In 2004, leopards killed 19 people in Mumbai. Although fatal attacks have diminished since 2007 (Fig. 7.1), they show the scale of a problem that has received extensive local and even international media coverage. These attacks took place inside or on the edge of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP), mainly in areas occupied by slums. They raised questions about the wisdom of siting a national park in a megacity of some 20 million inhabitants, the excessive density of the leopard population, and a way of managing space which in 1995 has seen more than 500,000 slum dwellers living in the park. That at least is the view one might take on consideration of the Mumbai case alone. However, a comparative approach prompts a different way of thinking about things. In Nairobi, a city of 4 million people, the national park of the same name also borders slum areas and is home to a fairly dense population of leopards (as well as lions, hyenas and hippopotamuses), which represents a potential danger. Yet no wild animals have killed human beings in the park in living memory, other than a few incautious tourists who have left their cars to take close-up photographs of lion cubs jealously protected by their mothers. How can this difference between Mumbai and Nairobi be explained? What is it that differs in the "humanimal" (Estebanez et al. 2013) relationship that sometimes makes the encounter between man and cat more dangerous for the man (and for the animal) in Mumbai than it is in the Kenyan capital? An initial hypothesis might be that a different way of managing the park, better coordinated with the management of the city, explains the absence of human victims in Nairobi. Perhaps the actors in