Tigers Nearly Extinct

[icame]

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.

 

[ExaltedK9]

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

 

[badgersprite]

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.

 

[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.

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


*pets puppy*

 

[Hallow'sEve]

I'LL LOVE YOU FOREVER HOBBES!
*sniff*

 

[badgersprite]

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.

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.

 

[Ascarus]

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.

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!

 

[King Toasty]

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.

 

[Judgement101]

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

 

[The Salty Vulcan]

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.

But WHY!?

:C

 

[mooncalf]

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.

 

[Agayek]

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.

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.

 

[Chimichanga]

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.

 

[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.

 

[w00tage]

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

 

[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.