Tigers Nearly Extinct

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

bleachigo10:
Does Hobbes know about this? I'm glad something is being done at least, I don't want the Tiger to become an impossibility.

Hobbes did find out, and was horrified. (No, really.)

But does this surprise anyone? They've been known to be endangered for the last few decades. Throw in poachers and this happens.

Agayek:
That's very true.

That said, why should we care? It's a law of nature that things either adapt or die. If they can't adapt, why do we bother even trying to keep them alive? As soon as they're dead, nature will fill the hole, as has happened countless times throughout the last four billion years. Worrying about it is asinine.

There's a difference between adapting to a gradual change over hundreds of generations and going extinct because your fur looks really awesome, and killing a tiger makes you hardcore.

We should care because as humans we're causing extinction rates far greater than would naturally happen...and what happens when everything else but us on this planet is dead?

I-it's the ci-ircle, the circle of Li-i-ife!

If people made tigers "economically viable" by paying people large sums of money to keep them not-shot then there would probably be few problems.

bleachigo10:

GoldenEyes:

bleachigo10:
I don't want the Liger to become an impossibility.

Liger an impossibility :S? No fear my friend! The Liger is in exsistance already!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

I already knew they existed but if tigers go extinct then we won't be able to make anymore of them.

Ah, ok, silly me, durrr :P *feels dumb*

Agayek:
Meh. It's unfortunate if they die out, but if they can't survive on their own, it's not something we should be overly concerned about. Species go extinct at least on a weekly basis, it's not a big deal. Hell, it's part of evolution/natural selection.

We're a big reason their numbers are so few in the first place, we should atleast try to save their species after doing that to them.

They should start procreating immediately. I hope they bounce back.

Cliff_m85:

badgersprite:

Cliff_m85:
Easy way to fix the situation. Make tigers economically viable.

Allow people to farm them for pelts, meat, and whatnot. It's what saved the bison.

The fact that tigers are economically viable is why they're going extinct. Poaching.

And there's a reason people don't farm big predators, dude.

Tiger is an ingredient in some "traditional" medications. However it's illegal to hunt tiger. Which makes tiger quite expensive. Which entices people to hunt them.

Legalize farming of tigers for such materials and companies will fight for the tiger to survive.

You can't farm tigers. Do you know how expensive that would be? How much food they require to survive? How much space they need? Never mind the fact that they are not domestic. They are wild predators. You cannot farm wild predators. Farming does not work that way. Even if you could farm them, the fact that there are so few of them, that they do not breed like herbivores, the fact that they need to be fed meat etc etc etc makes this all so unprofitable that farming tigers could never work.

Seriously, have you ever heard of majestic herds of tigers sweeping across the planes? No. Because they are solitary predators. They are not farm animals. They are not herd animals. They are not herbivores.

I honestly can't even understand that this needs to be pointed out.

badgersprite:

Cliff_m85:

badgersprite:

The fact that tigers are economically viable is why they're going extinct. Poaching.

And there's a reason people don't farm big predators, dude.

Tiger is an ingredient in some "traditional" medications. However it's illegal to hunt tiger. Which makes tiger quite expensive. Which entices people to hunt them.

Legalize farming of tigers for such materials and companies will fight for the tiger to survive.

You can't farm tigers. Do you know how expensive that would be? How much food they require to survive? How much space they need? Never mind the fact that they are not domestic. They are wild predators. You cannot farm wild predators. Farming does not work that way. Even if you could farm them, the fact that there are so few of them, that they do not breed like herbivores, the fact that they need to be fed meat etc etc etc makes this all so unprofitable that farming tigers could never work.

Seriously, have you ever heard of majestic herds of tigers sweeping across the planes? No. Because they are solitary predators. They are not farm animals. They are not herd animals. They are not herbivores.

I honestly can't even understand that this needs to be pointed out.

You can't farm wolves. Do you know how expensive that would be? How much.......

*pets puppy*

I'LL LOVE YOU FOREVER HOBBES!
*sniff*

Cliff_m85:

badgersprite:

Cliff_m85:

Tiger is an ingredient in some "traditional" medications. However it's illegal to hunt tiger. Which makes tiger quite expensive. Which entices people to hunt them.

Legalize farming of tigers for such materials and companies will fight for the tiger to survive.

You can't farm tigers. Do you know how expensive that would be? How much food they require to survive? How much space they need? Never mind the fact that they are not domestic. They are wild predators. You cannot farm wild predators. Farming does not work that way. Even if you could farm them, the fact that there are so few of them, that they do not breed like herbivores, the fact that they need to be fed meat etc etc etc makes this all so unprofitable that farming tigers could never work.

Seriously, have you ever heard of majestic herds of tigers sweeping across the planes? No. Because they are solitary predators. They are not farm animals. They are not herd animals. They are not herbivores.

I honestly can't even understand that this needs to be pointed out.

You can't farm wolves. Do you know how expensive that would be? How much.......

*pets puppy*

*epic facepalm*

You have to be kidding me. That is so unrepentantly stupid that you have to be fucking with me now.

Domesticated dogs do not equal wild wolves and they sure as hell don't equal tigers. You owning one domesticated puppy is not the equivalent to keeping a farm of WILD. FUCKING. TIGERS. Puppies and dogs sold as pets are not used for resources either, which is what you're suggesting should be done for tigers, which, by the way, is encouraging exactly what tigers are being killed for.

And, on that note, do you understand how many dogs go uncared for because they're too expensive to take care of once they're past cute pet store age? If they can't be sold to owners, they're killed - put to sleep! They don't keep them alive or care for them. All those dogs in the pet store window that aren't bought...they die.

Let's not even get into the long list of horrible things about puppy farms.

Most animals go extinct.

In fact, I think most biologists would tell you, even before humanity's time here, 99% of all species that have existed on this planet have gone extinct.

Such is life :/

Agayek:
Meh. It's unfortunate if they die out, but if they can't survive on their own, it's not something we should be overly concerned about. Species go extinct at least on a weekly basis, it's not a big deal. Hell, it's part of evolution/natural selection.

LOL. no seriously? what else can you say to something so amazingly ignorant?

man, i love the internet.

Bruin:

That's an estimate.

And a very bad one.

Not to mention tigers are extremely efficient hunters and a large population of them is unsustainable, and that they're masterful at getting around human eyes, like most other good predators.

So, tell me again how people think there's only 3,200 tigers left in the wild when there's probably more than that in zoos alone?

yeah those crazy wackos at the WWF, what do they know about animal populations? they only employ scientists of every kind whose specialties allow them to make these sorts of estimates.

it's like watching global warming deniers arguing with the thousands of PhDs around the world who have shown that humans are the principle cause of the rise in global temperatures.

but what would those guys know? it's cold outside right now!

I like how they wait until it's almost too late to start. Man, you humans are slow-minded.

I think species-relocation would help, possibly to Northern Canada for some subspecies. Of course, your feeble human minds would consider it too risky. They're almost dead; relocation may be the only solution right now.

Agayek has a point, though. Dealing with new species, however invasive, is a part of evolution. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but it's really just adaptation. Look at pandas; they just DON'T want to reproduce. Doomed to die out.

Quantum Roberts:
This upsets me greatly.:(
I always loved Tigers.

Your avatar still makes me angry.

anyway, less importantly, that good. I don't want Taiga to go away.

image
/fapsturbate

He shouldn't have cheated on his wife *buh dun tisch*

Ahlycks:

Quantum Roberts:
This upsets me greatly.:(
I always loved Tigers.

Your avatar still makes me angry.

anyway, less importantly, that good. I don't want Taiga to go away.

image

But WHY!?

:C

Judgement101:
He shouldn't have cheated on his wife *buh dun tisch*

Yay for not right tiger references!! *high five* (read above)

Quantum Roberts:

Ahlycks:

Quantum Roberts:
This upsets me greatly.:(
I always loved Tigers.

Your avatar still makes me angry.

anyway, less importantly, that good. I don't want Taiga to go away.

image

But WHY!?

:C

Because for one it is not the picture above

and the fact that the captions and dramatic angles do not fit the pile of fail in the pic.

Domesticate them. Dogs and cats thrive because they're protected by humans as pets, Breed them out of being wild animals, because lord knows there ain't enough wild for them to live in anymore, and none will magically appear for them.

Avelestar:
There's a difference between adapting to a gradual change over hundreds of generations and going extinct because your fur looks really awesome, and killing a tiger makes you hardcore.

We should care because as humans we're causing extinction rates far greater than would naturally happen...and what happens when everything else but us on this planet is dead?

We die. I still fail to see how it's a big deal. Everything dies eventually, including the human race. If it's because we nuke ourselves to death or destroy the environment or any of a number of other causes, we, as a species, are going to die eventually. Just like every other species and anything else that has a physical existence. Stressing about it doesn't do anything.

Edit: In addition, if/when we get to that point (and I find it highly unlikely, Nature is a tenacious fucker like that), we'll be faced with the same challenge: Adapt or Die. If we can't adapt to life in that environment, we don't deserve to live in it. Simple as that.

icame:
We're a big reason their numbers are so few in the first place, we should atleast try to save their species after doing that to them.

News flash: Life isn't fair. It's a nice sentiment, but whatever we do, unless we actually restore their environment back to whatever it was before, they'll continue to die off. And no one's willing to do that. All living things either adapt or die, and Tigers have proven (or at least given strong evidence to the theory) that they're incapable of adapting.

I have an idea: Let's have an apocalyptic end-all war that only concerns human beings. No hiding in the jungles, no taking cover in the countryside - strictly urban warfare around the world.

The ones who survive or are the least dead get to inhabit the Earth. We solve all international disputes, we solve overpopulation, we solve world hunger. No man, no problems. Because it would all be urban, we'd already clear the way for time to decompose the rest of our remains.

Let's face it, it's them or us. The only way we can solve this is to either gradually drive them to extinction as we continue to grow, or we cull ourselves via self-annihilation - kill the virus at the stem.

But of course, none of us would want to do that, now would we? It's not polite to have such a philosophy.

The ultimate problem isn't the tigers dying out in its own sake. That's just one species outliving another. The problem is that we're the first/only creatures that can change our environment rather than adapting to it. That means we're the first/only creatures capable of actively screwing our environment so badly that we can't live in it.

Tigers (and sharks for that matter) are particularly important to the ecosystem, as they are apex predators. I.e. if they disappear, the numbers of all the other species get thrown out of whack - you'll start getting way too many gazelles, who will eat all the food and send the buffallo extinct - ok, not exactly that, but that sort of thing. When the very top or the very bottom of a food-chain gets messed with, the whole ecosystem is threatened.

It isn't possible for humanity to wipe out all life, and I'm not sure that we could measure the consequences in moral terms if we did (no creatures = no victims). Even we we nuked the whole planet, life would thrive. It wouldn't be life as we know it, but it would be life nonetheless. The trouble is not that we can wipe out life - it's that we can screw things up badly enough that WE can't exist. The natural ecosystem will sort itself out just fine - it will rejuggle things and make it's way - re-evolve from amoeba if necessary. But we - i.e. humans - need a particular kind of ecosystem - one which has mammals and reptiles and the kinds of species that we're used to, in the kind of proportions that we're used to. That's what we risk destroying. Not nature. Ourselves.

Slick Samurai:
Inevitable, really. Humans have survived so well because of our ingenuity. Species are going to be pushed aside by us because of it. One day, Earth will be pushed aside as well. It's just the way humans work, it's how we are today.

Species go extinct, and we move on.

Gotta be true, saw it on TV. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Na9-jV_OJI

Ascarus:

Bruin:

That's an estimate.

And a very bad one.

Not to mention tigers are extremely efficient hunters and a large population of them is unsustainable, and that they're masterful at getting around human eyes, like most other good predators.

So, tell me again how people think there's only 3,200 tigers left in the wild when there's probably more than that in zoos alone?

yeah those crazy wackos at the WWF, what do they know about animal populations? they only employ scientists of every kind whose specialties allow them to make these sorts of estimates.

it's like watching global warming deniers arguing with the thousands of PhDs around the world who have shown that humans are the principle cause of the rise in global temperatures.

but what would those guys know? it's cold outside right now!

1. Study was not done by the WWF, if I'm not mistaken.
2. The article is most likely being used to garner over-exaggerated sympathy for the tigers. I'm saying the number is off, I'm not saying tigers aren't in danger
3. Global warming is a product of the Earth still warming up from the last ice-age and man. In that order of significance.
4. You blatantly denounce the laws of nature and Darwinism yet you argue for the protection of nature at the same time.

Hypocrite.

Cliff_m85:
Easy way to fix the situation. Make tigers economically viable.

Allow people to farm them for pelts, meat, and whatnot. It's what saved the bison.

Tigers by their nature cannot be economically viable. They'd be impossible to farm.

Edit: whoops, ninja'd! Sorry!

Agayek:
Meh. It's unfortunate if they die out, but if they can't survive on their own, it's not something we should be overly concerned about. Species go extinct at least on a weekly basis, it's not a big deal. Hell, it's part of evolution/natural selection.

That's a pretty fucked up view on the subject, considering them dying out is not natural/evolutionary at all. It's us hunting the every living fuck out of them and then going "oh crap, they look better alive than stuffed"

Azrael the Cat:
The ultimate problem isn't the tigers dying out in its own sake. That's just one species outliving another. The problem is that we're the first/only creatures that can change our environment rather than adapting to it. That means we're the first/only creatures capable of actively screwing our environment so badly that we can't live in it.

Tigers (and sharks for that matter) are particularly important to the ecosystem, as they are apex predators. I.e. if they disappear, the numbers of all the other species get thrown out of whack - you'll start getting way too many gazelles, who will eat all the food and send the buffallo extinct - ok, not exactly that, but that sort of thing. When the very top or the very bottom of a food-chain gets messed with, the whole ecosystem is threatened.

It isn't possible for humanity to wipe out all life, and I'm not sure that we could measure the consequences in moral terms if we did (no creatures = no victims). Even we we nuked the whole planet, life would thrive. It wouldn't be life as we know it, but it would be life nonetheless. The trouble is not that we can wipe out life - it's that we can screw things up badly enough that WE can't exist. The natural ecosystem will sort itself out just fine - it will rejuggle things and make it's way - re-evolve from amoeba if necessary. But we - i.e. humans - need a particular kind of ecosystem - one which has mammals and reptiles and the kinds of species that we're used to, in the kind of proportions that we're used to. That's what we risk destroying. Not nature. Ourselves.

Actually, we're not that special. Every organism that finds a supportive environment expands its population until it runs out of the resources. However, because of the expanded population, they generally find themselves being used as a supportive environment for something else, and their numbers diminish until they evolve resistance or die out. If this doesn't happen, they starve.

There really is no natural balance. It's pretty much a war of survival all the time. My personal opinion is that humans need to replace apex predators that occupy environments which we can utilize (like the shark). However, I dunno what we need in the jungles so badly that we'd kill off tigers.

I wonder if it's a result of the forest burning done in Africa for the charcoal industry of all things. That's been destroying an insane amount of old-growth forest according to teh internet.

THEY'RE NEARLY EXTINCT? http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/

WinterOrbit:
According to the article, there may be about 3200 tigers left in the wild.

Emphasis mine.

Cliff_m85:
Easy way to fix the situation. Make tigers economically viable.

Allow people to farm them for pelts, meat, and whatnot. It's what saved the bison.

While normally I would agree with you, the problem with this is the wild ones specifically. Economic viability would not help in this situation.

The problem with Tigers is that they are supreme predators and will hunt basically anything, EVEN PEOPLE. Man-eating tigers are not a myth.

I like, nay, love tigers, but an animal which will hunt and eat people is going to have trouble keeping its numbers up as human populations expand. I mean, if there was a crocodile that wandered into my yard, I could be the world's biggest environmentalist but I'm not likely to just sit there and let it chew on my dog.

It seems like many people today have what I'd call a "distance appreciation" for nature. That is, nature is great and wonderful and humans should make way for it, now excuse me while I commute 1 mile in my SUV from my spacious condo to my shiny steel office building, perhaps watching about 5 minutes of the Animal Channel on a lunch break or something. And heaven forbid if a wild animal should actually come within spitting distance of me at some point in my life!

I'm just as bad, but I've got no illusions about it. Simply put, Tigers are awesome animals, but the qualities that make them great also make their existence incompatible with population-dense cities and towns. Sooo... Unless we can find some special place to put them where humans aren't likely to settle, not sure what to do here. Poaching is an uncomfortable fact of life.

s0m3th1ng:

Agayek:
Meh. It's unfortunate if they die out, but if they can't survive on their own, it's not something we should be overly concerned about. Species go extinct at least on a weekly basis, it's not a big deal. Hell, it's part of evolution/natural selection.

That's a pretty fucked up view on the subject, considering them dying out is not natural/evolutionary at all. It's us hunting the every living fuck out of them and then going "oh crap, they look better alive than stuffed"

Yeah, his opinion seems like a textbook example of Social Darwinism. We can't impose conscious action upon something and then call it Evolution any more than we can make a decision and blame it on somebody else or a Deity. And natural selection isn't really something evolving, natural selection just selects (micro-evolution occurs as its own process-selection just determines what animals are left to evolve). The strongest aren't always the ones who survive, sometimes it's the luckiest. "Survival of the fittest" in general is a pretty flawed philosophy.

Cliff_m85:

badgersprite:

Cliff_m85:
Easy way to fix the situation. Make tigers economically viable.

Allow people to farm them for pelts, meat, and whatnot. It's what saved the bison.

The fact that tigers are economically viable is why they're going extinct. Poaching.

And there's a reason people don't farm big predators, dude.

Tiger is an ingredient in some "traditional" medications. However it's illegal to hunt tiger. Which makes tiger quite expensive. Which entices people to hunt them.

Legalize farming of tigers for such materials and companies will fight for the tiger to survive.

yeah.... that doesnt work, companies will deplete a resource before anyone knows its gone if you let them, the only reason tigers are still around right now is that its illegal to hunt them

really any large mammal, humans tend to render extinct without allot of protections


For the tigers!

emeraldrafael:
I dont forsee them doing alot to be honest. The UN is all about countries gathering and look waht they do. We just have to face that we as humans are destructive creatures, and have pretty much topped the evolutionary chart. There's no more survival of the fittest to put us in our places. We're just letting ourselves over populate the species, kinda like deer.

Its a sad thing to say, but theres just as much good to things like Cholera, AIDS, Smallpox, polio, etc. as there are bad.

But to be on topic, its kinda awesome to see the countries putting together and effort, but it wont stop anyhting. Poachers gonna poach.

Well, the problem is that discussion is fine, but especially when dealing with international conferances through things like the UN the problem is getting it to actually DO anything. Typically things like this end with everyone agreeing, and imposing even stricter fines on the people involved or whatever. That doesn't do much to stop behaviors that are already criminal (or at least frowned upon) to begin with.

What's more it comes down to problems with liberalism (irregardless of the countries involved) and "respect for cultures" and the like. Nobody is willing to just put their foot down and flat out say a culture, or an aspect of it is not worth preserving on a global scale.

To put things into perspective, look at whaling as an issue. Efforts have been made to curtail it, but for the most part they have failed. Nations that have done this for centuries or thousands of years continue doing it, and wind up with a degree of protection due to "cultural preservation".

Truthfully, if international navies and police forces were ever given a "kill on sight" order on whalers, and permission to pursue and exterminate whaling operations onto the land and in defiance of national sovreingty, I imagine the whalers themselves would be extinct inside of a decade. We won't do this however, so most of the resistance seems to come down to "keystone cop" like coasties and naval efforts, and greenpeacers running around with cameras. Naval ships in many cases have literally sat there and watched this kind of thing go on with their hands effectively tied. Want to save the whales? When you spot a whaling boat, torpedo the bloody thing, and then use an survivors splashing around for target practice with the deck guns. Start blowing away towns and communities even suspected of harbouring whalers, that is going to scare the people to the point where to avoid being killed they will cease to shelter or deal with those people. It's not nice, but it will work.

Of course there are all kinds of moral difficulties with it, especially given the inevitable collateral damage, and the targeting of people who might not have actually done anything wrong to make a point. But that's exactly the point, and why nothing gets done.

The same basic logic applies to things like tigers. Sure, there are laws against poaching and the like, but there are so many places these guys can hide and find shelter that it's a problem. Especially when in a lot of cases these guys can flee into areas where what they are doing isn't illegal. If being suspected of harbouring poachers gets daisy cutters dropped on towns nd villages, I can bloody guarantee people are going to rapidly start doing whatever it takes to allay even the slightest suspician and sheer survival is going to push these guys out into the open where they would be eradicated too.

Do not get me wrong, I'm not saying this is what is going to happen. I'm saying that's what I think it will take. The money involved is substantial enough for people to be willing to risk jail time or even their lives (which is why you have to put pressure on the human support as well, a poacher might be wiling to risk his life, but the guy who runs the Bar where he gets a drink, or rents the Inn room where he sleeps, is not going to risk being killed so that dude can make money). What I am saying is that the only viable way to stop it given all the things that have been tried and failed are exactly the kinds of things the civilized nations concerned about this would never do.

But then again understand that I'm a cynic. You'll notice almost everything I say is extreme and winds up the same way. Through my life I have come to the conclusion that major issues are never resolved by diplomacy, dialogue, or commitees. Either your going to do something drastic, and probably distasteful, or nothing changes. I feel that dialogue and diplomacy have achieved a lot of things, but the issues remaining today are by their nature ones big enough where no amount of dialogue can resolve them (and have usually seen numerous failures). Generally speaking people are not willing to just give up a major aspect of their culture, or their livlihood (which might have been going on for generations) because someone asks them to. In the end, when your looking at the specialized skillsets and networks maintained for things like poaching, whaling, and similar professions, what are these guys going to do if they were to stop? What's more even if they could find another profession it wouldn't pay as much as what they are doing (which is why they stay in the business). This is why dialogue has generally failed to bring a complete halt to these behaviors.

Who knows, maybe something miraculous will happen.

I'm a cat person, and like big cats myself (even if they can be quite dangerous). Truthfully though I think like most animals, their going to exist only in zoos after a point. Tigers are never likely to ever totally disappear because I think we're preserve them. Truthfully if humanity survives it will come about as a result of a global unity, and with no offense to enviromentalists I'm "humans first" enough (despite liking animals) to think our planet is going to wind up being a lot like Trantor from Asimov's writings in a thousand years or so.

Ah well, enough rambling. Such are my thoughts.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked