The 95%

Zooplantman said:
Thanks for the link
Now WHY would you accept as fact the first result that pops up in an internet search and look no further??????
Click to expand...

Because The Conversation is an independent source of news analysis and informed comment written by academic experts, working with professional journalists who help share their knowledge with the world. And its founding partners are universities from over here. I doubt they would have any other agenda other than trying to tell the truth.

The author is a PhD student from the University of California and I don't she is using "dodgy" numbers.

From the link in the article the 10K number looks like it came from the book "Blood of the Tiger" by J.A. Mills

Btw one of your links also states it is missing info.

"The dataset addresses only the number of federally regulated big cats: it cannot be used to determine the number of privately owned big cats within the United States, nor the total number of all big cats in all situations within the country."
 
Dabhidh said:
Because The Conversation is an independent source of news analysis and informed comment written by academic experts, working with professional journalists who help share their knowledge with the world. And its founding partners are universities from over here. I doubt they would have any other agenda other than trying to tell the truth.

The author is a PhD student from the University of California and I don't she is using "dodgy" numbers.

From the link in the article the 10K number looks like it came from the book "Blood of the Tiger" by J.A. Mills

Btw one of your links also states it is missing info.

"The dataset addresses only the number of federally regulated big cats: it cannot be used to determine the number of privately owned big cats within the United States, nor the total number of all big cats in all situations within the country."
Click to expand...
I guess you and I have rather different standards of deciding what is fact and what is conjecture. Had you looked further than one article you would perhaps have wondered whether the number was accurate. The 10,000 figure has no real backing. Might be correct, probably isn't. What is correct? No one knows. So should we just act like 10,000 is correct? I wouldn't. I guess you would. If no one knows then no one knows.

Dabhidh said:
From the link in the article the 10K number looks like it came from the book "Blood of the Tiger" by J.A. Mills
Click to expand...
And where did he get his numbers?
You have written here that you do not bother to read anything that doesn't interest you: I suspect that means you are content to take the less arduous road to form strong opinions. I think perhaps I'll stop responding to your posts. Otherwise we shall forever be disputing.
 
Last edited:
Zooplantman said:
I guess you and I have rather different standards of deciding what is fact and what is conjecture. Had you looked further than one article you would perhaps have wondered whether the number was accurate. The 10,000 figure has no real backing. Might be correct, probably isn't. What is correct? No one knows. So should we just act like 10,000 is correct? I wouldn't. I guess you would. If no one knows then no one knows.

And where did he get his numbers?
You have written here that you do not bother to read anything that doesn't interest you: I suspect that means you are content to take the less arduous road to form strong opinions. I think perhaps I'll stop responding to your posts. Otherwise we shall forever be disputing.
Click to expand...


To be fair the article did say "They guess that's about 10,000 tigers in total."

So the article did not say the 10,000 figure was correct or accurate.

When you get to my age life is too short to read stuff that does not interest you.

As for opinions - strong or otherwise - they are just opinions. Life would be very boring if we all had the same opinions.
 
Dabhidh said:
To be fair the article did say "They guess that's about 10,000 tigers in total."

So the article did not say the 10,000 figure was correct or accurate.

When you get to my age life is too short to read stuff that does not interest you.

As for opinions - strong or otherwise - they are just opinions. Life would be very boring if we all had the same opinions.
Click to expand...
I find it interesting how your opinion in this thread stands on a guess and an inability to read a full article but in the thread on enclosure size, the sources and studies provided to you are disregarded because of the possibility of some sort of zoo conspiracy to keep enclosures small despite evidence to the contrary.
 
Dabhidh said:
Because The Conversation is an independent source of news analysis and informed comment written by academic experts, working with professional journalists who help share their knowledge with the world. And its founding partners are universities from over here. I doubt they would have any other agenda other than trying to tell the truth.

The author is a PhD student from the University of California and I don't she is using "dodgy" numbers.

From the link in the article the 10K number looks like it came from the book "Blood of the Tiger" by J.A. Mills
Click to expand...
Just as a point of relevance, the article in The Conversation is still just an article - it's not any sort of scientific review. The book by J A Mills which she cites is also not a scientific review - it is a popular book about the author's investigations into the Chinese trade in bear and tiger parts; the number of tigers in the USA as given in the book (there is a line in the book which says there are "between 5000 and 20,000") is the same figure given for at least a couple of decades in all sorts of sources, which all stem from "somewhere" - it is not the result of some exhaustive study by that author, and is actually irrelevant to the real subject of her book. The next sentence in the article in The Conversation ("Estimates put the global captive tiger population as high as 25,000") is from a paper from 2009 - over a decade ago, so hardly up to date even if that were accurate.

The bottom line is that nobody knows how many tigers are kept privately in the USA, because the only ones which can be counted are the ones which are kept under permits. How many tigers are kept in the USA outside of AZA zoos? Is it 95% or is it 50% or is it 20% - when the total number of tigers is just a guess then the percentage is also a guess.
 
Chlidonias said:
Just as a point of relevance, the article in The Conversation is still just an article - it's not any sort of scientific review. The book by J A Mills which she cites is also not a scientific review - it is a popular book about the author's investigations into the Chinese trade in bear and tiger parts; the number of tigers in the USA as given in the book (there is a line in the book which says there are "between 5000 and 20,000") is the same figure given for at least a couple of decades in all sorts of sources, which all stem from "somewhere" - it is not the result of some exhaustive study by that author, and is actually irrelevant to the real subject of her book. The next sentence in the article in The Conversation ("Estimates put the global captive tiger population as high as 25,000") is from a paper from 2009 - over a decade ago, so hardly up to date even if that were accurate.

The bottom line is that nobody knows how many tigers are kept privately in the USA, because the only ones which can be counted are the ones which are kept under permits. How many tigers are kept in the USA outside of AZA zoos? Is it 95% or is it 50% or is it 20% - when the total number of tigers is just a guess then the percentage is also a guess.
Click to expand...

You think its a guess, the author of the article thinks its a guess, and I think its a guess.

I guess we are in total agreement then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top