I see one thing common with all of these posts. Complete ignorance. I used to go to this temple a lot. Abbot Chan is a very decent man and loves these animals as he says they are all friends who have reincarnated as Tigers to be with him. Regardless, the animals all stem from Tigers rescued years ago and are treated very well indeed. They are not drugged, they are simply not feral. There are less than 10,000 tigers left on planet earth and this is perhaps the most successful tiger conservation spot in the world now. Rather than post cynical comments on something you know nothing about, instead go to Kanchanaburi and support this wonderful venture with your cash.

" Abbot Chan is a very decent man and loves these animals" - he didn't look so when he was smashing cages of birds against the ground when the raid took place. Presumably this was an effort to break open the cages so that the contents would escape and avoid the inspection. .......but it showed little love or concern for the contents.

As pointed out the temple has absolutely NO CONSERVATION credentials at all. - If you think it has please outline them .

It so often seems to happen that somewhere on these threads criticising the temple a "suspiciously" ardent supporter of the temple starts posting. usually someone who has made very few posts on any other subject and has very blinkered and naive ideas about the temple - one suspects that they are in fact one of the gullible volunteers/employees there or at least connected to the temple in some way.

please help us out here Dara

Edited February 19, 201511 yr by cumgranosalum

Post containing flame removed as well as a quoted response.

If you want to disagree with any post please do so without the insults.

AjarnDara, your so right, the temple is adored by those who visit it. The monks work so hard looking after the tigers and showing tourists around. This place is a credit to Thai tourism and a saviour for the tiger. Less than 10,000 wild tigers left. Some must be captive in case numbers of tiger continue to fall.

Thankyou, Tiger Temple, your hardwork and love of tigers inspires all of us

They do not even know what breed of Tigers they have, it is suspected that they have three breeds and have interbred these three. This means that releasing them is not a possibility. The plan is to keep them as a tourist attraction, there is no conservation effort in mind other than writing it on a board outside to satisfy the more gullible of tourists.

Before anyone else quotes a figure of 10,000 wild tigers again, the numbers are:

Estimated wild tigers (worldwide) - 3000-3200

Estimated wild tigers (Thailand) - 200-250

I just wish that the conservationists, could attract a fraction as much attention to the plight of wild tigers in Thailand - as these monks and their crazy zoo do. That would be something.

How sad is that 100+ tigers exist in this "compound" in Kanchanaburi, whilst in the 220 or so protected land areas in Thailand there exist just 200+ wild ones. Food for thought.

Edited February 19, 201511 yr by Whale

I wonder how much the blatant BRIBE was to the authorities? Call it what it is folks. I am so tired of this blatant corruption and idiocy and people here just shrug their shoulders and say "this is thailand! teeheehee!" you can call bribing a cultural difference, i still call it a bribe. Counting down the days to leaving this dump.

Wilsonandson and Dara

You appear to believe the temple has conservation value - can you please explain why you think this is so?

They have also been reportedly “impressed” by conditions said to be “even better than those at some state zoos.”

All I can say to that is, it doesn't say much for Thailand's zoos then.

But, anyway: MONEY, MONEY, MONEY, must be funny, in the rich man's world.

They have also been reportedly “impressed” by conditions said to be “even better than those at some state zoos.”

All I can say to that is, it doesn't say much for Thailand's zoos then.

But, anyway: MONEY, MONEY, MONEY, must be funny, in the rich man's world.

Bit like saying Auschwitz was better than Belzen.

The main problem is that there are virtually no laws concerning wildlife in Thailand. So what calls itself a zoo here would be punishable by a prison sentence in Europe, Oz or the States.

just about anyone with the right connections can get a permit/licence for a zoo - look at the monstrosity in Bkk on top of a store!

In other countries a zoo needs to show it has a good reason to exist - in fact few zoos nowadays exist solely or even mainly to exhibit animals - they usually have research and conservation aims at their core - =not so in Thailand.

As for the "inspectors" - who were they? where is their report? and when is the peer review?

Edited February 19, 201511 yr by cumgranosalum

Odd how the three apologists seem to feel they have contributed enough to the topic to avoid answering some respectful but straight questions, not to mention a rebuttal of one or two verifiable citations.

Cat got your tongue?

I'd feel much better if I found out the majority here were wrong.

I was hoping that they'd explain their thinking - looks like they're having second thoughts?

I was hoping that they'd explain their thinking - looks like they're having second thoughts?

It did have the effect on me of looking up some etymology. Queynte is an old word, possibly meaning old fashioned but attractive. Not sure what the plural might be.

I don't understand where everybody is coming from with all the allegations and statements officials changed their report. In the original news article, (AP February 12 as an example), and here on Thai Visa, it was clearly stated that the officials DID NOT have a problem with care or possession of the Tigers. The only problem they had was the possible possession of some rare birds. So what changed in regard to the Tigers? Nothing.

quote: I don't understand where everybody is coming from with all the allegations and statements officials changed their report...

Um, they aren't. Who or what is "everybody, all" ?

Your point is a non-sequitur in any case. The main contention is that the tigers are being well cared for. Most here think not and can substantiate it, or at least point to reports of some veracity. Those of the opposite view are so far only relying on subjective, emotional arguments of dubious gravitas.

Indeed he looks like a caring individual ajarndara. Doubt those birds being smashed about whilst he's screaming 'die die' feel the same way ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZzFlrj4ock#t=188

I don't understand where everybody is coming from with all the allegations and statements officials changed their report. In the original news article, (AP February 12 as an example), and here on Thai Visa, it was clearly stated that the officials DID NOT have a problem with care or possession of the Tigers. The only problem they had was the possible possession of some rare birds. So what changed in regard to the Tigers? Nothing.

I think you've missed the pint here and the reason for so many people's indignation regarding the temple.

quote: I don't understand where everybody is coming from with all the allegations and statements officials changed their report...

Um, they aren't. Who or what is "everybody, all" ?

Your point is a non-sequitur in any case. The main contention is that the tigers are being well cared for. Most here think not and can substantiate it, or at least point to reports of some veracity. Those of the opposite view are so far only relying on subjective, emotional arguments of dubious gravitas.

Thank you for correcting my grammar. However, a 'number' of posts on page one make the accusation that the official report was changed and most likely due to some payoff. The initial news articles state that there was not a problem with the Tigers when the temple was investigated. Therefore, I do not see where there was a 'reversal of Thai wildlife officials'. As for the condition of the Tigers and which reports are of more veracity is subject to personal opinion and I am not debating that issue.

quote: I don't understand where everybody is coming from with all the allegations and statements officials changed their report...

Um, they aren't. Who or what is "everybody, all" ?

Your point is a non-sequitur in any case. The main contention is that the tigers are being well cared for. Most here think not and can substantiate it, or at least point to reports of some veracity. Those of the opposite view are so far only relying on subjective, emotional arguments of dubious gravitas.

Thank you for correcting my grammar. However, a 'number' of posts on page one make the accusation that the official report was changed and most likely due to some payoff. The initial news articles state that there was not a problem with the Tigers when the temple was investigated. Therefore, I do not see where there was a 'reversal of Thai wildlife officials'. As for the condition of the Tigers and which reports are of more veracity is subject to personal opinion and I am not debating that issue.

Silverhawk - are you suggesting the temple is an OK establishment?

Or are you just having a go at the reporting on this incident and the wishful interpretation by some sources?

If the latter is the case, i think you should first familiarise yourself with the nature of news reporting in Thailand and then take a read of my posts on the subject - I have never suggested the raid was anything more than a bungle - the motivation etc etc has always been in question and the actions after the first reports are also dubious.

the log and short of it is that for whatever the reasons the Temple was raided and some animals confiscated due to suspected illegal possession - that has not bbeen cleared up, but the temple has also had extra comments in the press clearing them of any illegal activities surrounding the tigers.

So, rather than pursuing this red herring about different reports, (most of us are used to conflicting reports about the temple) how about coming out and saying what your position is on this place? then perhaps you could join in a relevant discussion on both it and recent events?

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

quote: I don't understand where everybody is coming from with all the allegations and statements officials changed their report...

Um, they aren't. Who or what is "everybody, all" ?

Your point is a non-sequitur in any case. The main contention is that the tigers are being well cared for. Most here think not and can substantiate it, or at least point to reports of some veracity. Those of the opposite view are so far only relying on subjective, emotional arguments of dubious gravitas.

Thank you for correcting my grammar. However, a 'number' of posts on page one make the accusation that the official report was changed and most likely due to some payoff. The initial news articles state that there was not a problem with the Tigers when the temple was investigated. Therefore, I do not see where there was a 'reversal of Thai wildlife officials'. As for the condition of the Tigers and which reports are of more veracity is subject to personal opinion and I am not debating that issue.

Pardon, this editor (the tool, not me, but you'd be forgiven for confusing the two) leaves much to the imagination...

I wasn't correcting your grammar, how did you get that idea?

However, since I have been given the mantle of ombudsman, however grudging, may I point out that the welfare of the beasts is very far from a matter of mere personal opinion. But I do appreciate why you must stay out of it. QED .

This thread is beginning to look like one you'd find on a low IQ creationists (tautology?) rather than a sober discussion about an endangered species!

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I don't understand where everybody is coming from with all the allegations and statements officials changed their report. In the original news article, (AP February 12 as an example), and here on Thai Visa, it was clearly stated that the officials DID NOT have a problem with care or possession of the Tigers. The only problem they had was the possible possession of some rare birds. So what changed in regard to the Tigers? Nothing.

I think you've missed the pint here and the reason for so many people's indignation regarding the temple.

I think he needs something stronger than a pint. But I agree, he is missing something.

I think that there is something to be learned here about the tiger temple that has been highlighted by such posters on this thread as AjarnDara and Wilsonandson.

The temple has been in business now for about 2 decades and over that time it has successfully and continuously misled the public on several issues. Ever evasive, they have never satisfactorily responded to the main criticisms of the place, in particular their claims to have conservationist aims.

The wildly inaccurate assertions made by Dara and Wilsonandson show how the temple misleads the public by giving the impression they have to greater or lesser extent some conservation merit and that visiting the place in some way contributes to “saving the tiger”. Taken in by this, people are moved to post these opinions naively in favour of the temple on threads that criticise the place.

(In fact nowadays it appears the temple has removed almost all of these direct claims from their web sites).

Any time the temple is challenged on their methods or philosophies and asked to back them up with a valid argument, they turn to obfuscation; a blend pseudo-science, quasi-Buddhism with a dash of anthropomorphism thrown in for good measure, that seems to imply some “spiritual” connection between monk and tiger. However it does not address the concrete problems of breeding, diet or inappropriate housing of the tigers.

Those who fall for this nonsensical mixture and then try to “support” the temple, sooner or later come to realise that their position is untenable. So, feeling conned and embarrassed, they run out of responses and leave it at that.

I’ve taken note of a couple of “classic” misinformed posts on this thread and will bear them in mind for whenever I need to illustrate how the temple is misleading the public and how in the end they rely on the naivety and gullibility of the general public to continue their lucrative charade.

In the end maybe this will help to show how large portions of the public still are unaware of the real plight of not just the tiger but ALL of Thailand’s wildlife, bio-systems and environment. The tiger is an iconic, integral central part of all this.

Eco-systems are like dominoes, their fate is interlinked - if one falls then another follows. They are not restricted to national borders the domino affect will stretch across S.E. Asia and the temple is actually contributing to all this.

So long as people think the Tiger Temple is helping, it is detracting from the efforts of real conservationists, is important that people both foreigners and locals are made aware of this potential eco time bomb.

Edited February 22, 201511 yr by cumgranosalum

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

quote: I don't understand where everybody is coming from with all the allegations and statements officials changed their report...

Um, they aren't. Who or what is "everybody, all" ?

Your point is a non-sequitur in any case. The main contention is that the tigers are being well cared for. Most here think not and can substantiate it, or at least point to reports of some veracity. Those of the opposite view are so far only relying on subjective, emotional arguments of dubious gravitas.

Thank you for correcting my grammar. However, a 'number' of posts on page one make the accusation that the official report was changed and most likely due to some payoff. The initial news articles state that there was not a problem with the Tigers when the temple was investigated. Therefore, I do not see where there was a 'reversal of Thai wildlife officials'. As for the condition of the Tigers and which reports are of more veracity is subject to personal opinion and I am not debating that issue.

Silverhawk - are you suggesting the temple is an OK establishment?

Or are you just having a go at the reporting on this incident and the wishful interpretation by some sources?

If the latter is the case, i think you should first familiarise yourself with the nature of news reporting in Thailand and then take a read of my posts on the subject - I have never suggested the raid was anything more than a bungle - the motivation etc etc has always been in question and the actions after the first reports are also dubious.

the log and short of it is that for whatever the reasons the Temple was raided and some animals confiscated due to suspected illegal possession - that has not bbeen cleared up, but the temple has also had extra comments in the press clearing them of any illegal activities surrounding the tigers.

So, rather than pursuing this red herring about different reports, (most of us are used to conflicting reports about the temple) how about coming out and saying what your position is on this place? then perhaps you could join in a relevant discussion on both it and recent events?

I think he's dumped the question, like you say.