Sell the Tiger to Save It

[Guest guest]

While I am sure this article will appall most of you, please bear in mind

that conservation and welfare are distinct and different areas.

 

Also please consider that humane slaughter, if truly done humanely (and

that's a big if), may be preferable to an animal suffering in a snare trap,

gnawing off its own limbs to escape, cubs starving after loss of a mother to

poachers, or an animal dying a slow, painful poison-induced death.

 

-Kirsten Conrad

 

Sell the Tiger to Save It

 

By BARUN MITRA

The New York Times

Published: August 15, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/opinion/15mitra.html

 

New Delhi

 

WHICH country is thinking about applying free-market principles to wildlife

preservation and, in the process, improving the survival chances of a

long-endangered species while giving its economy a boost?

 

Communist China, of course.

 

China joined the international effort to protect the tiger in 1993. But

today there is a growing recognition among many Chinese officials that a

policy of prohibition and trade restrictions has not benefited the tiger as

much as it has helped poachers and smugglers of tigers and tiger parts.

 

Conservationists say the worldwide illegal trade in forest products and

wildlife is between $10 billion and $12 billion, with more than half of that

coming from Asia.

 

Of the planet’s estimated 5,000 wild tigers, about 75 percent are in India,

which, like most nations, believes that commerce and conservation are

incompatible. Only a relative handful of tigers ­ probably a few dozen ­ can

be found in China’s forests. (The United States is home to some 10,000

tigers, owned by zoos and private citizens.) The tiger, in short, is still

staring at extinction.

 

But like forests, animals are renewable resources. If you think of tigers as

products, it becomes clear that demand provides opportunity, rather than

posing a threat. For instance, there are perhaps 1.5 billion head of cattle

and buffalo and 2 billion goats and sheep in the world today. These are

among the most exploited of animals, yet they are not in danger of dying

out; there is incentive, in these instances, for humans to conserve.

 

So it can be for the tiger. In pragmatic terms, this is an extremely

valuable animal. Given the growing popularity of traditional Chinese

medicines, which make use of everything from tiger claws (to treat insomnia)

to tiger fat (leprosy and rheumatism), and the prices this kind of

harvesting can bring (as much as $20 for claws, and $20,000 for a skin), the

tiger can in effect pay for its own survival. A single farmed specimen might

fetch as much as $40,000; the retail value of all the tiger products might

be three to five times that amount.

 

Yet for the last 30 or so years, the tiger has been priced at zero, while

millions of dollars have been spent to protect it and prohibit trade that

might in fact help save the species. Despite the growing environmental

bureaucracy and budgets, and despite the proliferation of conservationists

and conferences, the tiger is as close to extinction as it has been since

Project Tiger, a conservation project backed in part by the World Wildlife

Fund, was launched in 1972 and adopted by the government of India a year

later.

 

If we truly value the tiger, this crisis presents an opportunity to help it

buy its way out of the extinction it now faces. The tiger breeds easily,

even in captivity; zoos in India are constantly told by the Central Zoo

Authority not to breed tigers because they are expensive to maintain. In

China, which has about 4,000 tigers in captivity, breeding has been

perfected. According to senior officials I met in China, given a free hand,

the country could produce 100,000 tigers in the next 10 to 15 years.

 

(Disclosure: I have been writing on tiger conservation for more than 10

years, and over the course of that time have suggested using the power of

commerce to save the tiger. Earlier this year, I was invited by the State

Forestry Administration of the People’s Republic of China as part of an

international group to learn about the Chinese perspective on the issue; the

agency paid for my airfare and accommodations.)

 

Wildlife farming and ranching could potentially break the poverty trap that

most forest villagers find themselves in. In Zimbabwe, before the current

spiral into chaos, villagers had property rights on the wildlife in the

forests around them, and they earned revenue by selling a limited number of

hunting licenses. They had a stake.

 

At present there is no incentive for forest dwellers to protect tigers, and

so poachers, traffickers and unscrupulous traders prevail. The temptation of

high profits, in turn, attracts organized crime; this is what happens when

government regulations subvert the law of supply and demand.

 

But tiger-breeding facilities will ensure a supply of wildlife at an

affordable price, and so eliminate the incentive for poachers and,

consequently, the danger for those tigers left in the wild. With selective

breeding and the development of reintroduction techniques, it might be

possible to return the tiger to some of its remaining natural habitats. And

by recognizing the rights of the local villagers to earn legitimate revenue

from wildlife sources, the tiger could stage a comeback.

 

Market economics greatly favor the tiger. If China decides to unleash the

tiger’s commercial potential, the king of the forest might be more secure in

his kingdom.

 

Barun Mitra is the director of Liberty Institute, a research organization

that promotes free-market economics.

 

 

 

Barun Mitra

****************************************************************************

****

LIBERTY INSTITUTE " Where the mind is without fear... "

Julian L. Simon Centre

C-4/8, Sahyadri, Plot 5, Sector 12

Dwarka, New Delhi 110 075

India

 

Tel: 91-11-25079215, 91-11-28031309

Fax: 91-11-25079101

Email: info, liberty

Web sites: www.libertyindia.org

www.IndianDemocracy.net

http://IndianElections.org

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

*Dear Ms Conrad,*

* This is a popular thought and I have pondered

it myself. I am however not convinced that animal rights, welfare and

conservation are as distinct and different as some would claim. The

differences are a matter of degree and not of kind as I perceive them. There

are significant areas of overlapping interest. I differ with you on the

concept that everything in the world is a product. That is a claim of

laissez faire economics and I am not sure that it works in all situations.

It is one thing for people to eat animals when they have no choice, it is

quite another to promote a product that is in itself of questionable

utility. Besides, the scheme seems scientifically flawed. Even if we

consider that human beings are obligate carnivores(which we really are not;

you would come across the rarest of cases where a person lives only on

meat), carnivores do not by nature eat other carnivores. I met a

conservationist two weeks ago who believes in the logic of sustainable use

of animals. He told me that the tiger is a unique case where sustainable use

of meat and claws will only accelerate the drive of the species towards

extinction. There would be very little scope to distinguish between a

captive animal product and a wild one(principally an illegally poached

animal). This is not the first time that 'sustainable use' of wildlife

products has been mooted. The first time it was proposed, it was refuted on

air by tiger expert, Peter Jackson. This is an emotional issue and rightly

so since it involves matters of life and death but even if we take away all

emotion and consider living creatures to be products meant solely for human

use(which they are not), the evidence to support such a measure is very far

from incontrovertible. Two of the most notable critics of sustainable use of

wild animal products are Steve Irwin and Richard Leakey. Steve and Terri

Irwin have said the following in their book 'THE CROCODILE HUNTER': " WIll

Steve and I ultimately succeed in making a positive difference for the

planet? With your help, we're sure to win. Now more than ever we are all

becoming more aware about the need to conserve our precious living heritage.

What will I leave behind for Bindi? I will leave her the truth. We are

surounded by lying wildlife perpretrators, hiding behind the cloak of

" science. " The day will come when sustainable use, controlled culls,

scientific whaling, and other lies will be exposed and become atrocities of

the past. The truth is that we will never save wildlife by killing

it. " (STEVE AND TERRI IRWIN, 'THE CROCODILE HUNTER, page 192, Orion Books,

London, 2001). I also disagree with the concept of humane slaughter since

the expression is an oxymoron. Considering humane slaughter in captivity to

slaughter in the wild is reminiscent of the adage of robbing Peter to pay

Paul. Captive breeding of tigers for reintroduction has never succeeded, and

acknowledged freely by many IUCN(International Union for the Conservation Of

Nature and Natural Resources) members themselves. I know since I am a member

of the IUCN Conservation Breeding Specialist Group. Game licences are as

prone to corrupt use as off limit area enforcement plans. I am posting

Richard Leakey's views on this separately. Leakey single handedly fought to

stop the ivory trade when many favoured a 'sustainable use'. I had occasion

to discuss this recently with a leading elephant expert in India when I

wrote an article on elephants. Leakey's fight is singularly one of the most

remarkable achievements against the notion of sustainable use of wildlife

products. It can also be questioned if a price tag can be put on living

creatures and if they are not to be valued for their own sake. Valuing a

tiger as a tourist attraction is not the same thing as putting a label on

its skin for an alleged medical use. I recently came across a poster

that aptly expresses the feelings of many people on this subject, including

mine: " Only when the last river has been drained and the last fish has been

caught and the last forest been chopped down will mankind realise that you

cannot eat money. " *

* Thanks for writing. This is an issue close to my heart and although I am

in the midst of an assignment, I have taken off time to write this

elaborately.*

* Best wishes and kind regards,*

**

* Yours sincerely,*

*

*

 

 

On 8/15/06, Kirsten Conrad <asiacat wrote:

>

> While I am sure this article will appall most of you, please bear in mind

> that conservation and welfare are distinct and different areas.

>

> Also please consider that humane slaughter, if truly done humanely (and

> that's a big if), may be preferable to an animal suffering in a snare

> trap,

> gnawing off its own limbs to escape, cubs starving after loss of a mother

> to

> poachers, or an animal dying a slow, painful poison-induced death.

>

> -Kirsten Conrad

>

> Sell the Tiger to Save It

>

> By BARUN MITRA

> The New York Times

> Published: August 15, 2006

> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/opinion/15mitra.html

>

> New Delhi

>

> WHICH country is thinking about applying free-market principles to

> wildlife

> preservation and, in the process, improving the survival chances of a

> long-endangered species while giving its economy a boost?

>

> Communist China, of course.

>

> China joined the international effort to protect the tiger in 1993. But

> today there is a growing recognition among many Chinese officials that a

> policy of prohibition and trade restrictions has not benefited the tiger

> as

> much as it has helped poachers and smugglers of tigers and tiger parts.

>

> Conservationists say the worldwide illegal trade in forest products and

> wildlife is between $10 billion and $12 billion, with more than half of

> that

> coming from Asia.

>

> Of the planet's estimated 5,000 wild tigers, about 75 percent are in

> India,

> which, like most nations, believes that commerce and conservation are

> incompatible. Only a relative handful of tigers ­ probably a few dozen ­

> can

> be found in China's forests. (The United States is home to some 10,000

> tigers, owned by zoos and private citizens.) The tiger, in short, is still

> staring at extinction.

>

> But like forests, animals are renewable resources. If you think of tigers

> as

> products, it becomes clear that demand provides opportunity, rather than

> posing a threat. For instance, there are perhaps 1.5 billion head of

> cattle

> and buffalo and 2 billion goats and sheep in the world today. These are

> among the most exploited of animals, yet they are not in danger of dying

> out; there is incentive, in these instances, for humans to conserve.

>

> So it can be for the tiger. In pragmatic terms, this is an extremely

> valuable animal. Given the growing popularity of traditional Chinese

> medicines, which make use of everything from tiger claws (to treat

> insomnia)

> to tiger fat (leprosy and rheumatism), and the prices this kind of

> harvesting can bring (as much as $20 for claws, and $20,000 for a skin),

> the

> tiger can in effect pay for its own survival. A single farmed specimen

> might

> fetch as much as $40,000; the retail value of all the tiger products might

> be three to five times that amount.

>

> Yet for the last 30 or so years, the tiger has been priced at zero, while

> millions of dollars have been spent to protect it and prohibit trade that

> might in fact help save the species. Despite the growing environmental

> bureaucracy and budgets, and despite the proliferation of conservationists

> and conferences, the tiger is as close to extinction as it has been since

> Project Tiger, a conservation project backed in part by the World Wildlife

> Fund, was launched in 1972 and adopted by the government of India a year

> later.

>

> If we truly value the tiger, this crisis presents an opportunity to help

> it

> buy its way out of the extinction it now faces. The tiger breeds easily,

> even in captivity; zoos in India are constantly told by the Central Zoo

> Authority not to breed tigers because they are expensive to maintain. In

> China, which has about 4,000 tigers in captivity, breeding has been

> perfected. According to senior officials I met in China, given a free

> hand,

> the country could produce 100,000 tigers in the next 10 to 15 years.

>

> (Disclosure: I have been writing on tiger conservation for more than 10

> years, and over the course of that time have suggested using the power of

> commerce to save the tiger. Earlier this year, I was invited by the State

> Forestry Administration of the People's Republic of China as part of an

> international group to learn about the Chinese perspective on the issue;

> the

> agency paid for my airfare and accommodations.)

>

> Wildlife farming and ranching could potentially break the poverty trap

> that

> most forest villagers find themselves in. In Zimbabwe, before the current

> spiral into chaos, villagers had property rights on the wildlife in the

> forests around them, and they earned revenue by selling a limited number

> of

> hunting licenses. They had a stake.

>

> At present there is no incentive for forest dwellers to protect tigers,

> and

> so poachers, traffickers and unscrupulous traders prevail. The temptation

> of

> high profits, in turn, attracts organized crime; this is what happens when

> government regulations subvert the law of supply and demand.

>

> But tiger-breeding facilities will ensure a supply of wildlife at an

> affordable price, and so eliminate the incentive for poachers and,

> consequently, the danger for those tigers left in the wild. With selective

> breeding and the development of reintroduction techniques, it might be

> possible to return the tiger to some of its remaining natural habitats.

> And

> by recognizing the rights of the local villagers to earn legitimate

> revenue

> from wildlife sources, the tiger could stage a comeback.

>

> Market economics greatly favor the tiger. If China decides to unleash the

> tiger's commercial potential, the king of the forest might be more secure

> in

> his kingdom.

>

> Barun Mitra is the director of Liberty Institute, a research organization

> that promotes free-market economics.

>

>

>

> Barun Mitra

>

> ****************************************************************************

> ****

> LIBERTY INSTITUTE " Where the mind is without fear... "

> Julian L. Simon Centre

> C-4/8, Sahyadri, Plot 5, Sector 12

> Dwarka, New Delhi 110 075

> India

>

> Tel: 91-11-25079215, 91-11-28031309

> Fax: 91-11-25079101

> Email: info, liberty

> Web sites: www.libertyindia.org

> www.IndianDemocracy.net

> http://IndianElections.org

>

>

>