Wildlife Poaching, Farming & Trafficking

[peter]

RECENT INFORMATION ABOUT THE SITUATION IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

a - Documentary

Yesterday, a very recent (2020) documentary about traffickers was broadcasted on BBC 2. The Laura Warner documentary 'Tigers: Hunting the Traffickers' is both interesting and discouraging. If you get a chance to watch it, don't hesitate. 

b - Malaysia 

Aldo Kane is a former Royal Marine who knows about warfare. He also knows about tigers, the trade in tiger products and traffickers and trained anti-poaching teams in Malaysia. In that country, the remaining tigers (less than 200 today) are targeted by professional poachers armed with knowledge and serious weapons. Opposing them is difficult. I'm not saying it is a lost battle, but it's close. The snares are lethal. Tigers just don't stand a chance. 

c - Thailand

Thailand has 44 zoos (and/or private facilities) and all of them have tigers. Meaning something is going on. Those involved in tiger conservation agree it's more than likely that some zoos and facilities breed tigers for export. The hard part is finding evidence. It takes knowledge, skill, contacts and courage to collect evidence that will stand in court. Meaning you need people with access to good local information. These 'wildlife detectives' are of vital importance. The detective who featured in the documentary is doing an outstanding job. Hunting traffickers and those they bribed is dangerous. 

d - Laos

Tigertraffickingwise, Laos compares to a kind of store. It has both frozen cubs kept in fridges and live adult tigers in all kinds of 'facilities'. Some of them attract visitors, but others are used to store tigers. They're fattened up until they're ready to be transported. To Vietnam. 

e - Vietnam

In this country, wild and captive-bred tigers are sold. A few years ago, the focus was on tiger bones and the production of a kind of glue. Today, clients want more. According to the 'wildlife detective', live tigers are transported to villas (...) that have cages (...). After the client has made a choice, the victim is killed and consumed. Consumed? Yes. Rumour has it tiger meat and tiger bones will result in more, ehhh, vigour and drive.

f - Geneva

When hard evidence has been collected, it is presented to representatives of wildlife organisations. Organisations saying they want to save wild tigers. There are quite a few and most of them have the means to do something. Once or twice a year, they meet in Geneva (Switzerland) to talk tiger and do decisions on traffickers, criminal organisations and countries hosting these organisations. 

Kane talked to a number of representatives of wildlife organisations. Evidence was presented and everyone agreed something has to be done. But the Chinese have a somewhat different opinion and their lobby is not to be underestimated. Meaning decisions on countries ignoring international laws and agreements again were postponed. Also meaning those involved in poaching and trafficking can continue. Finally meaning tigers in southeast Asia have no future.  

g - Conclusions

The demand for tiger 'products' (in China in particular) is as strong as ever, if not more so. It's one of the flipsides of economic growth. It's clear that the policy regarding facilities breeding tigers and countries facilitating criminal organisations does not have a postive effect on the number of wild tigers. The opposite is true. In the last decade, the number of wild tigers has been halved. 

Tigers are now gone in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and severely threatened in Sumatra, Malaysia and Burma. Recent information says tigers are poached in India, Nepal and Russia as well. It is to be expected that the pressure in these countries will significantly increase in the near future. As all of them, in contrast to traffickers, struggle with inadequate means, it's more than likely the target regarding the number of wild tigers (in 2022) will prove to be a bridge too far.    

Meaning those involved in tiger conservation have failed. Again. I'm, to be clear, not referring to rangers and field biologists, but to those involved in policies, agreements and decisions. The time for change has arrived, that is. 

h - Proposals

Based on what we saw in the last two decades, my first proposal is to abandon the strategy to protect tigers in regions where poachers are not opposed because of a lack of means or political will. I'm referring to regions where tigers, and many other predators, are all but gone. In these regions, organisations involved in tiger conservation have been unable to realize their goals. One could also conclude they're no match for the Chinese and those involved in poaching.  

My second proposal is to focus on a few regions suited for tigers. Regions supported by both national organisations and international organisations involved in conservation, that is. The first aim is to connect the remaining parks and reserves in order to avoid problems with those interested in developing these regions. The second aim is to enlarge these core regions. A large population (at least 500 adults) is needed to prevent gene loss and inbreeding. Some parts of these regions could be used to attract visitors. 

My third proposal is to interact with their enemies. Both conservationists and those interested in tiger products profit from a decent number of protected reserves and a large population of tigers. Everyone interested in tigers knows captive-bred tigers do not compare to their wild relatives. Not even close.

A surprising conclusion to finish the post? I agree. But you know as well as I do that most humans, apart from a few exceptions (referring to fundamentalists in particular), are not that interested in, ehhh, ideals. The days people were prepared to fight for what they thought was right seem to be gone. Today, most of us are driven by something different. I'm referring to security and things like that, but if you say money I would agree right away. Meaning those interested in tigers (referring to those interested in conservation and their opponents) need to find common ground. 

If they fail, chances are conservationists and those opposing them will clash sooner or later. Would a more or less permanent all-out in a national park or a tiger reserve (we seem to be heading that way) be a solution for those making their home in the natural world? 

i - Debate

It is about the last two sentences of the previous paragraph. Do you think we should be prepared to make room for those living in the emerald forest with no strings attached (including dangerous animals), or should we go for a money-based conservation model already tested in, for instance, Australia (saltwater crocs) or South Africa (canned hunts) right away? 

And what's your advice for those involved in tiger conservation at the level of decisions?

We could do a smallish debate. If interested, remember respect is crucial no matter what. Reply