According to Mike Archer, Dean of Science at the University of NSW, if we are to save the Australian environment we must “think ourselves into the country” and change our ideas about farming, urbanisation and conservation. Professor Archer believes in giving wildlife a commercial value and has written that:
“We must learn how to raise gum trees alongside sheep, graze kangaroos amid our cattle, grow finger licken’ bustard as well as chicken, and plant mallee trees alongside our wheat.”
So is it OK to farm tigers in China?
There was an article advocating the application of these “free-market principles” for the survival of endangered species in the New York Times earlier this week titled ‘Sell the Tiger to Save it’. The author, Barun Mitra, wrote:
“China joined the international effort to protect the tiger in 1993. But today there is a growing recognition among many Chinese officials that a policy of prohibition and trade restrictions has not benefited the tiger as much as it has helped poachers and smugglers of tigers and tiger parts.
Conservationists say the worldwide illegal trade in forest products and wildlife is between $10 billion and $12 billion, with more than half of that coming from Asia.
…But like forests, animals are renewable resources. If you think of tigers as products, it becomes clear that demand provides opportunity, rather than posing a threat. For instance, there are perhaps 1.5 billion head of cattle and buffalo and 2 billion goats and sheep in the world today. These are among the most exploited of animals, yet they are not in danger of dying out; there is incentive, in these instances, for humans to conserve.
So it can be for the tiger. In pragmatic terms, this is an extremely valuable animal. Given the growing popularity of traditional Chinese medicines, which make use of everything from tiger claws (to treat insomnia) to tiger fat (leprosy and rheumatism), and the prices this kind of harvesting can bring (as much as $20 for claws, and $20,000 for a skin), the tiger can in effect pay for its own survival. A single farmed specimen might fetch as much as $40,000; the retail value of all the tiger products might be three to five times that amount.”
I have an aversion to the idea of caging a wild animal and so the idea revolts me. But how do I justify my aversion? Is it cultural? Is it rational? Is it helpful?
A couple of weeks ago Libby Eyre sent me some links to article about the bushmeat trade in Africa*. Over-hunting to supply the increasing demand for this meat is apparently seriously threatening the survival of many species of forest animal including chimpanzees and gorillas. Bushmeat is even finding its way to downtown markets in New York and Paris. Libby commented:
“It is interesting to look at the bushmeat consumption in the west and compare to say the taste for whale or dog meat that some countries have. For example, in Australia we may not relish the thought of chowing down on a chow or chimp or minke (damn, doesn’t fit the alliteration), but some think it is OK to do so and perhaps even hip to eat something off the IUCN red list.
My comment here is more about how we perceive wildlife, social trends and conservation, rather than pointing a finger at any certain culture. There are the inevitable discussions about sustainability and wildlife management that spring from this too, but I was intrigued by the thought of a wealthy, well-educated Parisian woman serruptitiously purchasing a bushbuck burger because it was the next big thing that one has to have.”
If the bushmeat trade was legalized and regulated, would it really make a difference? Could it really help save chimpanzees and gorillas? Surely there is a better way!
———————
*The email from Libby came with these links:
http://www.wildsingapore.com/news/20060708/060705-6.htm
http://www.bushmeat.org/index.htm
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050226/bob9.asp
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1111_041111_bushmeat_fishing
.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4003859.stm
http://www.seaaroundus.org/OtherWebsites/2004/AfricanBushMeattrade.pdfhttp://news.mongabay.com/2006/0706-bushmeat.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
In managing wildlife we need to choose the right tools. Banning trade where there is serious money to be made does not seem to be working. The target aminals, belonging to no one, are hunted by whoever. It is the tragedy of the commons. The bush meat trade seems to be similar.
I cannot imagine myself eating meats other than sheep, cattle, chicken and fish, that is a cultural preference. But I sure would like to be able to ‘trade’ some of the surplus southern hairy nosed wombats I am forced to carry, at my expense. If they were worth something, they would not be such a financial burden.
A different approach is the “North American Model” for wildlife conservation. Val Geist suggests that its foundations are:
Wildilfe are public trust resources;
Eliminate markets for wildlife (directly relevant to the topic being discussed, I’d have thought);
Allocate wilidfe by law;
and a few others.
Details are in Geist, V. 2006. The North American Model of Wildife conservation: a means of creating wealth and protecting public health while generating biodiversity. Chapter 19 in Lavigne, D. (editor) Gaining Ground: In pursuit of ecological sustainability.
And before someone notices that the book’s published by the International Fund for Animal Welfare and gets all huffy, it’s an attempt by Lavigne to work on point 1 that Jennifer lists as the AEF’s raison d’etre:
1.Evidence – policies are set and decisions are made on the basis of facts, evidence and scientific analysis.
(And anyone who knows anything about the personalities in wildlife management science knows that Val Geist is a long, long way from being a tree-hugger)
Just to throw another option into the mix.
Peter
“Given the growing popularity of traditional Chinese medicines, which make use of everything from tiger claws (to treat insomnia) to tiger fat (leprosy and rheumatism …”
Ah, but there is no evidence that they actually have real therapeutic value. If I ever get leprosy, I will opt for conventional medicine thanks. I don’t have much faith in tiger fat!
I agree that farming might be a way to save endangered species, but the reason a lot are endangered is because they are not very prolific breeders, especially in captivity. They are also expensive to farm. For sheep and cattle you need only rudimentary fences and a lot of grass.
To farm tigers you need more than a field, a few fence posts and number 8 wire.
To preserve the wildlife we must preserve the habitat.
Farming endangered species would almost certaintly not preserve the habitat (farmed cows do not exist in the original habitat).
Given that we are working in a value system that values nature red in tooth and claw (or because of a belief that the current ecosystem is the optimum) would farming endangered species go anyway to achiving the objective.
Perhaps trophy hunting would be a better value creating activity (but the development of hunting parks in the USA indicates that this is a blind alley).
Does anybody know how the Campfire Project is going in Zimbabwe? Or has it gone down the gurgler?
Probably in my opinion, the most efficient way to counter the arguments that tiger body parts are very efficient to cure diseases in traditional Chinese medicine, is to provide evidence that synthetic medicines are far more efficient than animal body parts.
Seems though as the authorities are not too keen on to promote this ,I’m thinking about bear bile farming.
Regarding trade in tiger skins , Dalai Lama recently urged people to burn their tiger skins as well as other skins of endangered animals such as snow leopards.
Many people followed Dalai Lama’s advice and burned the skins publicly. However, this angered authorities in China, who arrested many people burning endangered animal’s skins , they believed this was a political manifestation.
e1c397e45733 You are doing some very good work
1edb79f8cc5c Great work