News & updates

Tiger Conservation: Itʼs Time to Think Outside the Box

Share this


Wild tigers were supposed to have been put on the path to recovery in 1993 when trade in tiger products was banned. However, the numbers of wild tigers in its entire range, have continued to fall sharply, leading some experts to voice the opinion that the measure has failed. The big question of how to conserve wild tigers, they say, urgently needs to be answered. Different management options must be considered.

One suggestion is that the demand for tiger bones, which are used in traditional Chinese medicines, should be addressed by farming and renewed trade in captive-bred tiger products. The very idea seems odd to many westerners who think of farms largely in terms of cattle and trade in terms of manufactured goods.

Inevitably, it is drawing criticism from environmentalist groups and some in the western media. But the dire warnings that farming and regulated trade would quickly lead to the end for the wild tiger is perverse. After all, the wild tiger is on that path now. How can anyone be confident that maintaining the present course will reverse the downward trend? Is there a point at which reasonable people will say “Enough! This really isnʼt working!”

With the CITES COP14 approaching, knives are already being sharpened. Activist groups are preparing for a full-blown assault on any consideration of alternatives to the tiger trade ban.

The reason for this is clear enough and it has nothing to do with tigers. NGOs will continue to advocate zero use of animals, as they do today, because their fundamental philosophy is based more in the field of ethics than conservation. To them, it is wrong for people to kill an animal, be it a tiger, a whale, an elephant, a shark or some other species. If we were to be precise, we would more accurately label them as ethicists rather than conservationists or environmentalists. They are largely making value judgments about what we, collectively, should or shouldnʼt do. True conservationists are much more pragmatic, being concerned for overall stocks of wild species rather than individual specimens, and tailor their approach accordingly.

Where does this leave the wild tiger? The ethicists abhor all the elements that conservationists are now considering: farming, killing, commerce and trade. There is nothing here on which they could possibly compromise. And yet if they prevail and wild tigers do become extinct, they will take no responsibility for the result. Instead, they will blame everybody but themselves: the poachers, the law enforcement agencies, the purchasers of tiger products, governments, international institutions and mankindʼs reckless ability to destroy living things.

This situation is unacceptable to IWMC. Our wish is to see wild tigers flourish. So we have invited a series of experts to present their perspectives on what needs to be done and we publish their comments below in this special publication, together with an interview with the principals of the two largest tiger farms in China. We hope you find the articles informative and thought provoking.

View as a PDF:

Related content

Minding Hunters and Hunting

By James A. Swan, Ph.D. Originally published on All across North America, millions of men and women are making plans for hunting this fall.

Trade bans: a perfect storm for poaching?

By Kirsten Conrad. Originally published on Tropical Conservation Science. Abstract Since CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) ratification

IWMC Feature

Conservation Influencers

Conservation Influencers is a searchable directory of the animal activist, environmental and ecological lobby. It examines the history, mission, methodology and reputation of NGOs to assess their impact on the global conservation cause.

Franz Weber Foundation

From 1990 until 2015, Franz Weber Foundation (FFW) managed the Fazao-Malfakassa National Park in Togo, which was, according to an in-depth investigation by Duke University, ‘established by forcing the local communities off their land and without taking into consideration their point of view’. That same study cited convincing evidence from reports published in 1990, confirming that competition for land use was already ‘creating conflict between the local communities and park managers’. In 2015 Togo refused to renew FFW’s contract because, the report says, ‘local communities were still excluded from the management of the natural resources of their land’ and FFW had ‘failed to fulfil its contract’. Franz Weber Foundation plays a major role within CITES because it funds and manages from Switzerland the African Elephant Coalition (AEC), which represents 32 African range states, some of which have barely any elephants and others none at all. Contrary to the wishes of the range states in Southern Africa, which manage most of the world’s wild elephant populations, the AEC at CITES’ CoPs repeatedly tables proposals to put all of the world’s elephants in appendix I. And the AEC uses its voting power to keep in place prohibitions on ivory sales and all other trade in elephant-related derivatives, including skins and hair, which Southern African nations wish to legalise.