1000 wild tigers or 100k tigers in captivity?

Akrasia

Presuming that preserving tigers is good, which is better?

Tigger

Akrasia wrote: »

Presuming that preserving tigers is good, which is better?

wild
Tigers are apex predators and are already dead in captivity

tomwaterford

I'd be happy with just 1 more celtic tiger

McMurphy

Tigers.


They're Grrrrreat.

Akrasia

Tigger wrote: »

wild
Tigers are apex predators and are already dead in captivity

But they can survive longer in captivity. Almost twice as long.

Akrasia

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Tigers.


They're Grrrrreat.

Yep. And they'd rip yer face off

Tigger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtWmMwATEGA

tomwaterford wrote: »

I'd be happy with just 1 more celtic tiger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX_ZD_EsYU0

Akrasia

tomwaterford wrote: »

I'd be happy with just 1 more celtic tiger

Do you sell breakfast Panini's with parma ham?

For Forks Sake

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Tigers.


They're Grrrrreat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEKnJQxYODo

Tigger

Akrasia wrote: »

But they can survive longer in captivity. Almost twice as long.

whats the point tho, they arent pets

Akrasia

Tigger wrote: »

whats the point tho, they arent pets

Maybe they prefer being fed regularly and having medical care and protection from predators?

Akrasia

Not many tiger cubs like being killed by competing adults/disease/starvation i would guess

Tigger

Akrasia wrote: »

Not many tiger cubs like being killed by competing adults/disease/starvation i would guess

better that than going mad with boredom
ive seen tigers in zoos pacing bactwards and forwards and i dont think it suits them

Oldtree

It's not like they are being preserved to be released back into the wild. What wild???
Slightly off topic but it's even more upsetting to see great apes and monkeys in a cage. Havn't been to a zoo in many decades.

Akrasia

Tigger wrote: »

better that than going mad with boredom
ive seen tigers in zoos pacing bactwards and forwards and i dont think it suits them

You're probably right. Although, I've seen humans crouched over bar stools and standing on the edge of cliffs. But human life is sacred. so why is a miserable human valuable but a wild tiger is a hundred times more valuable than a caged one?

con___manx1

Akrasia wrote: »

Presuming that preserving tigers is good, which is better?

Which would you prefer living your normal life or being locked in a prison cell for you whole life ?
Tigers are mytical creatures and deserve protection in the wild.

Akrasia

con___manx1 wrote: »

Which would you prefer living your normal life or being locked in a prison cell for you whole life ?
Tigers are mytical creatures and deserve protection in the wild.

What if your normal life is being in a cage?

Cookie_Monster

Akrasia wrote: »

What if your normal life is being in a cage?

Akrasia

What if your normal life is significantly less free but also less dangerous than a feral life in the wilderness

CPTM

Tigger wrote: »

better that than going mad with boredom
ive seen tigers in zoos pacing bactwards and forwards and i dont think it suits them

Yeah but they don't exactly go jogging and join reading clubs in the wild. They don't go on holidays to nice places. I've never seen a clip of a tiger/lion doing much in the wild aside from hunting, when they absolutely have to. And if they get injured or they find it hard to find prey, they have a fairly miserable end.

I think a balance between the two is good. A concrete zoo is awful, but a zoo with plenty of space to run around, natural surroundings, and caring keepers is probably the best option for some of them. I reckon if you could ask them they'd go for that. Too much risk and hunger in the wild.

Tigger

CPTM wrote: »

Yeah but they don't exactly go jogging and join reading clubs in the wild. They don't go on holidays to nice places. I've never seen a clip of a tiger/lion doing much in the wild aside from hunting, when they absolutely have to. And if they get injured or they find it hard to find prey, they have a fairly miserable end.

I think a balance between the two is good. A concrete zoo is awful, but a zoo with plenty of space to run around, natural surroundings, and caring keepers is probably the best option for some of them. I reckon if you could ask them they'd go for that. Too much risk and hunger in the wild.

are they allowed eat the other animals ? cos they like to eat the other animals
notging wrong with a bit of hunger its the best sauce

Akrasia

Tigger wrote: »

are they allowed eat the other animals ? cos they like to eat the other animals
notging wrong with a bit of hunger its the best sauce

They eat specially selected food to optimise their health.

Would you take part in euthanising 99000 tigers if it meant 1000 could live wild and free?

YFlyer

As Tony said their great.

diomed

Who wants to feed 100,000 tigers?
Bit of a daft question.
Why not 1,270 vs 91,414?

Mellor

Tigger wrote: »

whats the point tho, they arent pets

If we were sure they could sustain a healthy population in the wild, I'd be all for going completely wild. However that's clearly not the case. Extinction is real threat, and if captivity populations can prevent extinction, then it worthwhile imo.

con___manx1 wrote: »

Tigers are mytical creatures

Are you confusing Tigers with Unicorns?

CruelCoin

Akrasia wrote: »

What if your normal life is significantly less free but also less dangerous than a feral life in the wilderness

Put that question to a random sampling of the populace and I guarantee you the answer would be live free die young.

DavyD_83

Akrasia wrote: »

But they can survive longer in captivity. Almost twice as long.

I f a group of well meaning people kept humans in comfortable cages, and managed their medication and diet they'd probably live longer on average than if they were allowed to live for themselves 'in the wild'.

Not sure I'd sign up though.

(this is not the same as prisons, it would be a scenario where the whole goal is to keep the person alive and 'looking healthy')

CruelCoin

DavyD_83 wrote: »

I f a group of well meaning people kept humans in comfortable cages, and managed their medication and diet they'd probably live longer on average than if they were allowed to live for themselves 'in the wild'.

Not sure I'd sign up though.

(this is not the same as prisons, it would be a scenario where the whole goal is to keep the person alive and 'looking healthy')

Not a huge step further is the whole "matrix" scenario.
Perfectly tended by machines, nothing to worry about.
I'd still prefer to live in a steam-punk city though.

CPTM

CruelCoin wrote: »

Put that question to a random sampling of the populace and I guarantee you the answer would be live free die young.

Do you not think though, the vast majority of people are caged in comparison to our wild past? They sit in the same house, go to the same job, eat the same food generally month to month. Even going to the same job is too much freedom for some - who ask to log on remotely from home. The fact that we choose to live this way reinforces the fact that freedom is not something that is necessarily desirable. In fact, changing jobs and moving house is quoted as being some of the biggest causes of stress. I'm not advocating crappy zoos where the animals are in isolation or have no room to move, I'm just challenging the notion that "Freedom" is endlessly good, and the more of it the better, and we are the primary examples of that - because most of us have the choice and don't take it.

Dravokivich

I don't think there'd be enough genetic diversity for such a low number in the wild. I'd expect family history is checked before arranging mates, when zoo's are involved, to encourage stronger off spring.

biko

Akrasia wrote: »

But they can survive longer in captivity. Almost twice as long.

Long life in prison or shorter life in freedom, which do you think the tiger prefer?

CPTM

Biggest problem this thread will have is the definition of captivity. The spectrum is big, and I guess those who are pro-captivity are picturing some kind of enclosed/managed safari park, and those who are against seem to be thinking of Kilmainham jail.

Del2005

Apex predators are more important in the wild than in a cage, no matter how big or "natural" it's made to look. They control other animals that can damage the environment if not controlled. Look at Yellowstone since the reintroduction of the wolf where flora is returning to its natural state instead of being over eaten by grazing animals staying too long in the one place.

So a thousand Tigers in the wild are performing their natural roll, a million Tigers in a cage are to make ourselves feel good and get a nice day out. What's the point in "saving" something in an unnatural setting if it can never go back to its natural environment? It's not saved its just one step from having it stuffed and hanging off a wall.

The cost of keeping an animal in a zoo would protect a lot more in the wild, the poor people doing the hunting and getting killed/jailed by law enforcement are only getting a pittance considering the final amount that the animals go for. Pay the locals to protect instead of exploiting then to destroy.

Akrasia

CruelCoin wrote: »

Put that question to a random sampling of the populace and I guarantee you the answer would be live free die young.

Perhaps, but if you asked a random sample of people should prisoners be executed or kept in jail for life, I wonder what their answer would be?

To take away the punishment element of the exercise, imagine these are political prisoners who never hurt anyone, but they are dangerous to the regime so 'cannot' be set free.

Akrasia

DavyD_83 wrote: »

I f a group of well meaning people kept humans in comfortable cages, and managed their medication and diet they'd probably live longer on average than if they were allowed to live for themselves 'in the wild'.

Not sure I'd sign up though.

(this is not the same as prisons, it would be a scenario where the whole goal is to keep the person alive and 'looking healthy')

We do that all the time though. Go to nursing homes and you'll see many people who are no longer able to care for themselves but are kept alive by nursing care. There are people with Dementia who don't even recognise their own reflection in the mirror anymore who are kept alive because of the presumption that being alive is better than not being alive.

Akrasia

biko wrote: »

Long life in prison or shorter life in freedom, which do you think the tiger prefer?

I don't know. It's an interesting question though, given that humans will often choose longer life even if it's at severely reduced function

While on the other side of the coin, there are people fighting for the right to end their lives and being prevented because others view their life as inherently valuable.

Akrasia

CPTM wrote: »

Biggest problem this thread will have is the definition of captivity. The spectrum is big, and I guess those who are pro-captivity are picturing some kind of enclosed/managed safari park, and those who are against seem to be thinking of Kilmainham jail.

I left it kind of vague on purpose because freedom and cages can mean lots of different things.

People volunteer to give up freedom in exchange for security in human society.

When we take up waged employment, we are giving our boss authority to make our choices and determine our behaviour for at least those hours we are working (and in many cases, they can demand that we behave according to their demands even when we're not working) in exchange for this, we get paid, which we use to pay for food, shelter, clothes and some toys to play with.

DavyD_83

Akrasia wrote: »

We do that all the time though. Go to nursing homes and you'll see many people who are no longer able to care for themselves but are kept alive by nursing care. There are people with Dementia who don't even recognise their own reflection in the mirror anymore who are kept alive because of the presumption that being alive is better than not being alive.

Fair point, but we generally don't start doing it from the point people are born.
"congratulations on your baby, now if you'll both just come this way and we'll sedate you as soon as possible, there'll be a group of tourists along to gawp shortly".
The more I think about it, the more I'm not sure how far we are from this though.

I'm not signing up for the nursing home model either to be honest, and I'd have pretty much the same objections to them as I do of zoos (I've just never thought of them alongside eachother until now)
The benefit is entirely for the onlookers/visitors to feel good about themselves and not lose access, in many cases regardless of the wishes individual(s) involved.

All this said, I go to the zoo because the kids like seeing the animals, and I know I'll have a hard time letting my parents go, so they could well end up in a home of some sort if that is what seems best. I'll make it clear to my kids that it's not what I want for myself, but it will be up to them in the end too.

It's all well and good to have idealist opinions, but we all act selfishly to a point when it comes down to it.

Tigger

Akrasia wrote: »

We do that all the time though. Go to nursing homes and you'll see many people who are no longer able to care for themselves but are kept alive by nursing care. There are people with Dementia who don't even recognise their own reflection in the mirror anymore who are kept alive because of the presumption that being alive is better than not being alive.

last year inwatched my father waste away from a brain tumor which gave him mental issues in a home
the yearcbefore he was still crashing mitorbikes and cycling aroind dublin traffic like a good thing
inknow both h and i would have rather seen him go out with a bang in the wild

CruelCoin

DavyD_83 wrote: »

All this said, I go to the zoo because the kids like seeing the animals, and I know I'll have a hard time letting my parents go, so they could well end up in a home of some sort if that is what seems best. I'll make it clear to my kids that it's not what I want for myself, but it will be up to them in the end too.

It's all well and good to have idealist opinions, but we all act selfishly to a point when it comes down to it.

A good friend of mine together with his mother are essentially prisoners to caring for his grandmother. He has effectively lost his youth caring for her.

If i were that woman i'd have told him to go live his life.
You cannot morally expect your kids to sacrifice their lives for yours.

CruelCoin

Akrasia wrote: »

Perhaps, but if you asked a random sample of people should prisoners be executed or kept in jail for life, I wonder what their answer would be?

To take away the punishment element of the exercise, imagine these are political prisoners who never hurt anyone, but they are dangerous to the regime so 'cannot' be set free.

But its not relevent in the slightest because we're not talking about executing tigers are we???

There is no real debate here. You don't see tigers fighting to get into zoos, but instead they're forever trying to escape. That should be proof enough of their desires.
Add to that how you need apex predators for a healthy excosystem.

It's not really an all or nothing question anyway. No reason why we cannot have both 100 in the wild and 100000 in zoos.

Akrasia

CruelCoin wrote: »

But its not relevent in the slightest because we're not talking about executing tigers are we???

There is no real debate here. You don't see tigers fighting to get into zoos, but instead they're forever trying to escape. That should be proof enough of their desires.
Add to that how you need apex predators for a healthy excosystem.

It's not really an all or nothing question anyway. No reason why we cannot have both 100 in the wild and 100000 in zoos.

The question is about the value of a life too
If a life wild and free is inherently more valuable than one that is in captivity, what is each life worth


Pretend it costs the same to keep a thousand tigers wild, as it would to keep a hundred thousand tigers in captivity. Is the fact that more tigers get to live balanced by the degraded freedom of living in captivity?

Guy:Incognito

Zoos are not out culling the tigers that are in the wild so people will go to the zoo.It's not an either or. They are being preserved in captivity because there's a risk of being extinct in the wild.

Try emailing the poachers and asking them pretty please to stop. Maybe a change.org petition with grow the numbers .

Akrasia

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Zoos are not out culling the tigers that are in the wild so people will go to the zoo.It's not an either or. They are being preserved in captivity because there's a risk of being extinct in the wild.

Try emailing the poachers and asking them pretty please to stop. Maybe a change.org petition with grow the numbers .

It's not really the poachers, it's the sustained loss of habitat
There already was an online campaign. They raised 600 million dollars, this was just about enough to buy land for a wildlife reserve big enough to support 1000 Tigers

Without Its the last bit of suitable land, and if it's not bought now, it'll be sold to farmers and the tiger will go extinct

Alternatively, the Tiger Preservation Society could spend that money by giving it to the worlds best zoos to build luxury tiger enclosures capable of hosting a hundred thousand tigers spread around the world (the zoos will part fund the enclosures so that the 600 million will stretch quite far)

Galwayguy35

The forests they live in should be protected and laws made that it should be never used for agriculture or the trees cut down.

But at the rate Asians are breeding and destroying the natural habitat of the native wildlife I think they are doomed in the wild.