Man-eater Monday: Gustave the Crocodile

Last week, I happened to be in Oxford on a rainy day, and so, found myself at the UK’s only crocodile zoo – Crocodiles of the World, near Brize Norton. And one of the showpiece spectacles is their feeding of the 26 Nile crocodiles they have in the collection.

It was quite something to behold. But despite the many snapping jaws, and many being over two metres or more in length, they were still diminutive compared to a certain legendary Nile.

One named Gustave.

The Animal

Gustave is — or was — a Nile crocodile of extraordinary size. Estimates put him at somewhere between five and a half and six metres in length, making him one of the largest crocodiles ever reliably documented. His weight has been guessed at over nine hundred kilograms. These figures carry the usual caveats: he was never captured and therefore never officially measured. But even accounting for a little over estimation, Gustave appears to have been a genuinely massive animal, an outlier among outliers, operating in the Ruzizi River delta and along the northern shores of Lake Tanganyika near Bujumbura.

Gustave next to some smaller, more typical-sized Nile crocodiles.

It wasn’t just Gustave’s size that made him easy to identify at a distance. He had a grouping of scars along his right rear flank put there by machine gun fire and another visible patch of pink scarring on his right shoulder from either a spear or homemade harpoon. These and other marks were accumulated through decades of encounters he walked, swam, or slithered away from.

He also had two large bony projections on top of his head that seemed to have fused at the rear, something noticed and commented on in the 2004 documentary Capturing the Killer Croc.

And he was old. Dr Alison Leslie, who observed Gustave in the early 2000s first thought he was maybe 100 years old due to his size. But his excellent and full set of dentition meant he was more likely around the age of 60, and still growing. Niles have a typical optimal lifespan of around 70 years in the wild.

Either way, his size and age, if reliably estimated, combined to produce an animal that operated by slightly different rules. For instance, in 2003, a park ranger observed Gustave stalk, kill, and devour an adult hippopotamus – something unheard of.

Another of those differences was something that researchers and locals often observed about his kills. Crocodiles, like all predators, typically don’t kill more than they can eat, or close to it. Yet Gustave appeared to kill well beyond that threshold with reports of multiple victims in a single event, before disappearing for periods. One theory holds that his sheer size made conventional feeding mechanics difficult: he was perhaps too large to roll prey underwater efficiently.

Another possibility, darker and less comfortable, is that the behaviour was simply something akin to personality – Gustave killed because he could. As the dominant animal in whatever patch of river he claimed, his age and size combined with highly territorial instincts would make his mere presence a threat. Whatever the mechanism, the pattern meant that the kill estimates grew, and kept growing, and eventually became uncountable.

The number of alleged human fatalities, between 60 and 300, tells you everything about the problem of documenting Gustave’s victims. Attacks along the Ruzizi and the Tanganyika shore were rarely reported to any central authority. Many victims were fishermen, or people collecting water, in communities with limited access to formal record-keeping. The lower figure probably reflects confirmed attributions; the upper figure is folk accounting and accumulation, the number that feels true even if it can’t be proven. The real figure is somewhere in there, which is its own kind of horror.

My own observation is that Gustave was clearly capable of taking large prey, having been documented attacking the hippopotamus mentioned earlier, other crocodiles, and a mature cow – which was caught on camera. Many of his human victims were found drowned and not devoured (but not all by any means). I think its likely that these kills were either territorial or perhaps those discovered before Gustave could return to them: although the idea of crocodiles storing meat underwater to tenderise the meat is something of a myth (they prefer fresh meat almost always), they have been observed caching larger prey and leftovers in places where the carcass won’t be swept away by strong currents. However, the kills may have also been instinctual: the riverbanks that Gustave called home were often popular with fishermen and their presence may have been too tempting. But perhaps afterwards, Gustave decided they didn’t meet his calorific requirements.

The Man

Patrice Faye arrived in Burundi as a French expatriate and became a long-term resident, which given his interest in herpetology, isn’t surprising. Burundi is an exceptional destination for herpetologists because it sits at a unique biogeographical crossroads. Bridging the Congo River Basin, the Great Rift Valley, and the East African savanna, its isolated, high-elevation montane forests, pristine rivers, and protected nature reserves are a goldmine for discovering endemic and rediscovered reptiles and amphibians. And due to decades of political turmoil, much of the country remains under-surveyed compared to neighbouring East African nations. This offers huge potential for modern field researchers and taxonomists to uncover rare or presumed-extinct taxa.

However, by the 1990s, Patrice had become the foremost chronicler of one reptile in particular – Gustave — not as a scientist exactly, but something between a naturalist, a documentarian, and an obsessive. He photographed the crocodile. He collected accounts of attacks. And eventually he decided to catch Gustave alive.

Faye constructed a large trap. It was a massive, 10-metre steel device designed to hold a crocodile of Gustave’s dimensions. Deployed in the animal’s territory, the plan was to lure him in, secure him, and then keep him in an especially built enclosure, some 60 by 90 feet for study and I’m sure as a potential attraction.

We’ll never know, as after the trap was deployed. Gustave ignored it. He showed some curiosity once live bait was introduced, but never ventured into it.

The 2004 National Geographic/PBS documentary Capturing the Killer Croc followed Faye’s expedition, and what it captured — unintentionally — was the peculiar comedy and pathos of human expertise confronting an animal that didn’t know it was supposed to be catchable. The crew waited. Gustave circled. On several occasions he came close enough to raise heart rates, then turned away. By the end of the documentary he had not been caught and ultimately. never has been.

There is something almost classical in the shape of this. The monster that keeps proving itself uncatchable is a very old story. What’s unusual here is that it’s a true one, documented on film, with a specific man standing at the centre of it — wading into a Burundian river, looking for something he couldn’t quite reach.

The Legend

Here is the moment Gustave crossed from animal into myth: sometime in the mid-2000s, while confirmed attacks were still being reported, communities around the lake began to speak about him less as a crocodile and more as a presence. A territorial entity. Something that had claimed the water and established terms. Fishermen avoided certain areas not merely out of caution but out of something closer to acknowledgement that they were operating in Gustave’s space, and that he might enforce that.

His own skin was a pockmarked testimony of his un-killable nature. And his intelligence was almost supernatural. Faye and other scientists often felt outwitted and out manoeuvred by Gustave – that he was always somehow one step ahead. Even the trap intended for his capture was somehow dislodged. Some say it was by heavy rains. But others say Gustave walked around the cage, took the goat, and dislodged it that way.

This is how living legends get made. Not through any single dramatic act, but through the accumulation of attacks that defy logic, combined with evasions and failed attempts at capture, until the animal stops being an animal and becomes an idea. Gustave’s unusual size also certainly added to his legendary status.

But here is something Burundi’s killer croc has probably never been told: he is very probably now dead.

The rumours have circulated since around 2019 — that Gustave, the most feared predator in Burundi, the Nile crocodile estimated to have killed somewhere between sixty and three hundred people, died quietly somewhere in the reed beds along Lake Tanganyika. No body. No confirmed sighting in years. Just the slow absence of a presence.

The probable death, if the 2019 rumours are true, is interesting precisely because of how little it has settled. There was no body. No confirmed final sighting. No Faye standing over something conclusive. The absence of evidence is indistinguishable, at this distance, from a six-metre crocodile lying low in deep water. And so Gustave continues to circulate — in articles, in forums, in conversations. Here, now, in this one.

It should be noted that Faye was arrested and imprisoned in Burundi in 2011, on five charges of rape, serving a 25-year sentence. Although the case must be taken seriously for obvious reasons, it is marred by possible corruption and questionable proceedings. However, the point is that since 2011, Gustave’s main documenter has been out of the game. So maybe, just maybe, Gustave still stalks the riverbanks of the Ruzizi River delta and the northern shores of Lake Tanganyika

The Honest Admission

There is something worth acknowledging about the fact that the people most fascinated by Gustave — researchers, filmmakers, writers, readers of blogs like this one — are, on some level, rooting for him. Not for the attacks. Not for the deaths, which were real and brutal and happened mostly to people living modest lives beside a beautiful lake. But for the persistence of the animal itself.

It is difficult to explain this without sounding callous, so let’s try to be precise: what people are rooting for is the idea that something this large, this old, this impervious, is still out there. That the world is still a place where a creature can operate entirely on its own terms, evading every trap, outlasting every pursuit, accumulating a toll that becomes legend — and then disappearing, silently, on its own schedule.

We built our categories — man-eater, monster, legend — and Gustave filled them all without ever being asked.

And ultimately, we must consider the part humans played in creating the circumstances that enabled or even drove Gustave towards becoming a man-eater. In the 1950s, when Gustave was less than two metres long and barely ten years old, Burundi’s deltas were home to buffalo, elephant, warthog, and wild herds of numerous antelope. But each was made geographically extinct in a few short years. The only wild large mammal to survive was the hippo.

It’s not hard to imagine as livestock were introduced and brought to the water’s edge that Gustave became acclimated to the presence of humans. And then, one day, after growing used to taking the cows, he missed or opportunistically targeted their human companion. And a legend was born – perhaps one that will never truly die.

The Killers of Eden

When Orcas Hunted With Whalers

The name sounds like something from folklore.

The Killers of Eden.

But these weren’t pirates. Nor outlaws. Not even a forgotten cult. They were orcas.

For decades in the nineteenth century, along the southern coast of Australia, a pod of killer whales worked in co-operation with human whalers in Twofold Bay.

They didn’t merely follow the boats or scavenge from discarded carcasses. They signalled. They herded. They hunted alongside the men. And at the centre of the story was one specific individual, a male that became known as Old Tom.

The Signal in the Bay

From the 1860s until the early twentieth century, shore-based whaling was integral to the small town of Eden.

Unlike the vast industrial fleets that would later dominate the Southern Ocean, Eden’s operations were small, open-boat enterprises run, at least to start, by a single family – the Davidsons. What made their station remarkable was not its size, but its partnership.

When migrating humpback or southern right whales entered Twofold Bay, the orcas would drive them toward shore. Old Tom, recognised by his tall dorsal fin, was known to swim to the mouth of the Kiah River and slap his tail against the surface — a deliberate “flop-tail” that alerted whalers to the presence of a whale.

Men would heed this signal and scramble into their boats. The chase would begin. And a significant ritual became an anchor to the partnership.

The arrangement became known as the “Law of the Tongue.” Once a whale was harpooned and secured, the carcass would be anchored overnight. The whalers would leave the lips and tongue, which are rich in blubber, for the orcas. The rest would be processed at the try-works.

This is important, as it clarifies the partnership as not one based on sentiment. It was mutual advantage.

Old Tom

Old Tom measured around 22 feet (6.7 metres) and weighed an estimated six tons. Distinctive wear on his lower teeth suggests he frequently gripped tow ropes during hunts. This behaviour was allegedly recorded by whalers who claimed he would sometimes take the line in his mouth and help pull the boats.

At other times, he reportedly clamped onto the rope fastened to a harpooned whale and allowed himself to be dragged through the water, an act the crews described with something like affection. Yet, a later incident of what seemed like a playful tug of war notably loosened his teeth.

He also notably returned season after season.

The documented co-operative hunts largely ceased by 1901, following a series of disruptions. One member of the pod, known as Typee, was shot by a local after becoming beached in the shallows. In the aftermath, Indigenous Australian whalers who had worked with Davidson’s crew withdrew from Kiah Inlet. At the same time, global industrial whaling expanded dramatically, and baleen whale numbers began to decline.

The ecological and economic balance that had sustained the alliance fractured.

No baleen whales were recorded in Eden after 1926.

Old Tom, however, continued to return. Often alone.

On 17 September 1930, his body was found floating in the bay. His skeleton now hangs in the Eden Killer Whale Museum, suspended in quiet testimony to a strange chapter of maritime history.

The Solitary Return

Orcas are deeply social animals. They travel in stable, matrilineal pods, maintaining lifelong bonds and passing hunting traditions across generations. Despite the folklore surrounding Old Tom, males do not lead pods. Solitary individuals are rare.

The image of Old Tom returning alone to Twofold Bay has unsettled observers for decades.

Local belief holds that the rest of his pod may have been killed further north, possibly in Jervis Bay, by Norwegian whalers unaware of the cooperative history in Eden. Elsewhere along the coast, fishermen and whalers often regarded orcas as competitors and retaliated with bullets and harpoons.

The “Killers of Eden” were never universally protected. They were tolerated, while useful.

When shore-based whaling declined after 1901 and industrial fleets reduced whale populations further offshore, the ecological conditions that had enabled the cooperation disappeared. And the behaviour vanished with them.

Cooperation or Strategy?

It is tempting to romanticise the story. Man and predator working side by side. An interspecies pact honoured through ritual.

But modern research offers a quieter explanation.

We now know that orcas exhibit:

Cultural transmission of behaviour
Specialised hunting techniques within pods
Long memory and social learning
Adaptive exploitation of predictable food sources

The Eden pod was not acting out of loyalty in a human sense. Nor were they mythic collaborators. They were intelligent apex predators exploiting a reliable opportunity.

Orcas are the largest members of the dolphin family, which is significant because bottle-nosed dolphins in Laguna, Brazil, have developed a similar, near century-old partnership with local fishermen. They signal with tail slaps and head nods when the men should cast their nets, as the pod herds the fish towards shore.

The “Law of the Tongue” was not a moral contract. It was strategy.

When overhunting reduced baleen whale numbers, and when industrialisation changed the rhythm of the bay, the strategy no longer worked. And so it ended.

The Name That Lingers

“The Killers of Eden” remains a provocative phrase. We can’t but help associate the name Eden with a place of original innocence. And killer is the name we give all deliberate predators.

Yet the title reveals as much about us as it does about them. We were the ones that christened them killers, whilst we were killing too.

Perhaps what unsettles us is not that orcas hunted alongside humans but that they adapted so fluidly to our violence. That they folded themselves, briefly, into our industry.

And when that industry collapsed, they did not mourn the contract. They adapted or vanished.

There is something more grounded in that. This story isn’t about myths, monsters, or miracles. It’s just two apex species intersecting, for a moment, in a fragile ecological alignment.

And when the balance broke, the sea closed over it.

If you enjoy reflective explorations of the uneasy boundary between humans and the wild, my novels explore similar terrain, where co-operation, fear, and instinct are rarely as simple as they seem.

Man-Eater Monday: The Sankebetsu Brown Bear Incident

In the winter of 1915, the settlement of Sankebetsu, in northern Japan, was already under strain.

Snow lay deep across Hokkaido. Food stores were thin. Travel was difficult, sometimes impossible. For the people living at the margins of cultivated land, winter was not simply a season — it was a test of endurance.

What went largely unconsidered was that the same conditions applied to everything beyond the settlement’s boundaries.

The forests were locked in ice. Natural forage was scarce. Prey animals were weakened, dispersed, or absent altogether. The winter that pressed hardest on human communities was doing the same to the wildlife around them. But at the time, this was not a connection people were trained to make.

Ecology, as a way of thinking, had not yet entered the conversation. Hardship was viewed as a human problem, unfolding against a largely static natural backdrop. The idea that animals might also be responding — adapting, learning, and changing behaviour under pressure, was rarely entertained.

It was in this context that the Sankebetsu incident began.

A first encounter and a dangerous assumption

The bear’s first appearance was not dramatic in scale, but it was decisive in consequence. In December 1915, a large brown bear entered the settlement and attacked a woman working near her home. The encounter was sudden and close-quarters. She was killed before any effective intervention could be made.

The bear did not linger. After the attack, it retreated back into the surrounding forest.

That withdrawal shaped how the incident was understood.

Within the settlement, the prevailing belief was that the animal had been startled — that the violence was reactive, not intentional, and that the danger had passed with the bear’s departure. The incident was treated as an isolated tragedy rather than the opening stage of a larger threat.

No co-ordinated hunt followed. No sustained effort was made to track the animal’s movements or assess whether it might return.

This response was not careless so much as culturally conditioned. At the time, apex predators were often viewed as opportunistic but fundamentally avoidant of humans. An animal that fled was assumed to have learned fear.

But this assumption rested on a misunderstanding of how predators learn.

An animal that kills and escapes unharmed has not seen that behaviour punished. It has been reinforced. The boundary between human and prey does not harden, it weakens.

In retrospect, the bear’s retreat was not a conclusion. It was a pause.

Escalation isn’t chaos, it’s pattern

When the bear returned, it did not behave erratically.

It came back into the settlement repeatedly, moving with increasing confidence through spaces that had already been shaped by human presence. Homes were entered. People were taken from places that should have been safe.

One of the most disturbing moments came shortly after the initial attack, when the bear returned during a funeral held for the first victim. Drawn by human activity and the presence of food, it entered the area and killed mourners gathered there.

The violence was no longer confined to a single encounter. Over the course of one night, multiple people were killed in separate attacks. By the time the bear was finally stopped, five lives had been lost, several of them within hours of one another.

What is striking, in retrospect, is not the scale of the violence, but its consistency.

The bear did not flee after these encounters. It did not act randomly. It returned to the same settlement, exploited moments of vulnerability, and withdrew only when challenged. Each successful attack reinforced the same lesson: humans were accessible, and resistance was minimal.

This is the point at which many retellings introduce the language of madness or bloodlust. But escalation, in cases like this, is rarely chaotic. It is patterned.

Under conditions of prolonged scarcity, the bear’s behaviour reflected learning rather than frenzy. What appeared to the community as senseless violence followed a grim internal logic shaped by hunger, opportunity, and success.

Human hesitation, and a belated resolution

As fear spread through the settlement, so did uncertainty.

There was disagreement over whether the same bear was responsible for each attack. Some believed the animal would eventually move on. Others feared that a co-ordinated response might provoke further violence. Time was lost to debate, hesitation, and the difficulty of acting decisively in extreme winter conditions.

When a concerted effort was finally made to track the bear, it revealed just how unprepared the community was for such a task. Weather obscured trails. Knowledge of bear behaviour was inconsistent, drawn from folklore, fragments of experience, and assumption rather than strategy.

Eventually, a group of hunters succeeded in locating and killing the animal. The bear was identified as a large male brown bear, in poor physical condition. Its body showed signs consistent with prolonged scarcity. With its death, the attacks stopped.

The immediate danger to Sankebetsu was over.

But the resolution came only after multiple lives had been lost, and only once the cost of inaction had become undeniable. The bear’s death did not mark the defeat of a monster, but the delayed recognition of a threat that had been misunderstood from the outset.

Then, and now

More than a century after the Sankebetsu incident, it is tempting to look for repetition — to imagine the same landscape quietly replaying its past.

That is not what the evidence suggests.

Brown bears still inhabit Hokkaido today. The species persists across much of the island’s forests and mountain ranges, and in some areas populations are thought to be stable or recovering after decades of decline. The region where Sankebetsu once stood is no longer a permanent settlement, and there is no indication that it has become a modern centre for serious bear attacks.

History, in this sense, is not repeating itself geographically.

What has changed is the broader context in which people and bears now coexist.

In 2025, Japan recorded 13 human fatalities and more than 100 injuries resulting from bear encounters, involving both Asiatic brown bears and Asiatic black bears. These incidents were spread across multiple prefectures and environments — from rural settlements to the edges of towns — rather than concentrated in any single location.

The pressures behind them are familiar: reduced natural food availability, changing land use, and expanding human presence in areas once less frequently occupied. Bears range more widely when resources are scarce, and humans now occupy landscapes that were once seasonal or marginal.

The relevance of Sankebetsu, then, is not that it is happening again in the same place. It is that the same ecological forces – scarcity, overlap, and hesitation, all continue to shape encounters between people and large predators, wherever clear boundaries erode.

The quieter truth of man-eater stories

The Sankebetsu bear was not a creature of myth, nor a symbol of evil. It was an animal responding to scarcity, learning from success, and moving through a landscape that no longer offered clear separation between forest and home.

Man-eater stories endure not because they reveal something monstrous about animals, but because they expose a recurring human blind spot: the tendency to see nature as static, until it reacts.

When prey disappears, boundaries blur. When boundaries blur, conflict follows.

The question is not whether such stories will happen again, but whether we recognise the conditions early enough to change the outcome.