Guest guest Posted August 15, 2006 Report Share Posted August 15, 2006 Indeed this illustrates very clearly how very different conservation has become from animal welfare. An organization cannot be both any longer. For myself, I don't see any point in preserving a species if the point of saving it from extinction is so that people can go on utilizing and mistreating the members of the species. Kim Bartlett >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 > -- Kim Bartlett, Publisher of ANIMAL PEOPLE Newspaper Postal mailing address: P.O. Box 960, Clinton WA 98236 U.S.A. CORRECT EMAIL ADDRESS IS: <ANPEOPLE Website: http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/ with French and Spanish language subsections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 Dear friends, This brings back memories of our seaturtle submarine case. The scar is still very fresh. We have won the case in getting the false case quashed in AP High Court where it was proved that the case was vindictive and manupulated . ANd supported more by the interests of power and the conservationists. And this case was judged after four years just a week ago. We celebrate in silence but will the seaturtle habitat come back where the dreadful submarine is placed and they are thinking of another warship and another battle for us. We had many hours of debates between what is the role of a conservationist and animal welfare activist. Today we are glad that the very conservationists had to take the help of us animal welfare activists in playing a role to protect the seaturtles on the beach. I would say that animal welfare activists are a complete people with the ethical feelings and attitude but not a conservationist. We play a very decisive role and rather we--- not the conservationists should be on the Board of any committees or discussions or protectionary efforts for any animal be they wild or domestic to get the desired results. My best regards, Pradeep Kumar Nath, Visakha SPCA, web : www:visakhaspca.org Kim Bartlett <anpeople wrote: Indeed this illustrates very clearly how very different conservation has become from animal welfare. An organization cannot be both any longer. For myself, I don't see any point in preserving a species if the point of saving it from extinction is so that people can go on utilizing and mistreating the members of the species. Kim Bartlett >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 > -- Kim Bartlett, Publisher of ANIMAL PEOPLE Newspaper Postal mailing address: P.O. Box 960, Clinton WA 98236 U.S.A. CORRECT EMAIL ADDRESS IS: <ANPEOPLE Website: http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/ with French and Spanish language subsections. Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Mail Beta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.