I am appalled at reading the hypothesis set out by tiger expert Kirsten Conrad who appears to be putting forward the concept of breeding tigers in the so called 'tiger farms' of China to satisfy the demand for Chinese medicinal products. Does she not realize that by flooding the market with tiger derivatives the availability of 'tiger products' will substantially increase demand from some sectors of the Asian community and therefore increase the danger to the remaining wild tiger population. In addition poaching of wild tigers will not be stopped by legalizing the domestic tiger trade in China as the cost of poaching a wild tiger is considerably less costly than having to feed a captive tiger for about 3 years until it is killed for consumer market. Finally the Chinese consumer of tiger parts will by tradition always prefer to consume parts from a wild tiger than a 'farm bred' tiger. www.tigersintheforest.com

Given what she says she's clearly no expert Michael! Thankfully these kind of statements are becoming increasingly marginalised as the non commercially motivated consensus views of the true experts becomes more acutely heard.

I can understand Mongabay wanting to stimulate discussion, but there's so many many issues which need discussion within genuine tiger conservation that giving this individual a mouthpiece seems a little foolish at best.

I'd like to address some of the points above.

First, the argument that increasing supply stimulates demand is just economic nonsense. If that was the case, McDonalds would never have to advertise. They could just make more burgers instead. The first respondent is adopting an argument that depends on conflating demand with supply. In fact, it is clear from repeated studies that the demand for tiger parts is driven by perceived medicinal needs.

Second, the cost of poaching is irrelevant as a comparison point. The relevant point is the cost of getting illegal tiger parts from a range state into China. Actual analysis of black market data shows that only high valued skins and bones are transported, as the lesser valued teeth, claws etc simply do not earn enough to cover the transport costs and risks. It's very costly to sell real tiger parts in the Chinese market. That's why there's a parallel market for fake parts.

Third, the preference for wild parts is unproven. That consumers in China will try to obtain (& have obtained) captive tiger parts shows that if such a preference exists, it is a weak one.

As an aside, Kirsten is extremely passionate and dedicated to saving tigers. She has substantially more experience than many 'keyboard conservationists' that establish their expertise from reading webpages.

There is a valid point here- we are losing tigers at a catastrophic rate- partly because our conservation strategy for the last 20 years has been to make them worth $US50,000 each to Asian criminals. Pretending that these guys will suddenly 'play nice' if we stick to the current strategy is unhelpful.

Persons interested in what drive's the wildlife trade in China should read this year's report by TRAFFIC, "Understanding the motivations: the first step toward influencing China’s unsustainable wildlife consumption".

http://www.traffic.org/home/2010/1/28/understanding-chinese-consumer-motivation-the-key-to-control.html

Since the author suggests that western conservationists merely hypothesize about what they think Chinese consumers want, perhaps she should review this report as well.

No legally and commercially harvested animal has ever gone extinct.

Ms. Conrad is correct to consider economics as part of tiger conservation. It is human activity that threatens the tigers and human behavior is defined by economics.

The only way to save wild tigers is to change the current structure where they are worth more dead than alive. When wild tigers are more valued while living than as components for traditional medicine the poaching will stop and they will have a chance to rebound. However, as long as they are worth more dead than alive they poaching will continue until they are hunted to extinction.

The only way to change the current price structure is to increase the supply to a point where the price declines and reaches a point where poaching is no longer a profitable enterprise worth the risk associated with the illegal activity.

A bigger problem for the tigers is if the domesticated tigers can't be raised and produced at a level that lowers the price currently offered for the parts from the wild animals. If that price level is below what it would take to bring a "farmed" tiger to market the farming will fail and the poaching will continue and wild tigers will cease to exist in short order.

I see this as a smart and realistic approach to the problem.