Skip to main content

Saving tigers offers hope

It is easy enough for us to respond to 'save an animal' campaigns. We are rightly concerned about endangered species and animals being needlessly hunted and killed for gratification.   You can adopt a tiger for just £3 a month with the WWF.  You get a cuddly toy, regular updates and a certificate.  But it isn't just about saving a cuddly and muched loved animal species.  It is a vital part of building resilience in our ecosystems. 

Save a Tiger is a successful campaign.  It sets an object, a time, and an imperative, to double the number of tigers by 2022.  The call to action is intense.  It appeals to our hearts as well as our minds and to the imperative to act. 

There are now estimated to be 3, 900 wild tigers globally.  There are more tigers in captivity in the USA than there are in the wild.  But this isn't merely about the protection of a species. It is about saving our planet.

The target to double the number of tigers wasn't plucked from thin air.  The objective to double the number of Tigers by 2022 was set at an intergovernmental Tiger summit held in Russia in 2010.  

Since then, there have been signs of success.  The numbers estimated has risen from 3,200 in 2010 to the current estimate of 3,900.   But we don't know if this results from more rigorous monitoring or a real increase in the number of tigers.  Let's hope it is real, but better data leads to better conservation. 

The Tiger is at the top of the food chain.  Increasing numbers of wild tigers indicate resilience in ecosystems.  Tigers help maintain the population of herbivores like Deers, Wild Buffaloes, Antelopes and Omnivores like Boars in the jungle.   The tiger has been referred to as an 'umbrella species'.  Its conservation is part of sustaining and protecting an entire ecosystem. 

Tigers are a great indicator of resilience because they occupy a range of habitats such as mangrove swamps, highlands, plains, rainforests, arid or semi‐arid areas and mountainous regions.  Protecting tigers doesn't mean erecting a cordon sanitaire, it requires sustainable land use.  Human land use can have a more devestaging effect on tiger numbers than can hunters shooting them.  This is why sustainable forestry is a vital ingredient to tiger protection.  But conflict with humans can have a major impact.   As our land use encroaches further into their range, so tiger numbers will dwindle. 

But the tiger offers hope.  Adopting tigers is about more than saving a species.  It is about protecting habitats and building ecological resilience.  The tiger is not just a symbol of how much we love animals. It is a symbol of what we can do to make a better world.  

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The
Post a Comment
Read more

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown

Post a Comment
Read more

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
7 comments
Read more