backtop


Print 103 comment(s) - last by sxr7171.. on Feb 15 at 4:14 PM


The worldwide tiger habitat has shrank dramatically over the last 100 years.  (Source: Curious Maps)

There are now estimated to be less than 3,200 tigers left in the wild. Researchers and conservationists estimate the species could go extinct in a couple decades without dramatic intervention.  (Source: Moss Project)
One of the world's largest and most iconic predators may soon go extinct in the wild

Amid all the fuss over global warming and alternative energy, the continued loss of biodiversity is being largely overlooked and forgotten.  And the trend may claim its highest profile victim to date in just a couple decades, say conservation groups.

For at least a million years tigers have roamed the forests and jungles of Asia, ruling the top of the food chain.  But today Tigers are facing a final bow from the world they once ruled as their habitats have been destroyed and their numbers slashed by poaching.  

At the start of the twentieth century there were an estimated 100,000 tigers, according to the World Wildlife Federation (WWF), an environmental advocacy firm that studies the unique species.  Over the course of the last century those numbers shrank and several subspecies -- the Bali, Javan, and Caspian Tigers -- went extinct.  

The WWF has released a new report estimating that there are now only 3,200 tigers left in the wild in India, Southeast Asia, Russia, and China.  They estimate that within a generation tigers will become extinct in the wild, if drastic action is not taken to conserve them.

Sybille Klenzendorf, director of the WWF-US species conservation program comments, "There is a real threat of losing this magnificent animal forever in our lifetime. This would be like losing the stars in the sky. Three tiger subspecies have gone extinct, and another, the South China tiger, has not been seen in the wild in 25 years."

World Bank, a multinational financial institution that provides loans to developing countries, is partnering with the WWF in a push to save the beasts.  

Keshav S. Varma, program director of the World Bank's Global Tiger Initiative comments, "Unless we really crack down on illegal trade and poachers, tigers in the wild have very little chance. If the tigers disappear, it is an indication of a comprehensive failure. It's not just about tigers. If you save the tiger, you are going to save other species. It provides an excellent indicator of commitment to biodiversity. If they survive, it shows we are doing our job right. If they disappear, it shows we are just talking."

Despite the fact that so few tigers remain, demand for their body parts is at an all time high on the Asian black markets.  Crawford Allan, director of TRAFFIC-North America, which monitors the trade in wildlife, comments, "The demand for bones and skin, meat, and even claws and teeth ... is driving a major crime campaign to wipe tigers out in the wild."

Lixin Huang, president of the American College of Traditional Chinese Medicine has teamed with the WWF to try to fight Chinese natives from using tiger parts in their traditional remedies.  States Huang, "Traditional Chinese medicine does not need tiger bones to save lives.  What we are dealing with is an old tradition, an old belief that tiger wine can make their bones stronger. That is not medicine, that is from old tradition."

The WWF's ambitious goal is to try to get the tiger population doubled to 6,400 tigers in the wild by 2022.  To do that, they say they will need $13M USD a year and cooperation from the governments of Bangladesh, China, Europe, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Russia, the United States, Vietnam, and the Greater Mekong region, which stretches across Cambodia, China, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

All the money in the world won't save them
By chmilz on 2/11/2010 4:19:39 PM , Rating: 5
Every government, all the money, won't make a difference. Jackass poachers with rifles will clean them out.

Disgusting and sad.




RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By Dorz on 2/11/2010 4:22:07 PM , Rating: 4
+1

We're a pitiful race on times.

Sad.


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By porkpie on 2/11/2010 5:38:43 PM , Rating: 2
a) I would take ANYTHING the WWF says with a huge grain of salt. They are very well known for their bald-faced lies. I know Siberian tiger populations were as low as 30-50 total cats in WW2, and have since rebounded sharply to over 500. And this report from India seems to suggest populations are rising there as well:

http://www.thehindu.com/2010/02/05/stories/2010020...

b) I know Jason loves every chance he can get to push his environmental crap -- but really, does this story have ANY purpose being on a tech site?


By Spuke on 2/11/2010 5:59:56 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I would take ANYTHING the WWF says with a huge grain of salt.
I agree. Look what happened to Hogan.


By Alexvrb on 2/11/2010 10:47:13 PM , Rating: 2
No doubt. The pro-CAGW posts are at least funny to read (I for one think of Al Gore as the new Joseph Smith).

This one however was kind of like yeah, that's nice, why is this here? Did the tigers review a graphics card, or did they get banned from Xbox Live for cheating? Maybe the poachers used Google Maps to locate their targets!

Since he can throw random blog posts onto the front page of Dailytech (and by extension, Anandtech), we might as well rename it. Suggestions? I was thinking BleedingHeartech.


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By Andy35W on 2/12/10, Rating: -1
By redbone75 on 2/12/2010 2:43:13 AM , Rating: 2
I'm with you on this.

Tell me, though, do you see this:
quote:
by Andy35W on February 12, 2010 at 1:32 AM

Quit hijacking Andy35W's posts, Andy!


By jonmcc33 on 2/12/2010 9:22:34 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I know Jason loves every chance he can get to push his environmental crap -- but really, does this story have ANY purpose being on a tech site?


I think he's implying that we get their DNA and clone them. That's as tech as you can get.


By Iketh on 2/12/2010 12:42:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
b) I know Jason loves every chance he can get to push his environmental crap -- but really, does this story have ANY purpose being on a tech site?
b)

this is a story that must be spread everywhere, simply because the result is completely irreversible should it be allowed... furthermore, if I were a member of a conservationist group or a body that deeply cares, I'd come calling to technology to help us in whatever way it can, too


By sxr7171 on 2/15/2010 4:14:10 PM , Rating: 2
Truer words have not been spoken with regard to your second point.

Does this site have any other writers? I mean please send Mick down to a lower role until he can prove that he is worthy of writing for this blog. Let him start his own litle Greenpeace site. I think he'd be more at home there.

How in the heck did Anand pick this guy to be such a prominent writer on his news site? It would be better if he just wrote the headline (which must be checked by someone else for sensationalism) and then just post a link to the actual article. Reading Jason's editorials are a waste of time.

This site's value is the compilation of news items that are interesting to nerds like us.


By NullSubroutine on 2/11/2010 4:24:50 PM , Rating: 5
I always like this saying..."Two of the worlds worst problems...world hunger and homelessness. How to solve it? Feed the homeless to the hungry."

I support this kind of logic in saying, I heard that poacher testicles increase virility, cure cancer, and prevent STDs. Answer? Poach the poacher.


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By quiksilvr on 2/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By MozeeToby on 2/11/2010 6:04:22 PM , Rating: 5
Eliminating a major predator from an area is very dangerous to the ecosystem. Look at the Midwest as an example. Hunters cleared out the wolves and mountain lions, now the deer populations are out of control. There's been years where they couldn't give enough tags away to keep the population under control.

Shortly thereafter Chronic Wasting Disease rolled through the area (fueled by the overpopulation) and damn near wiped out the deer population in some places. With the decline in the deer population, the undergrowth in the forests grew much thicker than it should have been, increasing the risk of fires, and increasing the food available for other herbivores, again causing overpopulation in those groups.

A diverse ecosystem is a self-stabilizing one. Eliminate an animal that fills an important niche can have wide ranging and non-obvious effects that are still felt decades or even centuries down the road. Humans killing off other species might be nature, but it's incredibly short sighted.


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By porkpie on 2/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By uprm on 2/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By porkpie on 2/11/2010 9:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't true. Swailing (as its technically known) is fought tooth and nail by many environmental groups. Here in Oregon, for instance, a few years back an environmental group went to court and managed to block farmers from even being able to use controlled burns on their own farmlands, much less public forests. And just last month, up in Washington, a state environmental agency fined the Forest Service for a controlled burn, on the grounds that the smoke violated clean air requirements.


By gamerk2 on 2/12/2010 10:16:46 AM , Rating: 2
Remember, Tiger populations keep Wolf populations in check. Russia in particular generally favors tigers to Wolfs, as Wolfs are far more likely to interact with humans...


By uprm on 2/13/2010 11:54:06 PM , Rating: 2
Your examples are relatively small scale and do not point to environmentalist stopping controlled burns in most forests. In the vast majority of public lands prescribed burns take place every year without issue unless there is a danger to property. I would not be surprised if the situation in Oregon is likely grass seed farms which are hardly a threat to wildfires or the ecology if not burned. The crackdown also seemed to arise after a 23 car pile-up and some fatalities on the Interstate. Not a legit argument that environmental groups are preventing prescribed burns to reduce the threat of wildfires.


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By Shuxclams on 2/12/2010 6:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
As a hunter I am appalled by people who take predators. I refuse to hunt cougars or bears unless they are a clear danger to humans and cannot be relocated. Just as with our fisheries steps need to be taken to save our planets biodiversity. Posting this on a 'Tech' site might just expand the horizons of some otherwise very smart people.

SHUX


By whiskerwill on 2/12/2010 7:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
So in other words, you don't care that its not tech news, as long as it helps propagandize people properly?

/sigh


By callmeroy on 2/15/2010 12:14:39 PM , Rating: 2
That and not to mention that cows, chickens, pigs -- they exist in this country primarily as a food source that's why they have farms dedicated to managing their population (which means both making sure they don't get too low and making sure they don't get too numerous that the farm can't handle them).

And BEFORE anyone says "well in some asia nations they use tigers as a food source" they do -- but its illegal. Last time I checked even China has Tigers marked as illegal to hunt, for food or sport.

There's a tremendous difference between hunting animals on your own in the wild for food where you don't give a crap about how it impacts anything else and when animals are raised as livestock for the sole purpose of food and thus are "professionally" managed by farmers (which btw Farmers bust their arse -- its a lot harder work than I think most folks give them credit for).


By cochy on 2/11/2010 6:27:31 PM , Rating: 3
Your logic is terribly flawed. This isn't an article about killing animals, it's an article about trying to stop a species from going extinct. Trust me if cows were about to go extinct there would be similar efforts to save them too.

I for one wouldn't like to see tigers go extinct, so why not try to stop it from happening some how?


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By MrSmurf on 2/11/2010 6:29:07 PM , Rating: 5
I'm sorry quiksilvr but you're an idiot if you can't see the difference. We RAISE pigs, cows, chickens, etc. to consume. Have you ever heard of a place called a farm? There is a difference between that and killing RARE animals like tigers solely for their SKIN so some db can look like a bigger db.


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By quiksilvr on 2/12/10, Rating: -1
By Chaser on 2/12/2010 6:44:27 AM , Rating: 2
Some of those "humans" you want to save are wiping out a species of big cat that many people respect and admire and would like to see them living outside of zoos and postcards.

Although I agree that humans are most important I would not like our planet occupied by only by humans and domesticated animals due to selfish human caused and preventable extermination.

So Yeah. You guessed right.


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By sviola on 2/12/10, Rating: -1
By michal1980 on 2/12/2010 9:01:40 AM , Rating: 3
I disagree we humans are better then other creatures on the planet.


By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/12/2010 10:44:34 AM , Rating: 1
Readers who rated me down, probably have their good constructive arguments, rationale, but we will never learn about that. Oh well..


By Iketh on 2/12/2010 12:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That makes sense. They kill animals like we do every day (cows, chickens, pigs, goats, etc.) and make money off of them like we do every day, but because the animal is near extinction, we have some pointless need to save the animals?


if anything QUIKSILVR, poachers need to raise tiger numbers substantially so they may resume poaching at a later date... you make absolutely no sense


By acase on 2/12/2010 11:34:24 AM , Rating: 2
"It's people. Soylent Green is made out of people. They're making our food out of people."


By Iketh on 2/12/2010 12:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I support this kind of logic in saying, I heard that poacher testicles increase virility, cure cancer, and prevent STDs. Answer? Poach the poacher.


hey dont they live in countries where people could get away with this? let's start ad campaigning immediately!


By therealnickdanger on 2/11/2010 4:23:06 PM , Rating: 5
Tigers have been my favorite animal since I can remember. It's a damned shame... but isn't this what "survival of the fittest" is all about? Maybe they should learn how to use guns.

That would be sweet.


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By MrBlastman on 2/11/2010 4:41:15 PM , Rating: 5
Well, not all of them are having problems breeding. Supposedly, at least according to a study, that up until recently the "American Tiger" has been breeding quite frequently to almost a wreckless degree. ;) That is, up until recently. He was clubbed a few months ago by an angry lioness I heard.


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By Alexvrb on 2/11/2010 10:51:22 PM , Rating: 4
Huh. Tiger you say? I heard it was a Cheatah.


By Omega215D on 2/12/2010 3:08:01 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't be surprised by their habits, snorting up cheetos dust and what not.

It ain't easy being cheesy.


By deeznuts on 2/12/2010 6:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He was clubbed a few months ago by an angry lioness I heard.
Apparently, according to recent media reports, she's a cougar now.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/11/2010 4:52:53 PM , Rating: 3
Hmmmm.... Tigers are about the fittest creature out there... It's the fact that they have no thumbs that is the real issue. Otherwise they'd be all over being the best snipers in the world... They have the fast and stealthy moves down.

hunted to extinction by poachers is not a fair example of survival of the fittest. True hunters will not hunt an animal to extinction... they want future generation to be able to hunt the same creatures. Poachers are just out for money.


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By MrSmurf on 2/11/2010 6:32:10 PM , Rating: 5
I think as human beings, we have since evolved beyond the "survival of the fittest".


By therealnickdanger on 2/12/2010 8:27:46 AM , Rating: 2
Too bad no one told the rest of the universe.


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By rcc on 2/12/2010 11:58:58 AM , Rating: 2
Which is a major ongoing problem. If you quit culling the stupid and weak, what do you end up with?


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By TSS on 2/12/2010 5:16:10 PM , Rating: 1
Obama?

(sorry, cheap shot. been having a rough day.)


By jimbojimbo on 2/15/2010 3:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it's the people the voted for Obama.


By AlmostExAMD on 2/12/2010 3:41:16 AM , Rating: 2
"Tigers have been my favorite animal since I can remember. It's a damned shame... but isn't this what "survival of the fittest" is all about? Maybe they should learn how to use guns."

With that logic, Then you better start preparing yourself as a cannibal,The way it's going there will only be people left!
The answer to most of the worlds problems is for people to stop breeding like rats, Pretty soon there won't be enough land,not taking into account land needed for livestock which will require another continent size area in next few decades,wars will break out once again millions die etc etc,then it's starts all over again,Comes in cycles.
Maybe nature will find a way to balance things out a little,Another plague perhaps?


By piroroadkill on 2/12/2010 4:16:45 AM , Rating: 2
Evolution is not, and never will be about "survival of the fittest". It's simply about "survival of the good enough". Get by, survive, spread your seed, and you've done okay in evolutionary terms


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By Amiga500 on 2/12/2010 5:08:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe they should learn how to use guns.


Sharks are one step ahead of them.

Seen a documentary film recently where they had frickin' laser beams attached to their frickin' heads.

I think the documentary was called Austin Powers, but would need to check...


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By albundy2 on 2/12/2010 6:14:22 AM , Rating: 2
ok we get it... "sharks".... "laser beams"... hahahahahaha... seriously it's been years now, find new material. it has been done to death, reincarnated and killed again. move on, pleeeeease.


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By cdwilliams1 on 2/12/2010 10:08:36 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm.... all your savhannah belong to us?


By Iketh on 2/12/2010 12:56:44 PM , Rating: 3
ARE belong to us... gah! you killed it


By albundy2 on 2/13/2010 7:12:32 AM , Rating: 3
better... how about... I Think POACHER Is Pretty Cool Guy, Eh kills Tigers And Doesen't Afraid Of anything.


By jimbojimbo on 2/15/2010 3:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but isn't this what "survival of the fittest" is all about
So if someone killed you it's just fine since they're fitter than you? Open season! It's not that simple.


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By corduroygt on 2/11/2010 4:55:35 PM , Rating: 5
Easy to fix, only have one punishment for lawbreakers: Death.
Watch the Start Trek episode "Justice" for its results.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/11/2010 5:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
or have an elephant sit on the lawbreaker. If they live they can go free, if they die, they die (no mercy killing for anyone half alive after the elephant sits on them). I would think this would make most think twice before poaching any creature. just a thought...


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By MadMan007 on 2/11/2010 5:20:47 PM , Rating: 4
The punishment should be death by the animal that was being poached. Kill a tiger? Become tiger food. Kill an elephant? Good luck.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/11/2010 5:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
yea... but some animals just can not fight... Say it was a 3 inch long lizard and there was only 1,000 of them left on the planet. Are you going to get all 1,000 of them to stand on the poacher an jump on him till he is dead? I'm mean I pay to see that, but I just do not think you are going to get them to work together.


By Spuke on 2/11/2010 6:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you going to get all 1,000 of them to stand on the poacher an jump on him till he is dead? I'm mean I pay to see that, but I just do not think you are going to get them to work together.
Now this here is some funny sh!t.


By Omega215D on 2/12/2010 4:21:35 AM , Rating: 2
All those Geico geckos won't help you save 15% or more on health insurance I'll tell ya that much.

Hmm... maybe they'll be harmless at first then flaps open up around their necks and spit acid in the poacher's face or something gets triggered and they become like mini velociraptors hunting in groups.


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By Omega215D on 2/12/2010 4:21:35 AM , Rating: 2
All those Geico geckos won't help you save 15% or more on health insurance I'll tell ya that much.

Hmm... maybe they'll be harmless at first then flaps open up around their necks and spit acid in the poacher's face or something gets triggered and they become like mini velociraptors hunting in groups.


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By Omega215D on 2/12/2010 4:22:28 AM , Rating: 2
Macbook trackpad fails me yet again....


By Iketh on 2/12/2010 1:01:08 PM , Rating: 2
YOU'RE POSTING ON THIS SITE ON A MAC????!!!!!!


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By MadMan007 on 2/12/2010 9:14:35 AM , Rating: 2
I guess when there are 3 inch lizard poachers we'll have to come up with a solution :p


By acase on 2/12/2010 11:53:11 AM , Rating: 2
Asian prostitutes?


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By kroker on 2/11/10, Rating: -1
By Spuke on 2/11/2010 6:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
we'll get a toxic desolate wasteland
Dude, where do you live? Jesus!


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By porkpie on 2/11/2010 6:08:24 PM , Rating: 5
Take your ignorant, poisonous, misanthropic philosophy elsewhere. Oh, and let's add hypocritical...because your complaint was typed and transmitted through a whole series of "shiny gadgets". If you really believed your tripe, you'd be living naked your "lush paradise". That is, until one of these tigers found you and ate you.

Humanity has progressed so far we've forgotten one very important thing. Nature is not our friend. It's our enemy. It freezes us in the winter, scorches us in the summer. It kills us with disease, animal attacks, hunger, starvation, rain, flood, lightning strike, earthquake, and a million other ways.

Science and technology has allowed us to alter nature so much that idiots like you think "nature" is the view you get from watching documentaries on TV. Without mankind's changing of nature, it is a harsh, brutal environment that kills 75% of all people before they even reach childhood...as it did throughout most of recorded history.

Which -- if you ever abandoned all the shiny gadgets you pretend to despide so much -- you'd find out very quickly.


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By whiskerwill on 2/11/2010 6:18:57 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Nature is not our friend. It's our enemy. It freezes us in the winter, scorches us in the summer. It kills us with disease, animal attacks, hunger, starvation, rain, flood, lightning strike, earthquake, and a million other ways.
If we dumped his dumb ass out naked out in the middle of a tiger preserve, I wonder how long it would be before he was begging to come back to civilization?


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/11/2010 6:29:51 PM , Rating: 3
Who knows, we would have dumped him out and flew out by guessing helicopter. He'd have no radio. I'll give him one option; compass, shorts, or a bowie type knife (with hostler).
Now I bet begging to come back to civilization inside 1 hour, if dropped off in deep jungle area, just no one to hear him.


By grenableu on 2/11/2010 9:48:21 PM , Rating: 3
I'm smelling a hot new reality show: "Greens vs. Nature". Put a bunch of environuts in the jungle without any camping gear, and see which of them drives the SUV back to the city first.


By mxnerd on 2/15/2010 7:39:30 AM , Rating: 2
This is funny. If that's your logic, maybe we should burn down all the trees and grasses in the world, since nature is our enemy.

Human and nature must exist in a balanced way.


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By Pneumothorax on 2/11/2010 10:16:54 PM , Rating: 2
"How does it feel to betray your own race?"


RE: All the money in the world won't save them
By Andy35W on 2/12/2010 1:52:50 AM , Rating: 1
"How does it feel to betray your own race?"

I guess he thinks that not wanting to live in a world that is either factories or farms is not betraying your race?

The human race does tend to be rather species centric in it's viewpoint you have to admit.

The talk above of nature being the enemy above is just rubbish, man works best when it works with nature, not against it. For instance, does man pollinate most fruit that is grown commercially? Or are pollinating insects the "enemy" as well?

Don't be such self centred ignorant narrow minded pricks.

Andy


By porkpie on 2/12/2010 10:34:13 AM , Rating: 4
"I guess he thinks that not wanting to live in a world that is either factories or farms is not betraying your race?"

A world without "farms and factories" is a world in which 90% of us would be dead in a month. It's a world unable to support modern science and technology, a world in which life is no better than that of an animal: nasty, brutish, and very short.

"The human race does tend to be rather species centric in it's viewpoint "

"Species Centric" means putting humans first. Someone who fails to do that is betraying their own race, yes.


By Shining Arcanine on 2/12/2010 5:16:26 AM , Rating: 1
Put them in zoos. They will not go extinct in captivity.


"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki