captivity".

They do not have to put up with trying not be eaten on a daily basis like those living in true wilderness.

Saeed,

You bet you are in trouble for saying that!

To be fair, there is an element of truth in what you say, but the way you say it is far to broad and generalized to not get you into trouble. I will give a few examples of animals living on farms in South Africa, and you please tell me in each instance if it is (1) truely wild or (2) wild, yet somewhat restricted or (3) in true captivity. Here goes:

Example 1: Any bird [and a bird is an "animal"?], including game birds that are regularly hunted, can fly where they want to when they want to. Are you sure that you wanted to say these are "in captivity"?

Example 2: A whole variety of small animals like mongoose, meercat and many others, including game animals like rabits, steenbuck, springbuck, mountain reedbuck, bushbuck and a few more of the notorious "fence crawlers" that live on 99% of the area of South Africa. I, say 99% as my guess is that only about 1% of South Africa is so well fenced that these cannot easily crawl through the fences. Anyone who has ever walked a small distance along a game farm fence will vouch that a warthog is simply hardly slowed down by a normal game-fence. So, my guess is that only about 1% or less, of South Africa is fenced well enough to keep these crawlers for going where they please. These animals living on 99% of the country can and do go exactly where they want to go when they want to, and you want to say they are "in captivity"?

Example 3: Almost all animals that live in something like 80% of South Africa that is not fenced by high game retaining fences. These animals, like kudu and eland and others simply crawl through or jump over or break the cattle fences to go exactly where they want to when they want to, and you want to say they are "in captivity"?

Example 4: The animals that live in large, but without defining exactly how big large is, game-fenced areas. I admit that these make up a significant, if not the majority, of animals regularly hunted by visiting hunters in South Africa. These do not have to stay away from the lion's dinner table on a day-to-day basis, but there are other predators, like leopard, black backed jackal and python, that can and does take their toll from the young and smaller species. These animals largely go just wherever they want to when they want to on a day-to-day basis. Granted in a very dry period the game fence restricts the natural instinct of some of them [blue wildebeest and a few more] to migrate towards better grazing. The real territorial types, like steenbuck, kudu and others, would not migrate away from their established territory in dry times, even if there was no fence to stop them. Yet you lump all of these into a single category as being "in captivity"?

Example 4: Animals like sable, roan, disease free buffalo and a few others like lions bred for canned shooting, that live in intensive breeding areas. These areas are typically so small that either on a daily basis throughout the year or at least seasonally the food in their "cages" has to be supplemented. These animals comprise a very small % of all the hunted animals in South Africa, and I agree with you that these are "in captivity".

Hoping that I have not unduly upset Saeed, but succeeded in showing that there is truth in the signature line of one of the AR posters that says something like: If you insist on looking for trouble, you are sure to find it!

The main point that I want to make is that us South Africans, as well as the vast majority of the visiting plains game hunters, hunt real wild animals that are largely totally unaffected by the fact that they actually live behind [or in front of?] a fence!

What is true in the context of the original posting is that only a very small % of all the animals that live in the well-fenced areas will ever reach old age: The trophy hunting pressure is simply far to high, and many, if not most, are harvested as "trophies" long before they are trophies in my book, and definitely long before they are likely to die of old age associated infirmities! Yes, some old kudu cows, and females of other hornless species, probably die of age-related causes.


In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren

Well said Mr Mclaren

An ele that lived his life out!