There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---

  • 2 Vote(s) - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
John Varty & Tiger Canyon

Canada GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators
#31

(09-29-2015, 04:15 AM)Pckts Wrote: Last one

@tigerluver @GrizzlyClaws
@Gaute

Have you seen any evidence that would back what Varty is saying?

"5. The tiger was never historically in Africa. (A group of scientists at Wits University are confident the tiger was in Africa and went extinct. In time they claim they will prove this fact). "


http://www.jvbigcats.co.za/newsletters114.htm

Not sure about the prehistoric African tiger subspecies.

But I believe the prehistoric tigers might have a small presence in the Eastern Europe and Beringia/Alaska, but never heard about the confirmation of the prehistoric tiger subspecies in Africa.
2 users Like GrizzlyClaws's post
Reply

United States Pckts Online
Bigcat Enthusiast
******
#32

Ya, I believe its more so to back his agenda on having tigers in africa.
1 user Likes Pckts's post
Reply

Canada GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators
#33

Tigers seem to be quite suitable to live in Africa, especially in its dense jungle.

If it has no affection on the local ecosystem, then to introduce the tiger population to Africa might not be a bad idea.
1 user Likes GrizzlyClaws's post
Reply

United States Pckts Online
Bigcat Enthusiast
******
#34

(09-29-2015, 04:24 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(09-29-2015, 04:15 AM)Pckts Wrote: Last one

@tigerluver @GrizzlyClaws
@Gaute

Have you seen any evidence that would back what Varty is saying?

"5. The tiger was never historically in Africa. (A group of scientists at Wits University are confident the tiger was in Africa and went extinct. In time they claim they will prove this fact). "


http://www.jvbigcats.co.za/newsletters114.htm

Not sure about the prehistoric African tiger subspecies.

But I believe the prehistoric tigers might have a small presence in the Eastern Europe and Beringia/Alaska, but never heard about the confirmation of the prehistoric tiger subspecies in Africa.

(09-29-2015, 04:28 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Tigers seem to be quite suitable to live in Africa, especially in its dense jungle.

If it has no affection on the local ecosystem, then to introduce the tiger population to Africa might not be a bad idea.

At this point, we have mucked up so much of our planet, maybe putting our time and stock in saving animals by whatever means necessary is all that we have left.
If one nation isn't willing to do so, maybe others need to step up.

I still think there is much to account for but who knows, may be it would work.
I think the biggest hurdle for re-introduction or translocation is usually the bureaucratic bs, who knows, maybe its worth a shot.

I don't know at this point, I cant take a stand one way or another any more, to many "unnatural things" exist on this planet nowadays.

Maybe human intervention is a "natural' thing since we are created by nature.
I dont know haha
1 user Likes Pckts's post
Reply

United States tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators
#35
( This post was last modified: 09-29-2015, 04:53 AM by tigerluver )

I don't think tigers went further west than the Caspian form. I've yet to see any fossil from eastern Europe that had tiger-like features. It's even less likely that went a step further into Africa.
2 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply

Guatemala GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
#36
( This post was last modified: 09-29-2015, 05:29 AM by GuateGojira )

From my point of view, John Varty is a very controversial person. He has (I think) the best intentions but his methods are very questionable, especially by the fact that he is not involved with any scientific institution or any scientists has gone to its place.

Sincerely, I agree in the introduction of tigers in any possible part, but the problem with Varty is that he is not using pure-breed tigers. In fact, following Wilting et al. (2015), it will be more important to breed "Bengal-Indochinese" or "Bengal-SouthChina" mix tigers, as they are still interconnected, but to breed "Bengal-Amur" mix tigers is useless as there is already two perfectly good wild and captive populations and there is no need to mix them. So, the specimens of Varty or useless for conservation and its reintroduction in any place has no sense. Other thing is that there is no real evidence that his tigers are hunting by themselves, based in the opinion of some people that believe that those prey animals don't act normally.

On the other hand, it is the Save China's Tiger project also in South Africa, which shows that reintroduction of captive tigers to the wild is possible and gives good results. They have managed to create a viable wild Amoy's tiger population and scientists are involved in the project. In fact, the only thing that they would need in the future (from my point of view) is the introduction of new genes to avoid genetic problems in the long therm and there is where the study of Andreas Wilting is effective. It has been proved already that the South China tigers in captivity in China (which is the origin of this new wild population) already have Indochinese genes. So, if they could introduce genes from that population, they would be able to increase the genetic health of these tigers. If they are unable to provide Indochinese tiger genes, Bengal tiger genes are also a good option.

The idea of wild Amur tigers in the forests of USA has been a possibility for me since many times, as that type of habitat match very well that of the Amur region. 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).


Finally, about the tigers in Africa in the past, there is NO evidence of wild tigers in Africa in any document or any fossils. Deraniyagala reported a skin in Sudan, but the specimen was obviously from the Caspian region. The western part of tiger habitat was the Caspian region and some wandering specimens were reported in the southern range of the European Russia in the medieval age. However, tigers could not pass to Africa as the desert area of Persia make its pass impossible. There is a picture in Egypt of some tiger-like cats, but they were certainly captive specimens from northern regions of Persia.
3 users Like GuateGojira's post
Reply

Canada Shardul Offline
Regular Member
***
#37

@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.
2 users Like Shardul's post
Reply

Netherlands peter Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
Moderators
#38
( This post was last modified: 09-29-2015, 09:17 PM by peter )

(09-29-2015, 04:19 AM)Pckts Wrote: I actually agree with Varty on this one

"In the greater scheme of things Cecil’s death is not that serious. As an aging dominant male he was probably at the end of his tenure. Ustad’s incarceration is more serious because tigers in the wild are down to 3000 (some say it’s closer to 1000). Ustad, having been removed, a younger male will take his territory and new genes will be injected. 
So why are so many people so incensed? I believe these “named icons” are symbols of what we as human-beings are doing to planet earth. Instinctively we know we cannot continue on this destructive path. Climate change, human population growth, hamburger culture (use of land under cattle) and burning fossil fuels are far more important than Cecil the lion or Ustad the tiger. However, we can’t get to grips with them, they are too big and they are nameless. 
I recently went to the city to buy my daughter a motor car. Naively I believed that I would have the pick of several makes of electrically powered, environmentally friendly cars. I was completely mistaken. Only Toyota had a Hybrid (runs on electrics and petrol), none were available in the country and the last one had sold 4 months ago. No other brands were even contemplating bringing environmentally cars into South Africa.  
Now the burning of  fossil fuels is far more important than Cecil the lion or Ustad the tiger, but we do nothing! We are paralysed. 
Only when the public refuse to buy petrol and diesel cars will the motor companies produce environmentally friendly cars. Only when mass media and social media and people are protesting outside the motor companies, like they did outside Palmers dental practice, will the motor companies change. It’s never going to happen! 
So we are like the frog happy in the warm water, gradually moving to boiling point. 
In the political and financial magazines of the world, the people we admire most are the rich people. Forbes magazine is always listing the richest people in the world, the richest people in the USA. (I look for my name but it always seems to be missing).  Therefore monetary wealth is the yardstick.  
Countries too are listed. The wealthiest countries spend the most on the military. It seems a country that’s wealthy needs to spend an awful lot on protecting that wealth and protecting their supply of oil . 
Have you ever seen a list of the most environmentally friendly countries, the least polluted countries and the cruelest free country and the most spiritual country. If so, please send it to me. 
Have you ever seen a politician or head of state survive who puts the environment ahead of the economy? Therefore our global values are to create wealth. Not sustainable wealth, just wealth! The richer are getting richer and the poorer are getting poorer. Hardly a recipe for global peace. 
Our ethics are disintegrating. We shoot male lions in enclosures where there is no chance of escape for large amounts of money (as the rand weakens, the canned lion industry will expand because it's paid in dollars). 
We separate young elephants from their mothers and send them to China, the cruelest country in the world, to pay off debt.  
We kill millions of sharks to satisfy the shark fin soup market which is a luxury for rich people. 
We chase animals with beaters while wealthy “hunters” sit on raised deck chairs blasting away at the big, the small and the pregnant. 
The list goes on and on. The laws of the countries are all written from a human perspective. Nowhere do they acknowledge the rights of animals to exist in a non cruel environment. 
Except for Buddhism, none of our religions protect and acknowledge the rights of fellow species. Many of the religions in fact promote animal cruelty in their religious ceremonies.
Therefore our values don’t protect the earth and fellow species. Our laws don’t either, neither do our religions, and our leaders are in the business of gaining at much personal wealth while they are in power. 
We are morally, ethically and environmentally bankrupt. 
“The world is waiting
For a new direction
One based on
The laws of Nature”
Tread lightly on the Earth
JV"

He seems to change his tone on hunting or canned hunting

PC,

The other day I was visiting relatives. When I went out into the garden to enjoy the September sun, I read one of the national newspapers. I was astounded and asked the others to tell me what they thought. All agreed the paper seemed to compare to a wartime newspaper (in WWII, illegal newspapers were published over here, often at great cost for those prepared to lead the way). It was even worse, I think. Everyone is fighting everyone and everyone is dragging the other to court. This in a country where wealth is redivided more than in most other countries in the western world. War is everywhere. I mean. It's in the air.      

What I see politicians paving the way for big firms. These firms try to improve with less staff. They result is tension, lots of personal and mental problems, fatigue, quite many without a job and money to participate and substance abuse all over the place. Add multitasking as a result of the modern devices (nearly everyone is heavily involved) and you have a non-society with everyone preparing for a race to the top. It starts at age 1 and stops when they can no longer compete as a result of a disease or old age. When still in the race, they fight. Invisible fights, they are. There are few rules here and there, but rules are on their way out. As a result of decades of cut-backs, a lack of staff and less and less courts and jails (not productive and too costly), those who use their own rules often get away with it, especially when a lot of research (too costly) is needed to prepare a case. 

As to the question why disintegration and opposing each other has become the rule. The answer is easy. After WWII, most countries said never again. It resulted in responsable leadership in most departments. Wealth was redistributed, the great majority participated and most did ok. Those that did not were educated and supported and crime was limited. When everything had been rebuilt, the familiar old game was re-introduced by those who knew they would not be opposed any longer as a result of complacency. The message was less government and more initiative of individuals. This policy would result in a smaller deficit and more responsability at the level of both government and individuals, they said. It was realized in a few decades only and the result is a war nearly everywhere. There have been some results, but the cost of the flipside is so high that it will a long time to repair the damage. One could say responsability, trust and solidarity are all but gone at most levels and be about right. A study is not needed to conclude that the consequences of a breakdown will be similar to those experienced before both world wars. Similar, but much more costly. Remember some countries still haven't recovered from the last war. It takes a long time.    

Humans are capable of anything. We can create something of beauty, but one has to admit we do plenty ok in destruction as well. There are about 7,3 billion humans and counting. Our planet has become much smaller than a century ago. If we want to survive, we have no other option but to decide for a model that will enable us to do just that. When the decision has been made, we have to limit the population, uphold important rules and protect everything needed to survive. We have experience, meaning we know that animals walking the edge can only survive if the habitat they need is protected. All of it and all creatures living in it. In a rigorous way. This means we have to divide our planet in two zones. One for those using two legs and another for those those using more.

I don't think we will get there any time soon. Humans just don't like rules and central government, but we don't have a choice if we want to prevent chaos and destruction. If we succeed, it won't start at the top. The reason is the the strive for power and money too. Corruption and leadership are very good friends and this will never change. The usual result is incompetence. It can't be prevented, but the devastation can be limited by creating large non-governmental organisations run by dedicated and competent people. We have to think of a system that will enable them, and not others, to get to crucial positions.   

I know many really care about our planet and its creatures, big predators included. They don't want to see it destroyed. The problem is they just don't know how to give it a face. You can perhaps assist in a small way by pointing out there are very real results in the real world. Tigers do well in some regions, in spite of everything. This means it can be done. People like Ullas Karanth, Miquelle, Rabinowitz and countless others showed how it is done. At our level, we can assist a bit. The forum is our face and the posts and interaction between members generate the energy we need to attract a few more to the forum. It is about the energy. Invisible, but crucial.
2 users Like peter's post
Reply

Guatemala GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
#39

(09-29-2015, 08:50 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.
3 users Like GuateGojira's post
Reply

India sanjay Offline
Wildanimal Enthusiast
*****
#40
( This post was last modified: 09-30-2015, 12:34 AM by sanjay )

A shameful act by john varty in name of conservation and my message to him after seeing the below images
"This is the main motive of john varty conservation programs a business to entertain rich but idiot people in name of conservation, all he wanted is money and I am sure this woman had offered him big money for posing like that.
And why john even posted it on his page ? To lure more rich customer like this idiot lady ? A big shame on you JV "

Images below is little vulgar according to country, cutler and age group, so do not see it if you feel it inappropriate. This image is only to show what John varty is doing in name of conservation, no intention to post half nude image.

Marika Tekila the rich lady who fed JV with money to get such disturbing images with half wild cheetah

*This image is copyright of its original author



*This image is copyright of its original author



*This image is copyright of its original author



*This image is copyright of its original author



*This image is copyright of its original author


And it start with this image

*This image is copyright of its original author


This is shame for Lady like Marika (rich and brainless) and Greedy person like John varty. After seeing this I have now no respect for this man
5 users Like sanjay's post
Reply

Guatemala GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
#41

Really disgusting, using wild animals like accessories. Angry

Damn, she is not even pretty, she is an ugly bi...h! Laughing

This show that Varty is not for conservation but for his own interests and the search of money. Besides, IF his animals were "wild", what the hell are those cheetahs doing, so calm with the witch? Why they are not eating her??? They are not wild, they are a new version of the caned lions and I afraid that, in the future, he is going to offer caned tigers and cheetahs for the rich idiots that like to kill animals.
3 users Like GuateGojira's post
Reply

Canada Shardul Offline
Regular Member
***
#42

(09-29-2015, 09:51 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(09-29-2015, 08:50 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.


People do discard the human factor often, or don't place enough importance on that. I have seen people making comments like "remove villagers from around ranthambhore" and all such naive observations. And I didn't forget anything. Everyone knows that people around tiger reserves are not against nature, but against large carnivores like tigers taking away cattle, and in process coming in contact with humans. In a country like India with so many large carnivores living side by side with humans, this is common knowledge.


People living near wild areas care about their livelihood, not nature. As long as the animals don't bother them, they are fine. Problem is in places like India and Africa, where there is so  much big game, it really isn't possible. A half ton domestic buffalo is too tempting for a tiger to resist. Easy to kill and plenty of meat. Rice and wheat farms are too tempting for elephants, so they invade farmlands and attack villagers trying to defend their only source of income.


In a lot of Indian PAs like Kanha and Gir, the farmers are compensated for their livestock killed by large cats. Hence, the villagers don't attack in retaliation. Wherever this process is swift and efficient, there is peace between humans and animals. In Gir especially, the domestic buffaloes make up a big percentage of the lions' diet. However, the forest dept is swift in compensating and together with the very tolerant attitude of the local Maldharis, the lions have flourished. I don't see anyone discussing this, when talking about translocating lions to Kuno, which is what I was talking about. 

Lastly, with regards to tigers in other continents, I meant in a full fledged ecosystem. You won't see tigers being introduced in Kruger or Serengeti ever.
1 user Likes Shardul's post
Reply

United States Pckts Online
Bigcat Enthusiast
******
#43

I just posted about Bandhavargh farmers who are also reimbursed for every cattle taken as well.

I haven't seen any body on this forum discount the "human factor"

But that being said, I certainly don't agree with farmers setting up Poison traps for predators to eat then die or mass hunts after a predator attacks there cattle.
Like you said, i big domestic buffalo is to tempting to expect a predator not to take when the opportunity presents itself.

Even the video of Raja attacking the domestic cattle in Bandipur is said that those cattle were illegally being allowed to graze in that area where raja was attacking them, so I don't know.
1 user Likes Pckts's post
Reply

United States Pckts Online
Bigcat Enthusiast
******
#44
( This post was last modified: 09-30-2015, 02:14 AM by Pckts )

Tala Camp, Bandhavgarh added 2 new photos.
6 hrs ·
Can you believe that more than 1100 cattle heads are killed by tigers in Bandhavgarh every year!! Of course the compensation to the cattle owner is paid fully in each and every case. This shows that the cattle also play a big role in establishing high density of tigers in Bandhavgarh, which was also the case in the past. You simply can't separate villages from the jungles in India.


*This image is copyright of its original author



Here is what I was talking about to back your point as well.
2 users Like Pckts's post
Reply

Canada Shardul Offline
Regular Member
***
#45

(09-30-2015, 02:10 AM)Pckts Wrote: I just posted about Bandhavargh farmers who are also reimbursed for every cattle taken as well.

I haven't seen any body on this forum discount the "human factor"

But that being said, I certainly don't agree with farmers setting up Poison traps for predators to eat then die or mass hunts after a predator attacks there cattle.
Like you said, i big domestic buffalo is to tempting to expect a predator not to take when the opportunity presents itself.

Even the video of Raja attacking the domestic cattle in Bandipur is said that those cattle were illegally being allowed to graze in that area where raja was attacking them, so I don't know.


If the farmers receive compensation fast, they won't kill. If they don't, they will. Simple.

Actually, not all cattle grazing is illegal. In the buffer area of a tiger reserve, some level of wood cutting and cattle grazing is allowed. If the cattle is killed inside the core area, where grazing is banned, they won't receive compensation.
1 user Likes Shardul's post
Reply






Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB