Zion Wildlife Gardens yet another big cat accident at Zion

The great white tiger debate

As was pointed out by NZ Jeremy: white tigers are descended from a tiger captured in India in 1951, by the Maharaja of Rewa. I had a chance to catch up with his son about 4 years ago for lunch. Very fascinating history.

I will certainly give you that there are white tigers that do show gross genetic problems. They are not the rule. There is one park in China with about 100 of them and they certainly do not look like the poster boy for Big cat rescue.

In the late 70's and early 80's there was a conscience attempt to improve the breeding of these animals and they are better off than they were in the earlier years.

Now I have a differing definition of conservation in that the true value of tigers (of any stripe) is in their value to assist people to part with hard earned money to assist legitimate programs in the wild. Regardless of anti-white tiger sentiments they do have drawing power and can raise substantial funds for valuable projects.

As for Zion and Craig Busch. The info is pathetic, the numbers are wrong. He claims to be helping "extinct cats". Lets face it not the sharpest of individuals around.

In conclusion all of the programs are important to any real shot at saving tigers. They will not be ultimately saved by breeding them in captivity. It will only happen with sustained and important investment on the ground in their range countries. White tigers do have a role to play, if used correctly.

Just a few thoughts
 
I agree with ptig.

While zoos should be concentrating on purebred subspecies, I'm disheartened by the "White Tigers are bad" mentality that seems to pervade these forums. The only bad things about them is what zoos have done to them in the past, namely hybridising them and heavily inbreeding them. If purebred White Bengals could be found - through family relationships or genetic analysis - then it would be criminal to NOT include them in a conservation plan as their genes would be extremely valuable (I'm talking about pairing them up with other Bengals, not about making more White Tigers).

:p

Hix
 
ptig might be surprised, but I understand and support some of his points.
To think that just keeping ex-situ groups of a species in several zoos will guarantee their survival forever is a naive and irrealistic idea. Unfortunately, this image is still fuelled by some zoos, depicting themselves as "modern arks". For only a rather small number of species kept in zoos, reintroduction programs of zoo animals are a possibility, and for even less, a reality. Among these few species are as good as never popular big mammals such as great apes, elephants or big cats.
What is thus the real role of the tigers kept in captivity? One aspect could be their role as "ambassadors" of their species and habitat, thus raising public attention and money to be invested in in-situ programs.
As such, white tigers would indeed be a very good choice. Humans have always been interested in unusual specimens, especially white animals.
However, the white tiger in its current form is a victim of commercialism gone wild, to the disadvantage of the animals involved. Due to establishing the trait via inbreeding, yet otherwise unselective breeding in regard to health, modern white tigers are pretty much "freaks". Their breeding and husbandry should not be promoted.
Otherwise, I agree with Hix's latest post in regard to wild white tigers.
If the Maharaja, Cincinnati Zoo and all the others involved in the creation of the current white tiger had been less greedy, more provident and thoughtful, they would have just left Mohan and Co. as what they were: a rare occasional colour morph of the tiger that can occur now and then in certain populations but, like like other aberrant morphs, should not be artifically augmented.

And about the original topic: as stated before in other threads, I consider direct contact and leash-walking with big cats an unnecessary, careless and foolish practice.
 
Sun, I think we might agree on something!
They are probably more of a drawcard than normal tigers, so if they get more people to the zoo to learn about their habitat, species and their threats, then I think there could be some use in them. What annoys me is zoos claiming they're a rare and endangered subspecies and that they're saving them from extinction by inbreeding them into oblivion, and like you said commercialising what is basically a freak of nature.
 
White tigers

Yes there can exist civil discourse! I can appreciate both of the last two comments. Yes there are and were "greedy" individuals that did a horrendous job by mating any tiger to any tiger just to make more whites which is despicable.

However they are around at many, even some respected zoos and they might as well provide and promote a better future in situ. At this they can be quite successful.

I too dislike the overstating by many zoos that breeding program tigers is truly conservation. Many of those same facilities have given little to zero back to in situ projects. They rest on fact that they have bred a few tigers to justify their efforts.

As I earlier stated places like Zion Wildlife Gardens, that cannot get basic facts correct or falsely claim to be assisting wild populations should be shunned.

I will leave the handling tiger debate for another day.
 
I've said it before, but it's worth saying again: Breeding a rare or endangered species in captivity is NOT 'conservation' until the progeny are re-introduced into the wild. (A bit of a generalisation, but you get the idea).

:p

Hix
 
Sorry to disagree Hix but collections can claim ex-situ conservation if the captive population are used for non-invasive research to help the remaining "wild" population - e.g. testing radio collar sizes or routine health screening to devise a "baseline" for a healthy individual. I know of one case where pheromones were going to be used in Sumatra to encourage wild tigers into a particular area, this was tested on captive tigers to see which scents they responded to (as it happened they didn't so it was back to the drawing board - but you get my point). Captive rare and endangered animals can and do play an important role in conservation, in addition to being a lifeboat for the (sub)species.

Slightly off-topic though as I don't believe any conservation work goes on at Zion....
 
ptig said:
However they are around at many, even some respected zoos and they might as well provide and promote a better future in situ. At this they can be quite successful.
Click to expand...

In this regard, I tend to disagree; the milk has been spilt, and I don't think this can be reversed. Better phase out the whole husbandry and stop further breeding. And I would take out the " "; the people in question were and are driven by greed of gain.

@Naimsindi: I deliberately wrote "one aspect". Another, even more important aspect than trying on collar sizes is zoo medicine. However, its appliance on wild specimens is sometimes limited, and only few zoos allow and support more extensive research on this behalf.
 
Sun is right on the problems surrounding relying on captive breeding as an "ark"...

Case in point is the Sumartran Tigers in captivity, the founding stock was 14 (or 17) initial individuals... Research shows that around 50 would have been needed to maintain a breeding program indefinitely without inbreeding eventually causing the process unsustainable...
 
Sumatran problems

The number of founders for Sumatrans was 13, I think. There are some issues with "head tilt" that is probably genetically linked. It seems to right itself after a period of time but has been noted in numerous off-spring.

Captive tigers and breeding will only be a means of keeping some specimens around. The only chance tigers have to survive is strong efforts in range countries from governments and NGOs' and money will be needed for these efforts.
 
If the number of Sumatran founders was that low, then the 3 animals entering the Australian program via the Australia Zoo import from Indonesia are even more genetically valuable than I had thought.

Many years ago we used to call "head tilt", "star gazing" and 20 different vets would have 20 different theories as to what it was all about. As ptig says, some would grow out of it and some never would.

I've been following the recurring "white tiger/lion contribution to conservation" debate with some interest in a number of different threads here over the years. It is quite apparent that the battle lines are firmly drawn between two opposing sides and never the twain shall meet. For what it's worth, I endorse the position of ptig and others.

However, I'm not as optimistic as some of you about this in-situ conservation deal for some species. For a number of species I think the emphasis now is going to have to be more on preservation than conservation. For example, all the money in the world is not going to save the Luzon Bleeding-Heart Pigeon from going extinct in the wild while ever humans keep procreating on that island. As humans seem to find procreating pleasurable I guess that the human population will continue to increase. Good-bye pigeons in the wild. They will, however, always be preserved in zoos.

There are parallels with tigers and many other species.

I've now helped to take this thread way off track - sorry about that. MARK or ZooYouthBen, do you want to open another thread for conservation v preservation?
 
Naimsindi said:
Sorry to disagree Hix but collections can claim ex-situ conservation if the captive population are used for non-invasive research to help the remaining "wild" population
Click to expand...

That's why I said it was a bit of a generalisation. There are examples where captive-bred animals can be used to aid conservation programs, but they are generally the exception to the rule. Far too many zoos have a rare species, breed it, and claim to be conserving the species when they have no contact with in situ programs at all. That really pisses me off.

:(

Hix
 
I've been following the recurring "white tiger/lion contribution to conservation" debate with some interest in a number of different threads here over the years. It is quite apparent that the battle lines are firmly drawn between two opposing sides and never the twain shall meet. For what it's worth, I endorse the position of ptig and others.

Steve, I agree with you on this matter.

I've now helped to take this thread way off track - sorry about that. MARK or ZooYouthBen, do you want to open another thread for conservation v preservation?[/QUOTE]


If you want to start another thread Steve feel free to do so :D
 
Hmmm, I'd heard 14 (from memory), ptig says 13... Has there been any wild caught animals recently introduced which this new number of 37 may include..?
 
Has there been any wild caught animals recently introduced which this new number of 37 may include..?

I don't know - the 2007 studbook gave 39 founders I think. There could conceivably be regional variations within breeding programmes depending on how the figures are arrived at, I suppose. Some 'problem' wild tigers have been added to the gene pool, but as to when and how many, I'd just be guessing.
 
Well if 37 is correct that is excellent and much closer to the required amount... My local zoo (Auckland) has just bred three, one year ago... Hopefully the breeding is managed well...
 
A close reading of 'Regional and Global Management of Tigers'
(R. Tilson, K. Traylor-Holzer and G. Brady) suggests their were indeed 13 original founders which have now been augmented by other wild-caught 'problem' tigers. Well done Auckland!
 
Does it say 13 founders plus 24 "problem" Tigers for a total of 37..?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top