RE: KIRSTEN CONRAD CLARIFIES POSITION ON TIGER FARMING

[Guest guest]

Thank you, , for posting my note and for your response. In the

spirit of open dialogue-which I completely endorse-I'd like to make two

additional comments:

 

 

 

First, conservation and welfare, while they share many common viewpoints,

are sometimes at complete odds with each other. The note posted by Merritt

Clifton on this a few months back articulated this nicely. Welfare

continues to be a keen area of concern for me.

 

 

 

Second, I agree with the view expressed by Dr. Nanditha Krishna that people

who live near tigers, and who are therefore best positioned to protect them,

are of concern. Tigers are worth more dead than alive, and that equation

has to change; human nature cannot be bent to will.

 

 

 

I would also like to state that I have been a member of this discussion

group for many years and hope to be for many more, as I fully believe in

continuous, open and honest dialogue.

 

 

 

With regards,

 

 

 

Kirsten

 

 

 

[journalistandanimals]

Sunday, November 09, 2008 3:02 PM

aapn

Cc: asiacat

KIRSTEN CONRAD CLARIFIES POSITION ON TIGER FARMING

 

 

 

Dear colleagues,

 

First things first. Ms Kirsten Conrad has

clarified her position on tiger farming and I attach her message for your

perusal.

 

However, I respectfully and totally oppose the stance that we should not

debate tiger farming on AAPN and should totally oppose it. This is my line

of argument, please feel free to express your views on it :

 

I am personally opposed to tiger farming for commercial use of tiger parts

and have debated this issue with both Ms Kirsten Conrad(on AAPN) and Barun

Mitra(personally at the Crossword Bookstore) in Kolkata. The tiger farming

stance has also been refuted by Jay Mazoomdar which I have attached along

with a transcript of my debate with Ms Conrad. It has to be pointed out that

in animal rights/welfare/conservation, as in all other fields it is

important to know the position of the opposition, in short, to 'know thine

enemy'. A good chess player is one who knows his opponents moves by heart.

As the philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli wrote in 'The Prince', an efficient

king is one who thinks of war in times of peace to prepare himself for tough

times ahead.

 

I am a bit concerned that AAPN and Asia for Animals conferences could turn

into self congratulatory coccoons where people subscribing to a particular

line of thinking only interact with the like minded. In this respect, I have

reason to be alarmed by the moderator John Wedderburn's views too since he

believes that arguments against vegetarianism are rubbish whereas I do not.

 

The principal objective of animal rights/welfare/conservation activists is

to spread the message of animal protection to as large an audience as

possible. If we want to do that we must learn to accommodate dissenting

voices since these voices in many cases have gained widespread publicity.

For example, the tiger farming position has been articulated by Barun Mitra

in forums as powerful and widespread as the New York Times and Anandabazar

Patrika(Indian partner of Star News and Fox News). I deem it important that

AAPN takes into account such mainstream opinion to better aid the cause of

animal protection.

 

I am also concerned that certain AAPN members are only comfortable

discussing positions which they find palatable. I will give an example. In

the Asia for Animals conference in Madras in 2007, the longest session was

devoted to religion. Now as a rationalist attendant I felt that session was

a total waste of time not the least because there was no atheist/rationalist

on the forum speaking his/her views on religion. In my opinion, religion is

a virus and God is a delusion. I personally feel that traditional

religion(especially the Judeo Christian Islamic tradition), whose views were

articulated in Madras, is insidious, destructive, poisonous, vicious,

vulgar, insensitive, harmful, insane and downright offensive. The

traditional religious view on man's superior position in the universe is the

dominating reason why animals are so badly treated all over the world and so

many animal sacrifices take place with ostentation. Yet I sat through the

whole session in Madras because despite thinking it to be utterly

nonsensical in content, I wanted to inform myself of the pro religious

stance to better develop my anti religious stance.

 

I draw the attention of AAPN members to the nature of the debates that

were instituted by the famous astronomer Carl Sagan in Cornell University in

US. Students were divided into groups and would debate various subjects of

interest, seemingly obvious ones like whether the Earth goes round the Sun.

However, the debate had a tacit rule, speakers would first have to explain

the positions they were refuting to their opponents' satisfaction. So

someone arguing for an obvious truism that the Earth goes round the Sun

would have to state the Keplerian(please correct me if I am mistaken)

position that the Sun goes round the Earth. This should be the true nature

of debate and discussion in my opinion and this is what made Carl Sagan such

a great populariser and debater to the extent that even his hard core

opponents respected him. This is also something I bring to the notice of the

moderator since I have noticed signs of intolerance in his views whilst

conducting debate and discussion on AAPN.

 

I repeat what I often say, " Don't shoot the messenger " and treat your

opposition firmly and refute his arguments, but politely and with due

respect. Doting arrogance and a populist stance in a small forum like AAPN

may win kudos in the short term, but intolerance for others views has hardly

aided a cause in the long term.

 

Thank you for reading this if you have not deleted it as prolix nonsense.

 

Best regards and good wishes,

 

 

 

Warmly,

 

 

KIRSTEN CONRAD CLARIFIES HER POSITION ON TIGER FARMING

 

I'd like to clarify the statement made below which mis-states my position.

While I am not a proponent of reopening trade in tiger parts, I do believe

that current conservation programs to save the tiger in the wild are

failing. This position is supported by the World Bank's report, A Future

for Wild Tigers and is evidenced by the decline in tiger populations

throughout Asia (with the possible exception of Russia). Nobody can deny

that we are winning the battle. Despite many campaigns to educate consumers

of traditional medicine on alternatives for tiger bone, demand persists and

is now considered to be the most immediate threat to the world's wild tiger

populations. So I ask why we should not explore every possible conservation

alternative? Or is it preferable to allow the current trajectory finish

its course? Many are opposed to the idea of reopening trade, yet to date

few proper, fact and research-based studies have been performed. It is the

conduct of proper research and scientific analysis that I support; this will

give some facts upon which to take sound positions.

 

 

 

Thank you for the opportunity to correct my position.

 

 

 

-Kirsten Conrad

 

TIGER FARMING DEBATE ON AAPN BETWEEN KIRSTEN CONRAD AND ME

 

 

from

 

<http://mail.google.com/mail/im/available_white1.gif>

 

 

 

hide details

 

8/17/06

 

 

to

 

<http://mail.google.com/mail/im/smlnopresence.gif>

 

aapn

 

 

 

 

date

 

Aug 17, 2006 9:36 PM

 

 

 

 

subject

 

Tiger farming debate

 

 

 

 

mailed-by

 

gmail.com

 

 

 

Dear AAPN colleagues,

 

I have attached Ms Kirsten

Conrad's reply to my questions on tiger farming. After reading all the

e-mails I think that there are several areas where we concur. I think we are

all in agreement that tiger farming violates the principles of animal

rights, ie., the inviolable right of an individual animal to exist free from

pain and torture. I believe we are also agreed that tiger farming violates

animal welfare, since creating ideal living conditions for tigers in

captivity is difficult and farming kills healthy animals. The disagreement

is on the conservation question regarding whether captive farming of tigers

can aid the existence of wild tigers. As Ms Conrad says, there is not enough

research done to determine if captive breeding tigers forms a viable

conservation tool. In this case, I think the captive breeding experiment is

better avoided since it deals with many lives and the likely conservation

outcome is uncertain and ethically dubious. Even hard core conservationists

agree that killing should be kept to a minimum since it goes against the

spirit of the endeavour. I however do appreciate that the topic was raised

since a similar proposal has been mooted for crocodiles in India by the

Madras Crocodile Bank that has bred thousands of Marsh crocodiles and right

now does not know what to do with them. I am glad that the Indian government

is not allowing sustainable use of wildlife products by captive breeding and

these thousands of crocodiles would never have faced overcrowded conditions

if the Madras Crocodile Bank had not thrown caution to the winds and

persisted in biting off more than they can chew. I do not think that any

group, be it animal rights activists, welfarists or conservationists have

the ultimate say on how to treat animals. Treatment of animals is a matter

of concern for everyone, even those who do not come under the three

divisions mentioned. It is better to identify common areas of interest and

agree to disagree on others. In our Indian Zoo Inquiry, we opposed the

sustainable use concept. I personally remain opposed and am glad that no

such proposal is on the anvil in India for tigers. It gives me enormous

pleasure to realise that if there is one country in the world that has

succesfully integrated animal rights, welfare and conservation, it is India.

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Kirsten Conrad < <asiacat

asiacat

Aug 16, 2006 6:17 PM

RE: Tiger Farming in China

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Mr. Ghosh,

 

 

 

Thank you for taking the time to read my posting and to ask so many good

questions. I have tried to respond below, hopefully in blue. This is an

important topic and I am glad it is under discussion.

 

 

 

-Kirsten Conrad

 

 

 

 

[ <journalistandanimals

journalistandanimals]

Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:07 AM

Kirsten Conrad

Cc: aapn

Re: Tiger Farming in China

 

Dear Ms Conrad,

 

Thanks for your response. I have several

questions and issues :

 

1)As I understand from the article you posted, the trip was funded by the

Chinese authorities. Besides which, the author of the article espouses free

market economics so it does not come as a surprise that he views tigers as

commodities, just like potatoes or plastic bottles.The author was recently

on NDTV debating free market economics in a programme compered by Vikram

Chandra. He spoke about the virtues of free market economics in Somalia that

has given that country good telecommunications. Somalia is a country that

also has Coke and it also has a bloody history of civil war. You can take

your pick, telecommunications, Coke or civil war. In this case, conservation

or animal welfare/rights may not be the principal issue that concerns

Liberty Institute since free market economics puts money above everything

else, including ethics. Several American scholars including Noam Chomsky

have commented on this. The data is available. Of course, it is free to

interpretation. So one might be pardoned for being sceptical of a free

market campaigner's views on tiger conservation or welfare or rights.

 

As a friend of mine says, capitalism is a political system, not an economic

one. But you are right to examine the motives of a source. I might suggest

that many NGO's act in their own, self-perpetuating interests rather than to

protect those of either the species or the host countries where they

operate.

 

2)One could venture that you were taken to the comparatively better

farms where the captives are reasonably treated. There is a substantial

body of information on the many farms where tigers are badly treated. There

are pictures of these tiger farms that have been published by many animal

welfare agencies, so surely conditions in all the farms are not all that

good. What is your opinion on these farms?

 

I have seen only the two major farms; I think China has 15-20 breeding

operations, but outside the two my understanding is that they are much, much

smaller operations (which does not necessarily mean better conditions, in

fact the opposite). In my opinion--and I have served on the Board of a

major US zoo--the conditions at Hengdaohezi and Harbin are better now than

when I went in 1999 and 2000. I had never been to Guilin before. In both

places, the animals had adequate sized enclosures or were free-ranging-type

conditions, adequate food, water and cover. The health treatment in Harbin

was above average. In both places I'd want to get the tigers off so much

chicken. Both farms had far better conditions than what I've seen in

Chinese zoos (albeit only as an outsider). One recommendation I made to SFA

was that they hire consultants to conduct an AZA (American Zoo Association

which grants accreditation based on a set of criteria, yes not perfect but

at least a baseline standard) or some similar organization to " certify " their

facilities.

3)You say current measures to save tigers are not effective. How do you

substantiate this and what is your definition of an effective measure?

Consider the number of tigers living in the wild 30 and 20 and 10 years ago

versus today. And consider the recent report on the 40% loss in habitat.

While there may be some isolated pockets of " success " (meaning the loss is

stemmed), nobody can say we're winning the war. Which measure is totally

and comprehensively effective? This I do not know and suspect it would be

a combination of efforts, including loophole-free legislation that is

enforced, economic livelihood for those who live near tigers, no corruption,

education, and a host of other activities.

 

4)'We simply cannot dictate to people what to believe.' So if people

believe in racism and slavery and trade in narcotics and child labour and

rape and murder, should we dictate terms to them?

 

Good point. Mine is that China is a sovereign country. Yes, what you

mention is reprehensible, but I prefer to deal with countries as sovereign

nations rather than invade, as is the case with Iraq.

 

5)'It is now time to look at all possible conservation measures.

 

 

Positions against captive breeding have been taken, but in the absence of

any hard data. Instead, we have deeply held opinions, which do not give rise

 

to fact-based analysis, with the result being that we may be ruling out a

viable conservation tool. Once we have some firm data, then we can take an

 

informed position.' You are making a claim that captive breeding of tigers

might help to ease off pressure on wild populations. True, I am. First,

however, before we decide for or against, we need to take a careful look at

it. I find it ironic that scientists, who are data-driven, have taken a

position against captive breeding in a vacuum of facts.

 

Opponents of captive breeding tigers are not making the claim. Therefore,

the onus is on you and not them, to come up with data to justify captive

breeding of tigers that would help wild populations.

 

Yes, it is. And China needs to undertake a careful study such as the one I

suggest. If they go ahead without gathering the facts (and conducting other

research), then they would be acting irresponsibly. Suppose it backfired

and they had not ;t done their due diligence?

 

The article mentions reintroduction of tigers as a possibility. Can you come

up with an example of a successful tiger reintroduction programme?

 

I know of no successful reintroduction of tigers. An essential prerequisite

is habitat and pray.

 

Also, how do you define 'conservation'?

 

Existence of animals roaming freely in their native habitats, in situ.

Preservation is another thing, where the animal exists but in captivity.

 

 

 

6)'I am also pragmatic and understand that China will go

ahead and do what it is going to do, regardless of what I think or want them

to do.' Just as many people understand that the US will go ahead and do what

it is going to do with its foreign policy regardless of what other countries

want them to do. That does not necessarily mean they should support bombing

of countries and assist the development of detention centres. The same thing

was said by many people in US and UK who suppported the apartheid regime in

South Africa. The regime ultimately caved in to international pressure.

Although the final decision on captive breeding tigers will have to be taken

by the Chinese themselves, what makes you sure that international pressure

will not convince them to stop tiger breeding for medicine?

 

I am not sure that it won't and know that they are concerned about this,

whether it comes from a government, NGO, or an informal network such as what

just happened with the hunting licenses. Again, however, we need to know

more about farming as a possible conservation measure before we cross it

off.

 

If sanctions are imposed on them for trade in tigers, will they be

effective?

 

Well, that depends on what type of sanctions. And the economic impact is

only part of the consideration. " Face " is a major factor. I can say that

China is much stronger now than in 1993, when it enacted the ban fearing

sanctions by the US. China caved in to international pressure when they

applied for Olympics and released several prisoners. The international

campaign for a more democratic China is having an effect. Would a sustained

campaign against the use of tiger medicine in China be effective? It

hasn't to date. Look at what we know about where the poached tigers are

going. Maybe it is not all that effective now, but what of the future?

Well, as I said earlier, other parts of the world, including the EU and the

US, are moving away from the use of tiger parts. I have talked to the CEO

of a major TCM manufacturer and was told that their customers would abandon

them if the company went in that direction. And the EU is banning animal

derivatives in TCM starting next year, I believe.

 

7)'My expertise is in the business end and

would prefer to invite qualified ethicists to weigh in on the matter.' Who

in your opinion is a qualified ethicist?Are you implying that one needs

formal qualifications to have valid views on ethics? No, anyone can jump

in, but recognize Ethics is a field in itself and people do hold PhD's in

it. Some have published papers on, among other, things, the ethics of

using one group of a species to conserve another.

 

 

I would be keen to read your entire report along with the

recommendations. Best wishes and kind regards,

 

 

 

 

Sincerely yours,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 8/16/06, Kirsten Conrad <asiacat > wrote:

 

Dear All,

 

A number of you have responded to yesterday's posting of Barun Mitra's Op-Ed

on tiger farming. This is an important topic and public debate is

essential. To that end, I'd like to share my views and also some

information with you.

 

I was part of the delegation invited to China's State Forestry

Administration's Department of Wildlife Conservation to advise them on

lifting the 1993 ban on domestic trade in tiger parts. This issue has come

about due to a public enquiry made possible under the 2004 Public

Administration Act, which requires any government agency to respond to an

enquiry from the public within 90 days. China is considering four options,

ranging from retaining the ban to a pilot test to partial and full lifting

of the ban. Because of the complex nature of this issue, SFA has been able

to secure additional time to conduct the research required to take an

informed decision. The June delegation was part of that research. It should

be noted that a number of conservation experts were invited or

opinions sought, including the IUCN Cat Specialist Group, which declined to

attend. China invited me because I published an earlier paper on the tiger

breeding operation in Hengdaohezi and Harbin and because I developed a

proposal to conduct formal market and economic research into the issue; more

on that below.

 

It is not clear what lies behind the enquiry. Is is the breeders, who

continue to produce tigers and hence face economic pressure? Is it the

pharmaceutical companies, who stand to gain? Is this being driven by the

TCM community? I myself struggled with the underlying motive, and in the

end have concluded that it doesn't matter. If the end result is alleviation

 

of poaching pressure on the wild tiger populations, that's a good thing.

 

This is surely a gruesome thing to be considering. Ethics are a vital part

of the discussion, and while I have not dealt with them that does not mean

that I am discounting it. Rather, my expertise is in the business end and

would prefer to invite qualified ethicists to weigh in on the matter.

Personally, I do not believe that humans have any moral authority or

biological superiority that permits them to take the lives of other sentient

beings. As a vegetarian, I look upon captive breeding in much the same way

as raising domestic livestock, except that cats, and tigers in particular,

hold critical positions in the eco-systems and are necessary for healthy

functioning. This is one reason why they should be maintained in the wild,

but not the only reason. I also believe that any animal has an inherent

right to exist in its natural habitat, according to the laws of nature but

not man. However, I am also pragmatic and understand that China will go

ahead and do what it is going to do, regardless of what I think or want them

 

to do.

 

Before I went to China I made sure that SFA was aware that I neither

supported or opposed tiger farming (by that I mean commercial breeding of

tigers) and that my sole and overriding objective is the continued existence

 

of wild tigers roaming freely in their natural habitats.

 

We were taken to the tiger breeding facilities in Guilin and Harbin (which

collectively house more than 1,500 tigers), TCM hospitals, pharmacies,

medicine factories, as well as the Forestry University. We met with TCM

officials, SFA and CITES representatives, law enforcement and national,

provincial and local officials, and markets. Our group included officials,

TCM doctors and pharmacists, representatives from CITES and the Chinese

Welfare Association. This was a full-fledged tour, comparable to what had

been done for the panda. Sure, we saw and heard what they wanted us to see

and hear, but we also saw what many people do not get to see.

 

Each of the delegates was asked to write a report. Mine included the

research proposal which I mentioned above, and I stressed to SFA that they

must conduct such research prior to making any decision. I also made a

number of other recommendations to SFA which I would be happy to list if

there is interest.

 

My thinking on the issue is as follows:

1.. Current measures to protect the tiger are not effective. While

habitat is unquestionably the issue in the long term, poaching has reduced

many populations to relict status and has wiped out others. Once a

protected area has lost its tigers, political will to maintain that

protected area evaporates.

b.. Regardless of what I or others think about the efficacy of TCM,

" beauty is in the eye of the beholder " . We have tried to tell the Chinese

that alternatives to TCM exist, but that has little impact on demand. In

fact, the global TCM market is moving away from animal parts. And while

there are indeed TCM professionals in China and elsewhere who use

substitutes, there are many who swear by tiger bone. We simply cannot

dictate to people what to believe. There is a lack of information upon

which to take an informed decision about captive breeding. Conventional

wisdom holds that it is a bad way to go (will stimulate demand, allow an

entry point for poachers to legally sell their ill-gotten goods, farmed

tigers won't be accepted).

c.. It is now time to look at all possible conservation measures.

Positions against captive breeding have been taken, but in the absence of

any hard data. Instead, we have deeply held opinions, which do not give rise

 

to fact-based analysis, with the result being that we may be ruling out a

viable conservation tool. Once we have some firm data, then we can take an

informed position.

d.. Therefore we need to conduct a formal market research and economic

study to to ask the following questions. To do this study properly, one

would have to conduct primary and secondary research in China, and also

examine similar cases, such as ivory, rhino horn, and bear bile.

This is directly lifted from my report to SFA.

1. What tiger products are currently being purchased and consumed,

and by whom? For each different product, what are the current quantities

being consumed, and what prices are being paid for them?

 

 

2. To what extent might captive-bred tiger products be acceptable to

TCM and other consumers?

 

 

 

3. Would tiger farming ultimately alleviate commercially driven

poaching pressures on the wild populations? Can captive populations be

managed in such a way so as not to require unsustainable replenishment with

new stock from wild populations?

 

 

 

4. Are there ways to keep wild tiger derivatives from entering the

legal sales channels? To what extent can consumers be persuaded to buy

products from legal and sustainable sources rather than illegal ones?

 

 

 

5. How might the illegal trade network react to a competing legal

supply? Would it retaliate or simply shift to other

products/markets/businesses? What forms might retaliation take?

 

 

 

6. What would be the likely pricing model for an established, legal

supply? What are the cost structures of bringing captive-bred tigers to the

market (farming, production, marketing, distribution etc.) and illegal

supply (poaching, illegal trading, bribes etc.)?

 

 

 

7. Is running a tiger farm an economically viable business under

various scenarios (natural death, 10-years old, bones only). If not, are

there any legitimate grounds to subsidize it?

 

 

 

8. What role do fakes and substitutes have?

 

1.. In the end, it does not matter what we think, but rather what the

Chinese think. And if they are going to go ahead, then best that they do so

 

after a careful consideration of the issues.

 

 

 

 

 

Jay Mazoomdar refutes Barun Mitra's pro tiger farming stance

 

 

 

I interviewed Jay Mazoomdar for the Telegraph article on the British Council

Awards for Widlife Films. It is good to note that the tiger farming argument

has now been challenged officially in print. Jay Mazoomdar has been working

for tiger conservation for a long time and writes regularly for the Indian

Express.

 

 

 

http://bigcatnews.blogspot.com/2006/11/opinion-save-tigers-in-wild-not-on.ht

ml

 

Saturday, November 18, 2006

 

 

OPINION: Save tigers in the wild, not on farms

 

 

Jay Mazoomdaar

Posted online: Friday, November 17, 2006 at 0000 hrs

 

There's a proposal to raise the tiger, then sell it, to save it. But it's

not just about saving the big cat but saving it in the wild.

 

By the time you read this, Barun Mitra, director of the Delhi-based Liberty

Institute, will be done with his lecture at a Washington event organised by

US' Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). The subject is interesting: Sell

the Tiger to save it.

 

CEI describes Mitra as " an independent thinktank dedicated to empowering the

people by harnessing the power of the market and onewho visited China a few

months back as a guest of the government to learn about Chinese efforts at

tiger conservation " .

 

Currently working on expanding his argument for private tiger conservation

in a paper to be published by CEI, Mitra has made his case earlier in

several Indian and international publications, including The New York Times,

and his fundamentals are deceptively simple: " 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 the Project Tiger was launched in 1972. But animals are

renewable resources. If you think of tigers as products, it becomes clear

that demand provides opportunity. "

 

With indications that Beijing, under pressure from the strong traditional

medicine lobby, is likely to open up tiger trade for its domestic industry,

Mitra's campaign has worried conservationists. A group of experts, including

those from WWF-US, have already met in Washington last Friday. Most of them

were to attend the lecture by Mitra today and present an opposing view, if

permitted. In India, the Ministry of Environment and Forest, sources say,

may also issue a disclaimer, disassociating the government's policies from

Mitra's views. Very few, however, remember that tiger farming was an issue

of bilateral cooperation in the first and only tiger protocol between India

and China signed in 1995 by then minister Kamal Nath and his Chinese

counterpart Song Jian. The protocol holds good - till, and only if, the

fresh Indo-China tiger MoU being discussed in recent weeks overwrites it -

and India remains a potential partner in tiger farming. But that is another

(Kamal Nath's) story. For now, let us focus on the four key points of

Mitra's theory that challenge the entire paradigm of conservation:

 

Mitra writes: " 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. "

 

Is the idea to domesticate the tiger, or why else cite examples of cattle or

buffalo? Besides, conservation is not about saving the tiger from going

extinct. Chinese farms and US ranches apart, zoos round the world have

enough tigers today to save specimens for generations to come. The idea is

to save the tiger in the wild so that with it flourishing at the top of the

food chain, everything down the pyramid flourishes. If the pyramid is alive,

so will be the forests that shelter it and the water systems that are

sustained by such forests. Conservation, Mitra fails to understand, is not

about having thousands of tigers strutting about in cages lined up in some

manicured ranch.

 

Mitra, however, offers a vague prescription: " The tiger breeds easily, even

in captivity. Given a free hand, China could produce 100,000 tigers in the

next 10 to 15 years. With the development of reintroduction techniques, it

might be possible to return the tiger to some of its remaining natural

habitats. "

 

Till date, reintroduction of captive-bred tigers to the wild never

succeeded. Repeated efforts in India, including those by famed Billy Arjan

Singh of Dhudwa, have backfired for several reasons: Such tigers lack the

wild instinct and skills and usually turn man-eaters (being captive-bred

they don't consider humans alien) etc etc. Even the Chinese plan to

reintroduce tigers bred in a South African zoo has not taken off. Clearly,

it is at best wishful at this point to claim that farm tigers can replenish

the wild stock.

 

Mitra goes on to write: " At present there is no incentive for forest

dwellers to protect tigers, and so poachers, traffickers and unscrupulous

traders prevail. 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. "

 

WWF chief scientist Eric Dinerstein countered this claim very effectively:

" If China were to lift its 1993 ban on domestic trade in tiger parts, the

incentives for poachers would be even greater, as there would be no way to

distinguish the bones of 'farmed' tigers from those of wild tigers. Poachers

could wipe out what remains of wild populations while laundering their goods

through legal trade channels. Save the Chinese farms for ducks and pigs.

Save the wild lands of Asia for their tigers and the millions of other

species protected in tiger reserves. "

 

I will add only two points to Dinerstein's. First, there are already more

than 15,000 private tigers in the US and China alone. But still the meager

global wild stock of less than 5,000 is depleting by the day. Second, it

costs a lot to rear a farm tiger till it can be marketed for a reasonable

margin. For traders, wild tigers come virtually for free and mean " total

profit " .

 

Mitra, the " pro-people economist " , also argues that tiger farming could

potentially break the poverty trap that most forest villagers find

themselves in. He wants to recognise " the rights of the local villagers to

earn legitimate revenue from wildlife sources " but cites the practice of

" selling a limited number of hunting licenses " like they used to do in

Zimbabwe.

 

In simpler terms, Mitra wants farm-bred tigers to be released (not

reintroduced) in the forests so that hunting licenses can be issued with

part of the profit going to the local communities. In effect, he wants to

reduce our forests to expansive hunting ranches where helpless captive-bred

tigers - and with them the remaining wild ones, if any - will be subject to

legal butchery in the name of helping the communities.

 

For some strange reason, Mitra doesn't even consider the idea of empowering

the same communities by engaging them in protection work and tourism. If our

wilderness is protected well, it can sustain a multi-billion dollar tourism

industry. Together the two initiatives can absorb all the local stakeholders

Mitra is apparently concerned for. And as a huge bonus, the forests

protected in the name of the tiger will also ensure our water and food

security.

 

Chasing his market dream, Mitra should remember that though technology may

have withstood the Made-in-China model, ecology won't.

 

jay.mazoomdaar

 

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/16773._.html