kerryk Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I am not happy about hearing this, but then again we seem to have WAY too many people and WAY too few tigers left. The only good poacher is a dead one! I think this is great And after that the bodies should be fed to them. Indeed a splendid idea and leave their carcasses where they may drop so as they become part of the food chain as a reward for the illegally hunted creatures in general. Perhaps stringing up the dead poachers bodies might also hammer home the message. The above quote are from “civilized” people. You gotta wonder if the people here are from some weird Australian si fi movie with Tina Turner. A tiger is a cat. Bigger than the ones in your house but still just a cat. I bet there are posters out there who would justify killing people without due process for killing cats too. And a cat is an animal like a rat is an animal. There is a difference between animals and people including whales and dolphins. No need to really worry about this new edict, just don't poach tigers! A rat might be an animal but it hardly compares to the majesty of a tiger in the same way that worm hardly compares to an Eagle. Besides there must be millions of rats and a few hundred tigers, worth preserving in my opinion--don't poach and you will not be shot. Not to sound foolish but are you saying it is OK to kill things that aren't majestic? So I guess how an animal looks is more important than how smart they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yunla Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 The forest guards should be made to wear 'Tony The Tiger' costumes from the old Frosties ads, and shout "they're GRRRRReat!" as they shoot the poachers. In the interests of true justice of course. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exsexyman Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I am not happy about hearing this, but then again we seem to have WAY too many people and WAY too few tigers left. The only good poacher is a dead one! I think this is great And after that the bodies should be fed to them. Indeed a splendid idea and leave their carcasses where they may drop so as they become part of the food chain as a reward for the illegally hunted creatures in general. Perhaps stringing up the dead poachers bodies might also hammer home the message. The above quote are from "civilized" people. You gotta wonder if the people here are from some weird Australian si fi movie with Tina Turner. A tiger is a cat. Bigger than the ones in your house but still just a cat. I bet there are posters out there who would justify killing people without due process for killing cats too. And a cat is an animal like a rat is an animal. There is a difference between animals and people including whales and dolphins. No need to really worry about this new edict, just don't poach tigers! A rat might be an animal but it hardly compares to the majesty of a tiger in the same way that worm hardly compares to an Eagle. Besides there must be millions of rats and a few hundred tigers, worth preserving in my opinion--don't poach and you will not be shot. Not to sound foolish but are you saying it is OK to kill things that aren't majestic? So I guess how an animal looks is more important than how smart they are? It's a good job there wasn't a shoot on sight policy in the 50s 60s and 70s, otherwise The Duke of Edinburgh wouldn't have lasted long. He shot many tigers for fun, despite being a founder member of the World Wildlife Fund along with his friend the former Nazi SS officer Prince Bernhard of The Netherlands! Apparently the favoured method was to use a tethered goat to lure the tiger within range of the Duke's gun. Brave and classy people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Yai Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Exsexyman , thinkings and times change ,one has to accept this ,what was taboo 5 decades ago is now all the fashion ,what was fashion then is now taboo ,we just have to move on its that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Not to sound cold, but the value of something is in direct proportion to the supply. It seems that tigers are in short supply and people are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Yai Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Not to sound cold, but the value of something is in direct proportion to the supply. It seems that tigers are in short supply and people are not. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2801817/posts Credo, this link just about says it all ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerryk Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I don't know anyone besides Amrican oil companies that are spending big bucks on tiger conservation. Get out there and buy them SUV's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Yai Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I don't know anyone besides Amrican oil companies that are spending big bucks on tiger conservation. Get out there and buy them SUV's. I suggest you read the link in my post # 66 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
folium Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) I don't know anyone besides Amrican oil companies that are spending big bucks on tiger conservation. Get out there and buy them SUV's. Exxon has put about $15million into the Save the Tiger Fund between 1997 and 2010, and while this is largest ever corporate funding of an animal conservation fund, one could be cynical and say that just over $1million p.a is small price for saving Exxon's logo and given its turnover was $486 billion last year. But it's more than any other company has done. In 2010 a meeting of the International Tiger Conservation Forum (links to comrade Colin's post above and his appreciation of Putin's efforts at this meeting) saw $127million pledged for tiger conservation by the governments involved. The World Bank has approved a $100million loan package to Bhutan, Bangladesh and Nepal for tiger conservation; the WWF plans to spend $85 million over the next 5 years; Leonardo diCaprio put his hand in his own pocket for $1 million. So there is some hope but demand has to be addressed to resolve the situation long term. Edited June 7, 2012 by folium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerryk Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I don't know anyone besides Amrican oil companies that are spending big bucks on tiger conservation. Get out there and buy them SUV's. I suggest you read the link in my post # 66 I did, and it said, "The Global Tiger Recovery Program estimates the countries will need about $350 million in outside funding in the first five years of the 12-year plan. The summit will be seeking donor commitments to help governments finance conservation measures." So far the only one I know of that has coughed up seriuos money, 9-12 million dollars has been Exxon. So do you think that, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam and Russia are going to give 350 million to save anything? Tigers! Ya sure. The listed countries are not really fiscally very trustworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
folium Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I don't know anyone besides Amrican oil companies that are spending big bucks on tiger conservation. Get out there and buy them SUV's. I suggest you read the link in my post # 66 I did, and it said, "The Global Tiger Recovery Program estimates the countries will need about $350 million in outside funding in the first five years of the 12-year plan. The summit will be seeking donor commitments to help governments finance conservation measures." So far the only one I know of that has coughed up seriuos money, 9-12 million dollars has been Exxon. So do you think that, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam and Russia are going to give 350 million to save anything? Tigers! Ya sure. The listed countries are not really fiscally very trustworthy. Comrade Col's post was quoting an article during the 2010 conference, see my post above and link below for the positive outcome: http://www.wwf.org.uk/wwf_articles.cfm?unewsid=4422 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Yai Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I don't know anyone besides Amrican oil companies that are spending big bucks on tiger conservation. Get out there and buy them SUV's. I suggest you read the link in my post # 66 I did, and it said, "The Global Tiger Recovery Program estimates the countries will need about $350 million in outside funding in the first five years of the 12-year plan. The summit will be seeking donor commitments to help governments finance conservation measures." So far the only one I know of that has coughed up seriuos money, 9-12 million dollars has been Exxon. So do you think that, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam and Russia are going to give 350 million to save anything? Tigers! Ya sure. The listed countries are not really fiscally very trustworthy. Yeah Kerryk , I'll go along with your musings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerryk Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) edit Edited June 7, 2012 by kerryk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerryk Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) I hope it works. I am a big fan of animal conservation. The US has tens of thousands more deer than 100 years ago because of successful conservation policies. Not only are there more deer but deer hunting is a major source of sports revenue (in the billions of dollars)in the States. Of course the money for conservation efforts is funded by hunting licenses. Edited June 7, 2012 by kerryk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I don't know anyone besides Amrican oil companies that are spending big bucks on tiger conservation. Get out there and buy them SUV's. I suggest you read the link in my post # 66 I did, and it said, "The Global Tiger Recovery Program estimates the countries will need about $350 million in outside funding in the first five years of the 12-year plan. The summit will be seeking donor commitments to help governments finance conservation measures." So far the only one I know of that has coughed up seriuos money, 9-12 million dollars has been Exxon. So do you think that, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam and Russia are going to give 350 million to save anything? Tigers! Ya sure. The listed countries are not really fiscally very trustworthy. They should approach Tiger Woods for a donation. Or his ex-wife, since she has a big chunk of it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Yai Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I hope it works. I am a big fan of animal conservation. The US has tens of thousands more deer than 100 years ago because of successful conservation policies. Not only are there more deer but deer hunting is a major source of sports revenue (in the billions of dollars)in the States. Of course the money for conservation efforts is funded by hunting licenses. Well written Kerryk , "Comrade Col" agree's with you 110%, the problem with Tigers of course is that they are carnivores and with the diminishing prey species (due to local hunting) and decreasing habitat they recourse to killing livestock which is often a real problem for the local villager when his only means of tilling his fields ,(his water buffalo) is taken . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerryk Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I hope it works. I am a big fan of animal conservation. The US has tens of thousands more deer than 100 years ago because of successful conservation policies. Not only are there more deer but deer hunting is a major source of sports revenue (in the billions of dollars)in the States. Of course the money for conservation efforts is funded by hunting licenses. Well written Kerryk , "Comrade Col" agree's with you 110%, the problem with Tigers of course is that they are carnivores and with the diminishing prey species (due to local hunting) and decreasing habitat they recourse to killing livestock which is often a real problem for the local villager when his only means of tilling his fields ,(his water buffalo) is taken . Maybe they could move them to Australia where they could eat the overpopulated rabbits and kangaroos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueLeader Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) I think there is a difference here between want and need. Drug addicts need their drugs. Many people want tiger products. That's another whole discussion on the topic of addiction as a disease, drug use/abuse etc and there is some evidence that drug addiction is only a very small % of drug users, thus most consumers of drugs in the USA for instance use them recreationally not because of an addiction, similar to tiger parts in China. Have you never been to a "crack house" or a "shooting gallery" these people are totally enslaved by their "habit" I have seen them quite a few times in Manchester, and believe me when I say quite frankly they are on the increase , There was a clinic quite near me were young men and women used to wait in file on a Monday morning for Needles and methadone ,then sell the methadone and buy a tenner bag of "brown " to "shoot up" with ,many try "rehab", sadly most go back to their "old ways" in a very short space of time ,I take no pride in saying there is not much about the vile drug trade I have not witnessed by my own eyes . And they represent what proportion of drug users? I think there's a great deal that you don't know about drugs. Edited June 8, 2012 by RogueLeader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueLeader Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Not to sound cold, but the value of something is in direct proportion to the supply. It seems that tigers are in short supply and people are not. You've mistaken cost for value. That's why you sound, and are, cold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now