John Varty & Tiger Canyon

[Matias]

At the beginning of his project Varty said, in his initial arguments, to believe that there were only two subspecies of tiger: Continental and Insular. Trusting in his "intuition" he decided to use the Bengal x Siberian hybrids, considering them strong and resistant, therefore more apt to his project in the South African Karoo.

  Published in the journal of unrestricted access "Science Advances" the article below in small size:

New scientific research could help to protect tigers (Panthera tigris) from extinction. The findings indicate that tigers should be classified as only two subspecies – up to now nine subspecies were previously recognized. This will have a significant impact on species conservation since management efforts and breeding programmes can now be organised in a simpler, more flexible and effective way. The compilation and detailed analysis of the most comprehensive dataset for tigers ever assembled allowed scientists from the German Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW), National Museums Scotland, the Selandia College in Denmark and the Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen to carry out a critical evaluation of the nine putative tiger subspecies. They found that most of these subspecies were much more similar to each other than previously known. Only two tiger subspecies could be clearly distinguished: The “Sunda tiger“ (Panthera tigris sondaica), formerly from Sumatra, Java and Bali and the “Continental tiger” (Panthera tigris tigris) from mainland Asia. From the perspective of conservation, the northern population of the “Continental tiger” (Amur tiger) should be treated as a distinct conservation management unit from the southern populations, since it is adapted to different environmental conditions.

For the first time multiple trait datasets of the six living and three extinct tiger subspecies described so far were compared. The morphology of more than 200 tiger skulls as well as the coloration and stripe patterns of more than 100 tiger skins were compared with molecular genetic data and ecological and life history traits. The results did not support the distinction of nine subspecies previously described for tigers. Only the Sunda tiger from the islands of Sumatra, Java and Bali could be clearly and unambiguously distinguished from populations of the Continental tiger. These detailed analyses also lend further support to the idea that there was a massive population decline of tigers after the super-eruption of the Toba volcano on Sumatra about 73,000 years ago. Tigers may have only survived in a single refugium in South China, from where all modern tigers then originated.

Worldwide there is significantly more concern about and money spent on the conservation of tigers than on any other individual wildlife species. However, fewer than 4,000 tigers roam around the forests of Asia - a historically low number. For the tiger to survive at all, these small and shrinking populations require active conservation management. The discovery that only two tiger subspecies exist paves the way for new conservation management options in that global protection efforts can now be implemented more flexibly and effectively.

“A classification into too many subspecies – with weak or even no scientific support - reduces the scope of action for breeding or rehabilitation programmes. For example, tiger populations in South China and Indochina have been reduced to such low numbers that – if each continue to be classified as separate subspecies – they would likely face extinction”, explained Dr Andreas Wilting from the IZW, the leader of the study. The new tiger classification allows for the combined conservation management of these populations and the Malaysian and Indian tiger, as all four populations from the southern part of continental Asia can now be managed as a single conservation unit. "The results of our collaborative research offer an exciting, pragmatic and more flexible approach to tiger conservation. Now we can plan the restoration of wild tiger populations with confidence, knowing that there is a sound scientific underpinning to tiger taxonomy", says Andrew Kitchener from National Museums Scotland.

 The main goal of worldwide conservation efforts is to double the tiger populations by 2022. For this purpose, all remaining individuals are essential for the long-term survival of the tiger. The resulting high genetic diversity will ensure that tigers have sufficient adaptability to cope with future environmental changes and the challenges of new pathogens. The new study provides the scientific basis for a practical and effective tiger recovery.

The project implemented in Laohu Valley Reserve has some inconsistencies:

1. PantheraTigris Amoyensis is practically a mythical animal, there is no western entity to participate in genetic studies that can "globalize" the real situation that lives this subspecies. "Only Chinese attest to the pure existence of this subspecies. In my humble ignorance I find it strange that a single country holds four subspecies.

2. After 15 years of development and support from the Chinese government, no tiger has been relocated back to China. The Chinese government did not and is not doing, that is to say it has not made available nor is in progress a fenced area of about 50,000 hectares to house such tigers. This project is used by the Chinese government as a conservationist propaganda.

3. The recent separation of the couple that coordinates the project is casting somber lights, accusations from both parties.


I started reading about Varty's project in 2015. I appreciate your insigts. His posts contain many original ideas and some eccentrics, but always presents a rich and constructive reading. I have no doubt about your enormous experience and your good intentions. The financial need in the trophy hunting case that seems to displease most of those who commented on the post is a very complex issue where animal welfare tends to prevail over many practical aspects of conservation. Maybe Varty is not just a madman but a great visionary. Reply