What Is Wrong With Those Idiots ?

[cowslip]

If you are worried about the temple, why not email the Department?

[cowslip]

It looks like some people think they can put a date on conservation? really now!

[StreetCowboy]

Perhaps if tigers were reared in captivity and slaughtered for their parts, they would be as common as cattle now. Would that be good for conservation? Or is it only wild anilmals that are good?

Out of interest, is racial purity more important for tigers than for human beings? Are there any further measures we should be taking?

SC

[farang000999]

Pure and simple, Tigers belong in they’re natural environments and these places serve of no benefits to the animals whatsoever.

and when we build shopping malls on their natural environment?

[HeavyDrinker]

Anachack,

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for "Cowslip" to actually respond to a single actual point made here.

All he does is try and use other peoples words to keep on repeating his own flawed agenda, albeit very, very badly.

A true enemy of environmentalism and conservation.

[DocN]

3 words: Siegfried and Roy...and I bet those "cats" where better taken care off than these ignorant monks ever can.

You obviously never saw the video of the beating an Orang Utan took at the hands of a "trainer" prior to one Las Vegas show.

So I'll show it to you. They make me puke. I'd like to administer a beating of my own.

These animals did not ask to be treated as playthings for retarded humans.

...ahm...is that Siegfried or Roy, in that video???

[gemiscorp]

I wish people would stop funding this animal trafficking. They are not meant to be circus exhibits. The same with tourists who pay to have their photo taken on the streets with elephents, iguanas, sea eagles, sloths, etc..

Thoughtless muppets.

Depends entirely on the individual situation.

If the animals are cared for well and treated well, then there are great advantages in it for the appreciation and awareness of animals and conservation.

If treated poorly, then goes without saying.

THe temple clearly actually harms conservation principles and misleads the public on conservation issues. There are NO demonstrable advantages at this place. Furthermore they now have bred nearly 100 tigers...WHY?

Yes...why breed an endangered species? Good question...

[kevvy]

Is this the temple where the monks say only 150 visitors go there each week and it costs them 400,000 baht a day to feed the tigers . I think the video is great as the tigers seem to be enjoying themselves. Been there wouldn't go back again.

I seen many farangs provoking the tigers too.

[cowslip]

I wish people would stop funding this animal trafficking. They are not meant to be circus exhibits. The same with tourists who pay to have their photo taken on the streets with elephents, iguanas, sea eagles, sloths, etc..

Thoughtless muppets.

Depends entirely on the individual situation.

If the animals are cared for well and treated well, then there are great advantages in it for the appreciation and awareness of animals and conservation.

If treated poorly, then goes without saying.

THe temple clearly actually harms conservation principles and misleads the public on conservation issues. There are NO demonstrable advantages at this place. Furthermore they now have bred nearly 100 tigers...WHY?

Yes...why breed an endangered species? Good question...

There is a HUGE difference between a captive breeding program and breeding in captivity.....

The animals they breed are inbred and undocumented and quite probably hybrids - they are therefore NOT replacements for any species endangered or not.

Please don't think these animals or their descendants could EVER be released into the wild - that would be an ecological nightmare.

(How would you feel about releasing tigers into the wild that have no idea how to fend for themselves but have no fear of humans???)

It should also be pointed out that Tigers have never successfully been reintroduced to the wild anywhere. It is possible in theory but prohibitively expensive and impractical.

Th

The image the temple portrays of itself is nothing to do with conservation and as can be seen by some posts here are actually misleading the public as to what is or isn't conservation. The temple has NOTHING to do with conservation.

Edited October 5, 2012 by cowslip

[driedmango]

If some of the monks have for been working for years with tigers, they are very highly qualified. These cats like to see the same faces day after day.

Also Tigers will be gone from the wild sooner or later. I know that these tigers are consider "mutts" by some because they are mixed breeds.. but the fact remains, as long as there is tigers in captivity like this there is a nice stock to release in the wild one day, it is better than them ending up like the do do bird.

It is nice to have ideals, like we should have wild tigers, we shouldn't touch them. I agree. But you are naive if you don't think that their habitat is pretty much gone, that wild tiger will ALWAYS be hunted until the last one is gone because people sell their parts for small fortunes.

I am not going to chime in on the good or bad, I am only talking about humans and, like many other living things, their traits as far as we can remember are to dominate, alter and consume everything around them. not much different than most living things, only with larger brains.

So it is nice to dream and I wouldn't mind living in your perfect world, maybe, but I have long outgrown idealistic expectations myself, they seem worthless.

you don't seem to understand the various issues surrounding Tigers, which for a start don't affect the tigers alone - they are part of an interconnected eco-system

I'm sorry but you'll find that people have been looking after Tigers for a life-time still can be totally wrong in their approach if they are unaware of or refuse to study the available information....time does not necessarily make you an expert....in act it tends to ingrain malpractice.

"These cats like to see the same faces day after day." - I don't see what point you intend to make with this comment, which of course in patently inaccurate.

Beter than the Dodo? Unfortunately as the breeding program is unmonitored the inbreeding or even the genetic make-up of these animals is unknown - soi the species of Tiger that inhabits S.E. Asia - (Corbetts) may still become extinct as these ones are not the same and if they ever cross bred they could bring about the disappearance of the species even faster.

It is WILDLY inaccurate to suggest that the Tiger habitat is one - it IS under threat - but a recent report by US researchers pointed out that in Thailand alone there is potential space for 2000 tigers (the current wild pop is about 150 to 300. however as Tigers don't concern themselves with passports one has to view their habitat on an international basis and there is in fact an area where Tigers could live and breed that stretches beyond Thailand as far as India and includes several ASEAN countries.

Tigers will always be hunted? You really again are making a totally unsubstantiated assumption - also here you seem to ignore asking WHY they are hunted, and I hope you aren't implying that this is the only cause of the Tigers' problems.

THe market for Tiger parts in Chinese Medicine is large and based on fallacy, so at some point this may well through education be shown to be pointless and it is quite possible that the trade will diminish. It also requires government intervention. THe Thai government is pretty ineffective at present, even Myanmar are doing more to save Tiger populations than Thailand.

There are multiple reasons for the Tigers present plight. Encroachment, loss of habitat, hunting not just of Tigers but the hunting of their prey, now accomplished over-efficiently with modern hunting and trapping methods.

But it is the lack of governmentthey are the apex predator of a large and complex eco-system - which we as humans need to function properly - and as the apex predator they are a good indicator of how these systems are working.

"I am not going to chime in on the good or bad, I am only talking about humans and, like many other living things, their traits as far as we can remember are to dominate, alter and consume everything around them. not much different than most living things, only with larger brains."

I'm sorry but this kind of primary school philosophising is really just indicative of the huge gap that has to be bridged between how people think about our relationship with nature (past and present) and reality.

I am sorry, but every reply you made was unrealistic idealism.. Like I said, I wish people would live up to YOUR expectations, it would be nice perfect world... but looking at habits and what has happend in the past so far, I have good reasons to assume the future will stay the same or even get much worse of course, most large cats populations go down every year, except maybe cougars in North America.

I wish I could live with rose coloured glass like you.

[driedmango]

As we are on this topic, I think many of you would love to see this nature of things documentry about the "american Tiger"

http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episode/american-tiger.html

For me, I have respect for every living animal, even the lowest little mutt dog that lives in the street is an animal and deserves respect.

[cowslip]

If some of the monks have for been working for years with tigers, they are very highly qualified. These cats like to see the same faces day after day.

Also Tigers will be gone from the wild sooner or later. I know that these tigers are consider "mutts" by some because they are mixed breeds.. but the fact remains, as long as there is tigers in captivity like this there is a nice stock to release in the wild one day, it is better than them ending up like the do do bird.

It is nice to have ideals, like we should have wild tigers, we shouldn't touch them. I agree. But you are naive if you don't think that their habitat is pretty much gone, that wild tiger will ALWAYS be hunted until the last one is gone because people sell their parts for small fortunes.

I am not going to chime in on the good or bad, I am only talking about humans and, like many other living things, their traits as far as we can remember are to dominate, alter and consume everything around them. not much different than most living things, only with larger brains.

So it is nice to dream and I wouldn't mind living in your perfect world, maybe, but I have long outgrown idealistic expectations myself, they seem worthless.

you don't seem to understand the various issues surrounding Tigers, which for a start don't affect the tigers alone - they are part of an interconnected eco-system

I'm sorry but you'll find that people have been looking after Tigers for a life-time still can be totally wrong in their approach if they are unaware of or refuse to study the available information....time does not necessarily make you an expert....in act it tends to ingrain malpractice.

"These cats like to see the same faces day after day." - I don't see what point you intend to make with this comment, which of course in patently inaccurate.

Beter than the Dodo? Unfortunately as the breeding program is unmonitored the inbreeding or even the genetic make-up of these animals is unknown - soi the species of Tiger that inhabits S.E. Asia - (Corbetts) may still become extinct as these ones are not the same and if they ever cross bred they could bring about the disappearance of the species even faster.

It is WILDLY inaccurate to suggest that the Tiger habitat is one - it IS under threat - but a recent report by US researchers pointed out that in Thailand alone there is potential space for 2000 tigers (the current wild pop is about 150 to 300. however as Tigers don't concern themselves with passports one has to view their habitat on an international basis and there is in fact an area where Tigers could live and breed that stretches beyond Thailand as far as India and includes several ASEAN countries.

Tigers will always be hunted? You really again are making a totally unsubstantiated assumption - also here you seem to ignore asking WHY they are hunted, and I hope you aren't implying that this is the only cause of the Tigers' problems.

THe market for Tiger parts in Chinese Medicine is large and based on fallacy, so at some point this may well through education be shown to be pointless and it is quite possible that the trade will diminish. It also requires government intervention. THe Thai government is pretty ineffective at present, even Myanmar are doing more to save Tiger populations than Thailand.

There are multiple reasons for the Tigers present plight. Encroachment, loss of habitat, hunting not just of Tigers but the hunting of their prey, now accomplished over-efficiently with modern hunting and trapping methods.

But it is the lack of governmentthey are the apex predator of a large and complex eco-system - which we as humans need to function properly - and as the apex predator they are a good indicator of how these systems are working.

"I am not going to chime in on the good or bad, I am only talking about humans and, like many other living things, their traits as far as we can remember are to dominate, alter and consume everything around them. not much different than most living things, only with larger brains."

I'm sorry but this kind of primary school philosophising is really just indicative of the huge gap that has to be bridged between how people think about our relationship with nature (past and present) and reality.

I am sorry, but every reply you made was unrealistic idealism.. Like I said, I wish people would live up to YOUR expectations, it would be nice perfect world... but looking at habits and what has happend in the past so far, I have good reasons to assume the future will stay the same or even get much worse of course, most large cats populations go down every year, except maybe cougars in North America.

I wish I could live with rose coloured glass like you.

"

It has been said that the only way for evil to survive is for good men to do nothing"

[Mousehound]

Just my dollars worth.

It is a fact that trade in wild animals can not be stopped. The rarer the animal the more the demand and the higher the price. If we want to see any animals left in the wild then we have to provide large areas of quality natural habitat first, then real protection (this needs to come from governments down, be based on good science and must include the co-operation of local people that live in or around the habitat zones) and finally we need to take the monetary value out of dead tigers. It may be that the only way to do this is farm them for the market. So you have in effect a wild population and a farmed population.

It seems that tigers, like many animals require more than isolated pockets of habitat, however large. Areas need to be linked to allow for movement form one area to another. Tigers need large areas to roam and as a population grows they are pushed to the edges. These then become vulnerable and especially so if they threaten local livestock - as happens in India.

There is a very informative documentary on the Tigers of Bhutan. This promulgates the theory that Bhutan may be the key to the last tiger stronghold and that a continual stretch of habitat running along the southern side of the Himalaya from west to east through northern Myanmar into Thailand is the animals best hope for the future.

I don't wish to offend anyone as animal "cruelty" in whatever form gets us all worked up as it should. But I need to focus on helping in any small way that I can those that are dealing with the bigger picture. If I could close Phuket Zoo tomorrow I would. But after telling people to stay away I need to devote my enegy to supporting those that I know are working on scientific projects and on influencing politicians and goverment departments. I remember not so long ago that there was a stir among the Thai people about eight elephants being sent to Australia. Now the cost of getting the animal to the zoos and providing them with a suitable enclosure was in the millions of Australian dollars. Zoos in Australia push the fact that they support a breeding programme so that the animal is in effect being conserved. It was pointed out, by a bemused Thai academic, that the millions spent on this one project would be far better spent on progammes to conserve the wild elephant in Thailand itself. This is a valid point.

[Rimmer]

Personal Attack on another member removed

[anachack]

Thank you Rimmer - and I apologise

It is unfortunate that my remarks were deemed an attack. They probably were and is what this thread is ACTUALLY about - going on the offensive.

The problem is uneducated tree huggers being allowed to promote lies and start campaigns about whatever current in vogue pet-hate and any defense that is reasonably asserted being muted.

The temple isn't a good place and since being told by several of us who have tried to make changes they have stopped talking about conservation, changed their status to 'zoological establishment', obtained a breeding license (which is something that cannot be approved by any single Thai authority), and made huge strides in animal welfare improvements. They still have a long way to go but this is one of the few places that you can visit and interact with tigers and you should not be made to feel guilty by published letters that have been altered from their original nor websites that have been changed in their content from their original allegations, nor holier-than-thou accusations by those who have had NO interaction with any of the research that has been carried out.

I have spent more time than most working on this problem and often alongside my good friend Sybelle Foxcroft. We have found the same issues yet drawn different conclusions and that is what this issue of Wat Pa Luangta Bua Yannasampanno is about - CONCLUSIONS

Some prefer to be negative. Some of us want to do something about it. And campaigns to stop tourism will lead to starvation, malnutrition, and disease. Personally I'd rather see tourist go and pay to see and photograph healthy PET cats...

Oh! and one other thing - this argument about captive animals being a danger to wild animals is a nonsense and is proven to be incorrect. Often the argument is about escapes or cross breeding or inbreeding because of an obsession with DNA. Tigers have ALWAYS crossed territories and inter-bred with the only exception of geographical impossibility.

The anti-brigade take single facts and promote them as evidence of cruelty or mismanagement because it suits - not because it is relevant.

Edited October 6, 2012 by anachack

[cowslip]

Firstly hybrids - Tigers are by nature solitary and territorial creatures (you wouldn’t know that if you visited the temple, they are kept in such un-naturally crowded conditions) and they require large areas, 20 to 100 km² per animal depending on such factors as topography, availability of food and gender. The male tiger’s range can be between 200 and 1000 square kilometers the females roam much less. However, tiger subspecies movements are restricted these days; they are usually separated by large tracts of land that the animals cannot even enter, due to human habitation etc.

So although capable of travelling large areas, the subspecies have evolved to suit particular regions and therefore are unlikely to interbreed that much with animals suited to a different region or environment.

There are three subspecies that have become extinct in the last 60 years or so; Caspian, Javan and Bali.

The chances of intraspecific hybridization occurring in the wild are actually very slim especially when you consider that there are only about 150 to 300 wild tigers in the Thai and neighbouring border ecosystem. The chances of meeting another tiger at all let alone another subspecies and then mating are very small.

The Corbetti subspecies inhabits Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia and southwest China, and is close to critically endangered status. To introduce a hybrid (intentionally or not) into the heart of local population would mean the chances of it interbreeding would be much, much higher and could pose a terminal threat to the subspecies itself.

We are talking o major damage to an already limited gene pool. The gene pool needs to be a big as possible for the survival of a healthy population.

So firstly none of the Tigers in the temple now could EVER be released into the wild, but if a “captive breeding” program was started that too would be of no use or even a potential threat (a genetic time-bomb) to the wild population as the genetic make up of the animals is undocumented so they wouldn’t know what they were releasing into the wild.

If a species in the wild had become so hybridised that it becomes impossible to prevent it becoming the “norm” then conservationists would argue that the “replacement” hybridised population should be allowed to flourish. However this is a completely different scenario from deliberately introducing hybrids into a small “pure” population, which would quickly be engulfed by hybrids. just another threat to an already endangered population.

Secondly - Inbreeding - This is another problem at the temple - The temple has been in trouble again in recent weeks for the number of Tigers they have bred - apparently a large proportion from just one overworked female. As they claim too that the “zoo” was started from just 2 animals it would seem highly likely that the animals are grossly inbred too. There are nearly 100 animals at the zoo.

Edited October 6, 2012 by cowslip

[StreetCowboy]

Out of interest, how much diversity do we need in our wild tiger population? Could we use one generic tiger species - perhaps with a broad genetic range reflecting the diversity of its parents, to fulfil the tiger role in a variety of ecosystems from Siberia to Sumatra? Black and white people seem to thrive in such diverse environments, perhaps tigers are equally tolerant, when they have the freedom of movement and breeding.

[cowslip]

Out of interest, how much diversity do we need in our wild tiger population? Could we use one generic tiger species - perhaps with a broad genetic range reflecting the diversity of its parents, to fulfil the tiger role in a variety of ecosystems from Siberia to Sumatra? Black and white people seem to thrive in such diverse environments, perhaps tigers are equally tolerant, when they have the freedom of movement and breeding.

2 things that might "interest" you....

the genetic difference between humans and chimps is less then 2%

Their is no subspecies of humans we are all the same species, so the difference between subspecies of tigers though genetically small the difference is enough to call them "subspecies" which does not apply to the differences between the "races" of people.

[anachack]

Cowslip you are stating the current assumed figures regarding wild tigers and what you say is not incorrect but you are again welding bits together. The reason for the lack of cross-territorial breeding IS because there are so few tigers AND because of geographical restriction despite the fact that the most recent data shows that Amur and Siberian cross-breeds can be found right along the Ussuri and Sungari basins.

You are muddying the waters with irrelevant facts such as maintaining the gene pool while 'the experts' do not know with any certainty what the gene pool should look like. We only know what it shouldn't look like when we find what we shouldn't. In fact, the most recent statistics available shows that the most available 'thoroughbred' (though in my opinion that suggests human management of breeding) cats are in captivity and wildcats are largely an unreliable source of stock.

Re-introducing tigers has been a success in Siberia but that is not evidence that the same can be done the world over. What is more the re-introduction of Siberian tigers was achieved by re-introducing wild boar, red deer, and bears into the Primorski Krai and Ussuri. The fact is only 2 tigers have EVER been released into the wild by an Australian TV company and both died. There is a reasoned argument that even a mass escape of captive tigers would have very little effect on the wild because their genes would be thinned out and eventually back to normality or they would simply not survive because they don't know how to.

Cowslip’s analogy of human and chimp is incorrect. Tigers can breed tigers. Big cats are one of the few species that can do this. If you stuck one up a chimp it would not give birth to a chump. This again is the flawed genetic argument that is only promoted by a very small group of non-scientists. The difference between ALL living thing's genes is guessed at being about 5% which means we are almost nothing like a chimp on the scale of hundreds of millions of species. But the reason the analogy is wrong is because humans do have sub-species exactly the same as tigers have "races".

I will refer back to StreetCowboy - "Could we use one generic tiger species" - sadly not my friend. All tiger species are adapted to survive in different environments with differing diets and defences against regional insects, diseases, and infections but the biggest argument is how sad this World would be if we allowed that to happen?

Tigers are classed as an 'Apex' predator. If they disappear, so will the environment they live in. Red deer breed according to its supply chain. If they are hunted, they will breed more prolifically to ensure survival. This increases demand on the environment so it in turn tries harder to survive. Where Apex predators have disappeared the areas have dwindled into scrub and rough fern occupied mostly by fungi and base spore material that does not process photosynthesis as good as trees and plants do. In one case the forest has taken over causing a green canopy that traps CO2 that poisoned life below that eventually led to the trees also dying. There is a consensus that we can't go on like this because we will poison the atmosphere. We know this has happened three times during the Earth's history so ignoring the possibility would be stupid.

Talking of stupid - some people blame the tiger temple. The temple is a zoo full of pet cats - it is having NO effect on the environment.

[cowslip]

Homo sapiens has no existing subspecies.

[anachack]

yes it does - our sub species are europoid australoid negroid and mongoloid

tigers have subspecies just the same as hominids with a similar evolution and this has NOTHING to do with the temple

[cowslip]

I don’t see any point in entering a gainsaying contest with the likes of Mr A.

Unfortunately, in his last posts - 109 and 111 he has made several points that are either wildly inaccurate or simply downright wrong.

I’m assuming that most people who have read his post already picked up on these. However if you do need to know more, please PM and I’ll be happy to reply to any bon fide questions.

[StreetCowboy]

I don’t see any point in entering a gainsaying contest with the likes of Mr A.

Unfortunately, in his last posts - 109 and 111 he has made several points that are either wildly inaccurate or simply downright wrong.

I’m assuming that most people who have read his post already picked up on these. However if you do need to know more, please PM and I’ll be happy to reply to any bon fide questions.

To be honest, I thought he laid out his points fairly clearly, and answered the questions put to him. I thought he set an excellent example to you.

SC

[cowslip]

I don’t see any point in entering a gainsaying contest with the likes of Mr A.

Unfortunately, in his last posts - 109 and 111 he has made several points that are either wildly inaccurate or simply downright wrong.

I’m assuming that most people who have read his post already picked up on these. However if you do need to know more, please PM and I’ll be happy to reply to any bon fide questions.

To be honest, I thought he laid out his points fairly clearly, and answered the questions put to him. I thought he set an excellent example to you.

SC

Clear maybe - inaccurate and wrong too.

I must re-iterate that there is only one existing human sub-species, though it can be hard to believe reading some of the posts on this thread!

[StreetCowboy]

I don’t see any point in entering a gainsaying contest with the likes of Mr A.

Unfortunately, in his last posts - 109 and 111 he has made several points that are either wildly inaccurate or simply downright wrong.

I’m assuming that most people who have read his post already picked up on these. However if you do need to know more, please PM and I’ll be happy to reply to any bon fide questions.

To be honest, I thought he laid out his points fairly clearly, and answered the questions put to him. I thought he set an excellent example to you.

SC

Clear maybe - inaccurate and wrong too.

I must re-iterate that there is only one existing human sub-species, though it can be hard to believe reading some of the posts on this thread!

What is a sub-species?

[mahtin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

OK, it's only wiki, but interesting.

[StreetCowboy]

EDIT: least said, soonest mended

Edited October 8, 2012 by StreetCowboy

[Mozambique]

I must re-iterate that there is only one existing human sub-species, though it can be hard to believe reading some of the posts on this thread!

I must re-iterate that there is only one existing human sub-species

Which is what?

I agree that terms such as europoid (actually, Caucasian), australoid (Aboriginal Australians and indigenous southeast Asian negritos), negroid and mongoloid are racial classifications.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Mozambique

[mahtin]

"Modern humans" are defined as belonging to the species Homo sapiens, specifically to the single extant subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Evolution

just wiki

[Mozambique]

"Modern humans" are defined as belonging to the species Homo sapiens, specifically to the single extant subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens.

http://en.wikipedia....Human#Evolution

just wiki

Thanks dude. I just learned something new.

I always thought I was a HOMO SAPIENS. Never knew I was a double SAPIENS. Or a SAPIEN of a SAPIEN.