Skip to main content

Tiger farming threat to wild tigers

The demand for 'traditional medicine'  is driving tigers to extinction.  Tiger farming feeding this demand fosters the market for poaching, increasing the threat to tigers in the wild. 

The rising demand for tiger parts and rapid increase in price of tiger bone continues to be an irresistible incentive to poachers.


According to the World Wildlife Fund, the number of tigers on tiger farms has escalated rapidly in recent years, with 7,000-8,000 tigers reportedly held in a large number of facilities throughout East and Southeast Asia – most notably in China, Thailand, Lao PDR and Vietnam.

This captive population is estimated to be much higher than the remaining tigers in the wild, which are found across eleven countries. Each of these last remaining wild tigers is threatened by the illegal trade in their body parts – from their skins down to their bones – which are traded by criminals for profit on the black market.

Breeding tigers for profit

You might think tiger farming would be good news for tigers in the wild.  It isn't.  Tiger farms are commercial organisation that breed tigers for profit, and it sustains the very demand for tiger parts that leads to poaching of wild tigers. 

The vast majority of tigers killed by poachers are trafficked illegally from countries such as India, Russia, Nepal, Indonesia and Malaysia to countries currently permitting the operation of tiger farms within their borders.

Obstacle to protection and recovery

The current scale of commercial breeding operations on tiger farms is a significant obstacle to the protection and recovery of wild tiger populations.   Tiger farms undermine enforcement efforts: The movement of tiger products to consumer markets, through legal or illegal means, complicates and thus undermines enforcement efforts aimed at distinguishing and stopping the trade in wild tiger products.

Tiger farms are not conservation breeding programs: Tiger farms do not benefit the conservation of wild tigers, and must be differentiated from legitimate, accredited, zoos, whose focus is conservation.

Conservation breeding

Conservation breeding, followed by the reintroduction of animals into the wild, is one of the most frequently cited conservation actions that have led to improvements in a species’ status on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Conservation breeding programs, with conservation as their primary aim, are part of a coordinated tiger population recovery effort, and generally are used to:  1) address the causes of primary threats to a species, 2) offset the effects of threats, buy time, 3) and/or restore wild populations. 

If poaching continues at its current rate, researchers have predicted that many if not all the tiger clans will be wiped out in the near future.
Let's stop it.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha