The 95%

D

Dabhidh

Well-Known Member
I just read this:

Less than 5% – or fewer than 350 – of tigers in captivity are managed through the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a nonprofit organization that serves as an accrediting body in the U.S. They ensure accredited facilities meet higher standards of animal care than required by law.

All the rest are privately owned tigers,

They guess that's about 10,000 tigers in total. Do people in the U.S. think this is the way to go when keeping tigers? Or do they want change?

I also watched Ross Kemp's "Searching for Michael Jackson's Zoo" on the TV last night. It was very sad.
 
Mmm..
It is true that, distressingly, only a small portion of the captive tiger population in America is governed by the AZA, though a thing to keep in mind is that no one knows for sure just how many tigers exist outside the AZA / in private hands. The great majority of these tigers are not catalogued by any means - to the underlying 'tiger industry', all of these tigers are just dispensable products, of which are produced in a number of factories.
Another 'advantage' of this is that once the tiger reaches its sell-by date [i.e. grows too large for public interaction] it makes it all the more easier for the tiger to disappear - and for the great majority of the tigers, no one knows where they disappear to.. aside from those behind their disappearance. But of course, they tell no living soul about just where the tigers have gone..
 
I think one thing that is being pointed out is the deep flaws in the system regarding care and ownership of such animals with people who don’t have the means or knowledge to care for them.

As you mentioned the AZA, they have set standards for which any zoo or aquarium seeking accreditation must follow to be part of their association. Tigers in the AZA that are also part of the SSP(Species Survival Plan), are those who are part of breeding programs for their 3 managed subspecies: Amur, Malayan, and Sumatran. There are generic tigers in AZA facilities but not allowed to breed and just live their life. Facilities that wish to keep tigers or any other animals as part of the AZA must do their absolute best to meet or exceed requirements for keeping said species.

Speaking as an American, it concerns me that private ownership of any animals similar to tigers or any other wild animals must be taken with incredible care and due diligence. Most, if not all, tigers kept in private hands particularly roadside zoos or self proclaimed sanctuaries are those that many would consider generic tigers. Their known lineage regarding subspecies is muddled and are not often kept in the best of situations.
 
Dabhidh said:
Do people in the U.S. think this is the way to go when keeping tigers? Or do they want change?
Click to expand...
I cannot find any poll info to reveal what Americans think about this. I expect that, like every issue, the public is divided and incensed at the opinions of the opposition.
 
"Two narratives currently exist about the privately owned captive tiger population in the United States: first that there are easily 5,000 - 7,000 pet tigers in the country, possibly more (World Wildlife Fund, 2010; HSUS, 2017; The Wild Animal Sanctuary, 2017; Jeffreys, 2018), and second, that more tigers are kept in Texas and/or Florida than are currently living in the wild (Born Free, 2012; Graef, 2013; Brulliard, 2016). These two claims both seem to have originated in around the early 2000s. Although the claims are close to two decades old, both continue to have widespread acceptance. Neither claim seems particularly accurate, however, in light of the current data."

Are There More Tigers in Texas and Florida Than in the Wild? — Why Animals Do The Thing
 
Since there does seem to be a discussion I would like to bring up this Theses and the most striking thing from said theses, which I thought might add something to the discussion (albeit I do not know if this source would be taken seriously by many and I could see why).

A Research Framework for the Geographic Study of Exotic Pet Mammals in the USA

from page 108 to until 109

"While researching this topic, I came across a quote by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): “There are over 20,000 tigers privately owned in the USA” (Newkirk, 2009). They did not state it outright, but certainly implied that this was in the form of current and “rescued” exotic pets. I was already involved in exotic pet research, and I could not credit this number with what my own experience had shown me. I asked people I knew who had tigers in sanctuaries or as pets, and they universally 109 agreed that this number could not be true. I did some more digging and found similar quotes. Similar, but not the same. “Zoos, farms, circuses, and private owners hold an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 tigers” by the National Geographic Magazine (Brown, 2008); “Thanks to mainly private adopters and a few zoo programs, there are an estimated 20,000 tigers living in captivity around the world” by the In-Site (In-Site, 2010); and “Up to 12,000 tigers are being kept as private pets in the USA” by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) (AZA, 2007).

So where did this tiger census come from? And why did they all say something slightly different? In 2010, I asked several organizations how they came to their tiger estimates via email. Both PETA and National Geographic returned my inquiries and referenced the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), a well-known animal-rights organization that opposes exotic pet ownership (HSUS, 2010). The HSUS told me they got some of their information from the USDA, and that it was also “common knowledge”. The USDA said that they did not come up with this number, and got what information they had on national captive tiger populations from the HSUS. The AZA never returned my email, nor did the In-Site.

To me, it was apparent that there was never a study undertaken to find this number of tigers, and no one really knew where this estimation of 20,000 tigers originated. It seems reasonable to conclude that it was something someone (most likely from the HSUS, since many fingers point that direction) said in an interview as an estimation. Since it sounded official and amazing and newsworthy, it was likely repeated and misquoted in many venues."
 
Dabhidh said:
I just read this:

Less than 5% – or fewer than 350 – of tigers in captivity are managed through the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a nonprofit organization that serves as an accrediting body in the U.S. They ensure accredited facilities meet higher standards of animal care than required by law.
Click to expand...
In future when you refer to an info source would you kindly post a link so that members can see what you are referring to?

The AZA does not include all USA zoos. There is also the ZAA. Also there is the GFAS for sanctuaries. So is your question specifically about tigers in AZA facilities or tigers in facilities that have some accreditation or tigers in someone's backyard (yes we have those, too) ?
What, specifically, do you want the American public to comment on?
 
Last edited:
Zooplantman said:
In future when you refer to an info source would you kindly post a link so that members can see what you are referring to?

The AZA does not include all USA zoos. There is also the ZAA. Also there is the GFAS for sanctuaries. So is your question specifically about tigers in AZA facilities or tigers in facilities that have some accreditation or tigers in someone's backyard (yes we have those, too) ?
What, specifically, do you want the American public to comment on?
Click to expand...

No problem

'Tiger King' and America's captive tiger problem (theconversation.com)

Its the first search result that comes up when I Bing the number of tigers in the USA.

The question really is about having standards and should tigers be in facilities that have some accreditation.

The Ross Kemp TV program discussed whether a tiger's feet should be allowed to touch the ground as opposed to a concrete floor. The owner of the tiger did not think a tiger's feet should be allowed to touch the ground because it would get fleas.
 
Dabhidh said:
The question really is about having standards and should tigers be in facilities that have some accreditation.

The Ross Kemp TV program discussed whether a tiger's feet should be allowed to touch the ground as opposed to a concrete floor. The owner of the tiger did not think a tiger's feet should be allowed to touch the ground because it would get fleas.
Click to expand...
Only in one nation I know of are these major questions..!
 
dillotest0 said:
Only in one nation I know of are these major questions..!
Click to expand...

I must admit I am very supportive of the practice of letting a tiger's feet touch the ground. And in both Edinburgh Zoo and the Highland Wildlife Park the tigers feet do get to touch the ground, so I guess the Zoological Society of Scotland is supportive of the practice too.

What do others think?
 
Dabhidh said:
I must admit I am very supportive of the practice of letting a tiger's feet touch the ground. And in both Edinburgh Zoo and the Highland Wildlife Park the tigers feet do get to touch the ground, so I guess the Zoological Society of Scotland is supportive of the practice too.

What do others think?
Click to expand...
I myself am rather surprised that this is a question at all.
In essentially all of the zoos in Europe that have tigers, and indeed the better zoos in America that have tigers, the tigers' feet do touch the ground. If one merely looks at a tiger, they will see that its feet are made for, amongst other things, walking and standing on the ground. They are not an airborne species!
If you are in no control in treating the parasites that your tiger might happen to accumulate, then you probably shouldn't be keeping a tiger...
 
Last edited:
Dabhidh said:
I must admit I am very supportive of the practice of letting a tiger's feet touch the ground. And in both Edinburgh Zoo and the Highland Wildlife Park the tigers feet do get to touch the ground, so I guess the Zoological Society of Scotland is supportive of the practice too.

What do others think?
Click to expand...

I believe the practice of keeping large carnivores in private hands is controversial and while it remains far more common in the USA for some reason it also occurs in other countries (including the U.K.).

It’s very easy for big cats to be status symbols and for them to be badly and cruelly kept as symbols of whatever their owners believe they are projecting as an image.

As someone not in the USA I can’t pass judgment on the practices there as such but I don’t believe large carnivores should be in private hands in small cages with no enrichment, walked around on leashes or bred from in order to exhibit their cubs in handling shows. It all feels very wrong and inappropriate.

There’s no good reason I have ever heard to want to own a lion or a tiger as a private individual and keep it in the garden. I think it’s trying a bit too hard.

On the point of tiger enclosures and hard standings there’s no serious study that suggests they should all go into concrete to stop them getting fleas and have no other surfaced to walk on that I am aware of and I’d be surprised if anyone could link one.

Plainly tigers are not wandering mainly around on concrete in the wild.
 
Dabhidh said:
whether a tiger's feet should be allowed to touch the ground
Click to expand...

I believe zoo regulations in Britain and the EU state that carnivore exhibits must have significant percentage of natural ground.

BTW: no law demands the same for domestic cats or dogs.
 
I really suggest you take the time to look at older posts on zoochat. This is another discussion that has been had several times over. Your heart seems in the right place, but your posts have shown a lot of basic ignorance when it comes to the topic of zoos and animals in captivity.
 
TinoPup said:
I really suggest you take the time to look at older posts on zoochat. This is another discussion that has been had several times over. Your heart seems in the right place, but your posts have shown a lot of basic ignorance when it comes to the topic of zoos and animals in captivity.
Click to expand...

If you mean the Tiger King and GW Animal Park threads, then I have already read them and have seen your posts on them.

Ross Kemp's TV program is new here and it sounds as if the same problems still exist.

What has Tiger King changed?

Where are the new standards? Who is monitoring adherence to them?
 
Dabhidh said:
If you mean the Tiger King and GW Animal Park threads, then I have already read them and have seen your posts on them.

Ross Kemp's TV program is new here and it sounds as if the same problems still exist.

What has Tiger King changed?

Where are the new standards? Who is monitoring adherence to them?
Click to expand...

Just my opinion but I don't think tiger king was a kickstart expose on animal welfare issues for a lot of viewers..It's a highly charged piece of film making about massive egos, attempted murder (and possible actual murder) along with rampant sexual exploitation. The main characters also happen to feed their huge egos by keeping big cats and other animals as trophy pets.

What did it change? In itself perhaps nothing but the park featured was shut down and the parks of some of the people involved in the circle of weird animal keeping were also shut and the animals rescued and rehomed, under official sanction.

I don't believe these programmes are campaign tools that lead to legislative changes..they are sensationalist, quite staged docu dramas in which the animals appear to be used as they would be by the people breeding them for petting shows...as an audience draw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top