John Varty & Tiger Canyon

[GuateGojira]

(09-29-2015, 08:20 AM)Shardul Wrote: @GuateGojira

"Sadly, it will need a lot of money, permission of the government and the acceptation of the local people (this last one is practically impossible, check how people reacted with the re-introduction of the already native wolves in Yellowstone)."

People on this forum and elsewhere don't place enough importance on this- the human factor.

Whether it's the wolves of Yellowstone or tigers of Ranthambhore, humans living with the wild animals play the biggest role in conserving them. But every discussion I see here does not take the human factor into consideration. It's like people are simply not willing to accept that we don't live in an ideal world. Whether posters here like it or not, people's needs are always going to trump everything else, wildlife included.

And introducing tigers and other dangerous animals to other continents is simply never going to happen. The same people in the west, who clamor for the tiger, wouldn't want to live alongside them. It's one thing to support them, and another thing to have them in your backyard.

On topic, John Varty's zoo is never going to help tiger conservation.

You have not understood my point. No one here is discarding the human factor, and of course, people in the areas are the better ones to conserve the wild local animals. I know that very well, as in my own country the management of the jaguar populations is mostly taken by the locals, although the laws are still very weak and the people itself are the better ones (or the worst ones in the case of local poachers) to warn about the wildlife situation.

My point was more like a sarcastic comment, and you place it very good in your next paragraph: many westerns that claim to favor tigers would not be willing to share its place with a wild tiger population in they backyard. We all know that we don't live in an ideal world and that many people that "support" the charismatic animals of one continent are the same ones that don't support they own wildlife. However, you forgot one important point that I touched before: the personal interests. For example, people in Yellowstone did not supported the introduction of wolves, not because they were against nature, but because they believed that the new predator could attack they cattle, simple as it is. At the end, I don't know about cattle depredation by wolves in the area (I have not made an investigation yet), but the local pumas did suffered for this new competitor.

The people's needs are a constant factor in a growing world, specially in a country like India, however no one is ignoring this fact and that is why reintroduction of animals in over populated areas most be discarded for the moment. Besides, in the case of the tiger, why they are going to open a new possible wound instead of stop the bleeding first?

Now, I am not agree in that tigers are not going to be introduced in other continent, the example of Save China's Tigers in Africa is a clear evidence that in a country with low population density (ej. South Africa) and plenty of space, a project like this can and is happening with much success. The will and the money are important for these type of projects, but there are some requirements to achieve such a goal.

Human population and management of the wildlife are a complex theme that even the best politicians and conservationist are still trying to understand and manage, and certainly no one of us is going to answer it (or to solve it) in a few lines written here. Reply