BBC 2 Tigers about the house
Discussion
Great footage of tigers but sadly nothing whatsoever to do with conservation of the species. Totally missing the point of conservation and meeting the needs of the animals. Programme made me livid actually. Some flaky vain reason for invading the tigress's space while giving birth. Taking the cubs off mum way too soon, all that too close 'bonding' with a misguided self indulgent keeper. Keeping them in a horrid tiny zoo instead of roaming huge areas. Raising cubs in a family home!! Posing for photos with tourists... just a few that make those working in conservation despair because it puts out the message that they will be saved...
Perpetuating the myth that Keeping a DNA bank/Noah's ark is utter nonsense and a complete red herring and will not ever, in any way save the species. The only thing that will save the species is
- educating that there are no medicinal properties in tiger parts
- making tiger vanity goods totally unacceptable
- devaluing the product so that it is no longer a commodity for international crime/arms/terrorism funding
- Not visiting zoos and believing that it's ok
- bringing the perpetrators of wildlife crime to justice
There are only 3200 tigers left in the wild and once gone, no Australian Noah's ark with 6 animals is ever going to be able replace them
Sorry for the rant but this programme was worse than Essex thing and Zoos should simply not exist in this day and age. Real conservation is about habitat and species protection, or rescue, rehabilitation and release.... to the WILD - and ending the crime. No matter how much you want little Johnny to see a real elephant (pacing through stress and boredom).
Perpetuating the myth that Keeping a DNA bank/Noah's ark is utter nonsense and a complete red herring and will not ever, in any way save the species. The only thing that will save the species is
- educating that there are no medicinal properties in tiger parts
- making tiger vanity goods totally unacceptable
- devaluing the product so that it is no longer a commodity for international crime/arms/terrorism funding
- Not visiting zoos and believing that it's ok
- bringing the perpetrators of wildlife crime to justice
There are only 3200 tigers left in the wild and once gone, no Australian Noah's ark with 6 animals is ever going to be able replace them
Sorry for the rant but this programme was worse than Essex thing and Zoos should simply not exist in this day and age. Real conservation is about habitat and species protection, or rescue, rehabilitation and release.... to the WILD - and ending the crime. No matter how much you want little Johnny to see a real elephant (pacing through stress and boredom).
If you think you're ever going to stop tigers being poached for their skins & body parts for those that believe they have some 'medicinal' properties you're kidding yourself.
There will always be those that have the money to acquire what they want & those that are willing to provide it - regardless of the risk, including death at the hands of anti-poaching patrols.
This holds true whether it be tiger bits, elephant ivory or rhinoceros horn.
Without captive breeding programmes many animals would have gone into extinction & there would be no chance of ever re-introducing them to the wild.
ETA - you aren't going to keep a species going with just '6 in Australia'. As I'm sure you're aware there are a lot more participants in the various breeding programmes worldwide whether that be for the Sumatran tiger or the other sub-species.
There will always be those that have the money to acquire what they want & those that are willing to provide it - regardless of the risk, including death at the hands of anti-poaching patrols.
This holds true whether it be tiger bits, elephant ivory or rhinoceros horn.
Without captive breeding programmes many animals would have gone into extinction & there would be no chance of ever re-introducing them to the wild.
ETA - you aren't going to keep a species going with just '6 in Australia'. As I'm sure you're aware there are a lot more participants in the various breeding programmes worldwide whether that be for the Sumatran tiger or the other sub-species.
Edited by paintman on Friday 20th June 01:23
Yes it might be fighting a losing battle but that doesn't make captive breeding programmes the answer. They have nothing to do with conservation and the myth that they do is an infuriating smoke screen. That doesn't mean that the fight against poaching and the international gangs should stop. Much of the problem could be stopped at governmental level where there is corruption.
As you're probably aware, no captive bred tiger has ever been successfully returned to the wild. Only a handful of wild born rehabilitated cubs have. Do the zoo visitors get this? No place for captivity. A tiger's territory is vast and cages are an insult to the species.
As you're probably aware, no captive bred tiger has ever been successfully returned to the wild. Only a handful of wild born rehabilitated cubs have. Do the zoo visitors get this? No place for captivity. A tiger's territory is vast and cages are an insult to the species.
Wasn't a big part of what he/Australia Zoo are doing is "raising awareness"; you seem to be both passionate and well informed of the issues; the vast majority of early evening TV watchers are not.
They watched 3/4 one hour programs about cute fluffy tigers and at the same time had their awareness raised. If even a small number go off and think, read and research then that's surely a good thing?
I'm not sure anything in that program showed a harmful approach or any lack of understanding of the severity or scale of the challenges and issues. The program was edited to be biased towards the intended demographic and seemed to do that well.
If the same program had been on 2 hours later, on BBC4 and with a much drier approach it may well have met all your concerns but would have attracted a quarter of the audience and all those that watched would already be informed.
They watched 3/4 one hour programs about cute fluffy tigers and at the same time had their awareness raised. If even a small number go off and think, read and research then that's surely a good thing?
I'm not sure anything in that program showed a harmful approach or any lack of understanding of the severity or scale of the challenges and issues. The program was edited to be biased towards the intended demographic and seemed to do that well.
If the same program had been on 2 hours later, on BBC4 and with a much drier approach it may well have met all your concerns but would have attracted a quarter of the audience and all those that watched would already be informed.
GnuBee said:
Wasn't a big part of what he/Australia Zoo are doing is "raising awareness"; you seem to be both passionate and well informed of the issues; the vast majority of early evening TV watchers are not.
They watched 3/4 one hour programs about cute fluffy tigers and at the same time had their awareness raised. If even a small number go off and think, read and research then that's surely a good thing?
I'm not sure anything in that program showed a harmful approach or any lack of understanding of the severity or scale of the challenges and issues. The program was edited to be biased towards the intended demographic and seemed to do that well.
If the same program had been on 2 hours later, on BBC4 and with a much drier approach it may well have met all your concerns but would have attracted a quarter of the audience and all those that watched would already be informed.
Sorry but I don't agree that any awareness was raised, it simply re-inforced the mis-conception that zoos 'do conservation' and that we'll all be ok because there is an Ark.... Also it played on the wow a tiger in a house...which was tragically fed just one silly man's selfish desires and ego trip... nothing else. The sad fact is that there are more tigers kept in private homes and collections than there are in the wild. I doubt very much that any person watching that drivel worked anything out for themselves and looked into any real conservation as a result.They watched 3/4 one hour programs about cute fluffy tigers and at the same time had their awareness raised. If even a small number go off and think, read and research then that's surely a good thing?
I'm not sure anything in that program showed a harmful approach or any lack of understanding of the severity or scale of the challenges and issues. The program was edited to be biased towards the intended demographic and seemed to do that well.
If the same program had been on 2 hours later, on BBC4 and with a much drier approach it may well have met all your concerns but would have attracted a quarter of the audience and all those that watched would already be informed.
A tiger's territory is indeed large. And therein lies the problem. Both from coming into contact & conflict with the local populations and the difficulty of preventing poaching.
The human population view the tiger - and leopards - as a problem as regards their own livestock & have little interest in its preservation as it doesn't make them money. They have no hesitation in placing poisoned baits. Don't forget that there are also issues - fortunately rare - of people being killed. I'm sure that many of these are simply a result of someone blundering into a tiger but man eaters are not a long gone problem. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/26/world/asia/india...
http://tigertribe.net/tigers-origin/tiger-attacks-...
As the wild population grows ever smaller, the likelihood of natural breeding in the wild equally decreases. End result is that there are too few left to maintain a wild population & they become extinct in the wild. It is claimed that the wild population has dropped by 97% in the last hundred years & I wouldn't be surprised if that occurs in the not too distant future. Whether small populations in national parks would survive is debatable as the gene pool would be too small.
The choice is we either have live tigers or we don't.
The human population view the tiger - and leopards - as a problem as regards their own livestock & have little interest in its preservation as it doesn't make them money. They have no hesitation in placing poisoned baits. Don't forget that there are also issues - fortunately rare - of people being killed. I'm sure that many of these are simply a result of someone blundering into a tiger but man eaters are not a long gone problem. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/26/world/asia/india...
http://tigertribe.net/tigers-origin/tiger-attacks-...
As the wild population grows ever smaller, the likelihood of natural breeding in the wild equally decreases. End result is that there are too few left to maintain a wild population & they become extinct in the wild. It is claimed that the wild population has dropped by 97% in the last hundred years & I wouldn't be surprised if that occurs in the not too distant future. Whether small populations in national parks would survive is debatable as the gene pool would be too small.
The choice is we either have live tigers or we don't.
Edited by paintman on Friday 20th June 08:51
I agree and the problem is much more complex than that... with different issues facing different populations depending on cultural myths/demands.
Very few local poachers, poach without orchestration from international crime. Local issues can be overcome using good community projects - there is an amazing piglet scheme in Thailand, there are elephant ditches in Africa there are all sorts of ways to address local issues. The issue that needs to be addressed is consumption and demand. As Jackie Chan says "once the buying stops, the killing can too".
http://www.wildaid.org/media
Snow Leopards in Mongolia are facing a completely different issue because of habitat loss due to mining where their vast range is cut through by excavation which not only reduces their habitat but also leads to loss of their prey. Tigers in Russia face a different set of issues to those in India. However, even if the species faces extinction and that is the end result - nothing will ever make zoos and that kind of show or activity be acceptable. It is just cock and bull.
What is frightening is that a significant proportion of income from this trade funds international crime, human trafficking, arms and worst of all terrorism.
Very few local poachers, poach without orchestration from international crime. Local issues can be overcome using good community projects - there is an amazing piglet scheme in Thailand, there are elephant ditches in Africa there are all sorts of ways to address local issues. The issue that needs to be addressed is consumption and demand. As Jackie Chan says "once the buying stops, the killing can too".
http://www.wildaid.org/media
Snow Leopards in Mongolia are facing a completely different issue because of habitat loss due to mining where their vast range is cut through by excavation which not only reduces their habitat but also leads to loss of their prey. Tigers in Russia face a different set of issues to those in India. However, even if the species faces extinction and that is the end result - nothing will ever make zoos and that kind of show or activity be acceptable. It is just cock and bull.
What is frightening is that a significant proportion of income from this trade funds international crime, human trafficking, arms and worst of all terrorism.
Forum | All Creatures Great & Small | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff