Tiger’s hides and amulets seized from a truck leaving Tiger’s Temple

[ddavidovsky]

Sorry! I only deal with facts, and opinions that are supported by facts.

All the googling I've done on this issue is simply to find authoritative sources which address the issue, so that I might learn if there is some evidence that implies that farming and breeding an endangered species has a negative effect on the survival of that species in the wild.

I can find no such evidence that farming animals has a negative effect on their survival in the wild. If you can find the evidence, then please provide a link, not a link to a mere opinion, but a link to to real evidence.

It is understood that farming alone will not ensure the survival of a species in the wild. I've never suggested this is the case. A ban on the hunting of the endangered species is of course necessary. The farming of the animal, in an efficient manner, which should reduce the price of the product, simply makes poaching, with the risk of prosecution, less attractive.

What's the problem? Surely that's not difficult to understand.

I agree entirely. Just to add: The trade can't be legalised as such, as that would legitimise the demand. Best thing is to turn a blind eye to a trickle of illicit supply in order to take the pressure off wild populations until the root cause - the demand in China - is addressed. That can only be done by social engineering within China and will take generations. We have to acknowlege we are caught in an imperfect (but hopefully temporary) situation.

The ranters against the Tiger Temple in this thread are too emotional and that is clouding their judgement. They have no idea how easy it is to breed tigers in captivity (in India they have to use contraception or sterilisation because otherwise there would be too many). Many of them probably think the tigers in the temple have been torn from the wild and put in a cruel exhibit, like King Kong, which is nonsense. Others seem to think that they can be reintroduced to the wild, which is impossible. They think that tigers bred in captivity are 'at risk' from trafficking, presumably on the assumption that all tigers have the 'right' to die only of old age and then be given proper funeral rites. Certainly they are more concerned about bred-in-captivity animals than the wild population. Their compassion is touching but quite misplaced. It's the natural world that needs protecting - not the man-made one - and with increasing urgency.

[The stuttering parrot]

Farming of tigers to feed the needs of beliefs and superstitions and comparing that to farming cattle and chickens etc to feed a population with nutrition is in my view misplaced thinking.

Couldn't be bothered going down that track as it will only distract the essence of the OP.

Edited June 5, 2016 by The stuttering parrot

[ddavidovsky]

Farming of tigers to feed the needs of beliefs and superstitions and comparing that to farming cattle and chickens etc to feed a population with nutrition is in my view misplaced thinking.

Couldn't be bothered going down that track as it will only distract the essence of the OP.

I'm not suggesting that tigers are farmed like cattle to feed the demand. That would entirely defeat the long-term object, which is to eradicate the demand completely. I'm only pointing out that, as a stop-gap measure, a trickle of supply will help protect wild populations until the demand is properly dealt with.

Any such 'buffer' trade still has to be entirely unofficial, and quite illegal in order to work. Really, the whole thing has to be a massive secret, or else there is a moral hazard in seeming to legitimize the demand. Even talking about it undermines the beneficial effect. We'd better say no more.

Edited June 5, 2016 by ddavidovsky

[VincentRJ]

Sorry! I see enormous confusion in this thread. From time immemorial, animals have been slaughtered for many different purposes. Mostly for food, but also for clothes to keep people warm, ornaments on the wall, decorative carpets, health remedies, magical potions, and so on.

In a democratic society, one can't ban a product simply because there's a lack of scientific evidence that the product has a benefit. One can only ban a product if there is evidence that the product produces harm, as smoking cigarettes does, and even then it's difficult, as the cigarette analogy demonstrates.

The current issue of the activities in the Tiger Temple at Kanchanaburi, relate to the Buddhist moral precepts of abstinence from any form of killing, even of worms, and abstinence from the engagement in commercial activities.

If these activities have occurred at the tiger Temple, then that's the problem which should be addressed.

If there's a general goal to preserve the tiger from extinction, then the farming of tigers should be allowed, in conjunction with a ban on the hunting of tigers in the wild, and in conjunction with the reinforcement of natural sanctuaries for the tigers.

The farming and trading of tigers and tiger parts is clearly not an activity which Buddhist monks should engage in. That's the issue.

[cumgranosalum]

The situation is not the same.

There is also a huge difference between farming a reptile like a croc and a mammal like the Tiger.

We know that a tiger is not the same as a crocodile, but they are both dangerous creatures which are difficult to manage. I have never visited a crocodile farm where visitors are allowed to stroke the crocodiles or cuddle up to them, but it seems this is possible with the tiger. I can't see why breeding tigers in captivity should be more difficult, over all, than breeding crocodiles in captivity, although the challenges are obviously different.

You seem to think there is a link between the farming of Salties and conservation - there isn't - farming has been done in Oz since the 19th C......the crocs have regained there status because of conservation of their environment.

you seem to be franticly googling to find stuff you think supports your claims - what it shows is that you don't understand the basic issues - there is a difference between "search" and "research" - may I suggest you get a grounding in the topic first - it will reduce to mount of nonsense and cut and paste you need to do.

I don't have time at present but just about every aspect of your argument is flawed - largely because you don't know what you are looking for - you are just hoping that some of your cut and pastes might support your stance.

A real opinion is derived from research - you just have a prejudged position and post that, you are looking round for items to support it - you are doing it backwards.

start again at the beginning and you'll get a much better picture

Sorry! I only deal with facts, and opinions that are supported by facts.

All the googling I've done on this issue is simply to find authoritative sources which address the issue, so that I might learn if there is some evidence that implies that farming and breeding an endangered species has a negative effect on the survival of that species in the wild.

I can find no such evidence that farming animals has a negative effect on their survival in the wild. If you can find the evidence, then please provide a link, not a link to a mere opinion, but a link to to real evidence.

It is understood that farming alone will not ensure the survival of a species in the wild. I've never suggested this is the case. A ban on the hunting of the endangered species is of course necessary. The farming of the animal, in an efficient manner, which should reduce the price of the product, simply makes poaching, with the risk of prosecution, less attractive.

What's the problem? Surely that's not difficult to understand.

"Sorry! I only deal with facts, and opinions that are supported by facts." You're joking of course!

[VincentRJ]

"Sorry! I only deal with facts, and opinions that are supported by facts." You're joking of course!

Not joking, but maybe exaggerating. I also enjoy humour, but I try to clearly distinguish between humour and facts.

[Dumbastheycome]

The discussion may have been degenerated somewhat into debate about other than the genuine reality that the Tiger Temple has now been identified as a commercial business based on hoax and deception which with adequate investigation should progress to following the chain to those outside who must have been assisting the obvious export potential. The fraud involved in this reaches well into International relevance. The investigation should reflect that factor.