MCLC: eating tiger meat (4)

[Denton, Kirk]

MCLC LIST
From: Thomas Pickering <thomaspickering919 at gmail.com>
Subject: eating tiger meat (4)
***********************************************************

At last! A subject I can get my teeth into! And, it has a component of
Modern Chinese Culture, too!

Seriously, with sensationalism on the one side and hysteria on the other I
would like to introduce factual information on the topic to MCLC list
members along with some subjective opinion. There are at least 15,000
tigers in the world today, mostly in captivity, and the population
continues to grow. Nevertheless, important issues surround the future of
this species. 

Below is a somewhat lengthy description of tigers in China which I hope
will help provide perspective on their current status, their current
conditions, and Chinese government efforts to deal with issues of tiger
management and conservation.

Interested parties are free and welcome to use any part of the material.

Thomas Pickering

==========================================================

Tigers in China

Categorization  

The concepts of “species” and “subspecies” as well as all other
classifications of flora and fauna are a human construct only -- an
artificial system of classifying, much as one might do if given a handful
of sand and told to divide the grains into logical categories. (See
Linnaeus’ Systema Natura, 10th edition, 1758)


The species “tiger” (tigris) belonging to the genus Panthera has been
divided into subspecies at various times since 1758, the latest being
tigris jacksoni (the “Malayan tiger”) so labelled in 2004. We currently
recognize eight subspecies of which two are extinct and one (tigris
amoyensis) is extinct in the wild but still has a tiny captive population.
More on that to follow.

Of the previously recognized nine subspecies of tiger, only four have ever
been native to Chinese territory. Of these tigris virgata (so-called
Caspian tiger) with a range that included part of Xinjiang had been deemed
to be a separate subspecies from tigris altaica (so-called Siberian or
Amur tiger) until recently. It was classified extinct in 1970; most of the
population was decimated by habitat destruction/fragmentation and hunting
in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Central Asia. However, joint efforts of Oxford
University and NCI Laboratory of Genomic Diversity in the USA have
confirmed  that tigris virgata and tigris altaica have mitochondrial DNA
that only differ by a single nucleotide and ought to be treated as a
single subspecies. This has important implications for that subspecies’
survival as will be shown below.

Siberian Tiger (tigris altaica)

This animal’s present territory is generally recognized as covering the
eastern parts of Liaoning, Jilin, Heilongjiang provinces in China and
Primorya province in Russia, extending in a roughly 300-500 km band from
Dalian/Anshan in the south to Nikolayevsk-na-Amur in the north. Curiously,
the National Geographic describes the southern edge of this territory as
identical to the Russia/North Korean and China/North Korean borders
respectively. 

South China Tiger (tigris amoyensis) and the Indochinese tiger (tigris
corbetti)

These subspecies are poorly differentiated and there are arguments on both
sides as to whether they ought to be treated as a single subspecies or
two. Both subspecies populated territory inside China in the past
including areas of Yunnan and Sichuan Provinces and eastward as far as
Jiangxi and even Zhejiang Province.Today there are no known Indochinese
tigers or South China tigers left in the wild inside Chinese borders (one
questionable source says there are still 20-30 wild tigris amoyensis; all
other sources say they are extinct in the wild). The wild population of
tigris corbetti is estimated at anything from 350 (improbably low) to
1,100 (optimistically high). The likely population is around 800 with just
over half in a protected wild sanctuary that straddles Thailand and Burma;
the rest are in Laos, Cambodia, other parts of Thailand and Vietnam. There
may be a few strays in China, but only a few.

I have seen no reliable estimates of the captive population of tigris
corbetti. According to the same questionable source mentioned above (an
environmental activist group), in 2009 there were about 1,100 captive
tigris amoyensis worldwide, of which about 260 were in the USA. However,
these may actually have been tigris corbetti or mixed breeds, as reputable
zoologists have identified the captive population of purebred tigris
amoyensis at 59 individual animals in China and 74 worldwide.  An
international effort headed by China and South Africa is underway under a
Species Survival Plan (SSP) to manage the remaining purebred tigris
amoyensis with the aim to build a genetically viable population capable of
being reintroduced into the wild (probably initially in South African
sanctuaries), but this will take time. In any case, the captive population
of South China tigers is finite and no one is eating any.

Population of wild tigers in China

Fluctuations in the wild tiger population of China over the past 350,000
years until most recently have been due to natural climate changes, not
man. 

Two thousand years ago the human population of China was only about 58
million, and still probably had a relatively small impact on the tiger
population. It hovered around 75-100 million over the 700 years between
800-1500 a.d. In 1910 it was 440 million and tripled over the past 100
years to today’s 1.3+ billion.

During the same periods the tiger population declined dramatically. As to
actual numbers, let it be said that tigers in the wild are like grizzly
bears in the wild:  they don’t stand still and are hard to count.  As
recently as 100 years ago tiger territory covered between a third and a
half of all China (population numbers unknown). Estimates in the 1950s put
China’s tiger population of tigris amoyensis, tigris corbetti and tigris
altaica at around 4,000 individuals. Today there remains in the wild as
far as we know only one subspecies (tigris altaica) and that in only NE
China. Surveys done by China’s State Forestry Administration (SFA) in 2012
were able to identify only 12 individual wild tigers in Heilongjiang
province, 10 in Jilin province and none in Liaoning province (while there
are an estimated 400-500 remaining wild tigris altaica in Russian
territory). Those remaining in the wild in China are precious and are very
carefully protected.

Neither human nor animal population changes in China were significantly
attributable to human consumption of tiger meat, nor were they due to
usage of tiger parts for human medical treatments. Blame development of
farming, villages, towns and cities; protection of livestock; building of
factories, roads, railroads and highways. The principal reasons for the
demise of wild tigers in China over the past century can be attributed to,
in decreasing order of importance:

1. Habitat destruction due to human population encroachment.

2. Habitat fragmentation due to human population encroachment.

3. The impact of warfare.

4. Killing to protect humans or livestock.

5. Hunting for trophies, food or medicinal purposes.

Population of Captive Tigers in China

I have seen no reputable data regarding captive tiger populations in China
prior to 1993. According to Gwyn Guilford @sinoceros (see MCLC: dead,
stuffed zoo animals - 9/19/13) the captive population of tigers in China
has increased from 85 individuals in 1993-94 to around 6,000 today. The
first figure seems too low to me; the latter figure seems somewhat high,
but let us accept it for the purposes of this writing.

Where are these captive animals? More than 1,300 are held in institutions
or environments under the direct control of China’s State Forestry
Administration (the body responsible for animal conservation at the
national level in China). The remainder are in private hands. Compare this
with the USA which has never had native tigers. There are over 5,000 (some
say 10,000) tigers in captivity in the USA, less than 600 of which are
under the control of professionals in the American Association of Zoos and
Aquariums (AAZA). Note that in both countries private ownership is so
poorly regulated that exact figures are impossible to obtain.

Management and Conservation:  in situ vs ex situ

Why do people keep animals in captivity, and under what conditions? We
must differentiate private ownership from public stewardship if we are to
have any sensible discussion of the question. Recognize that both private
and public efforts have increased the ex situ tiger population of China
and elsewhere. 

As can be seen from the numbers presented, privately owned captive tigers
far exceed those under the control of professional organizations. Private
needs differ from those of scientists. Most of the animals under private
ownership are not purebred. Breeds have been mixed and lineage exploited
in order to breed animals “more attractive” to the public, such as white
tigers. Many tigers in captivity are indeed bred for their value as raw
material for trophies, food or medicine. The risk may not attract many
people, but the potential rewards seem to boost the animal population
numbers. 

Unfortunately although it increases the total tiger population, poor
management, poor care, poor record keeping and sloppy breeding attempts
all make the private sector pool of tiger DNA of little use to animal
conservationists. Is private ownership a good thing, or a bad thing?
Should it be curtailed or outlawed? At present there are over 200 captive
purebred tigris altaica outside China, many in private zoos. They are an
important DNA resource for subspecies recovery. Should they be
“nationalized” wherever they are found? Should AZA be given authority over
them? How should their management be controlled? Should they be bought and
released? There are a lot of issues to consider and none of them are
simple. 

Tigers fall under Appendix I of CITES except if they are captive; then
they fall under Appendix II. International trade in captive live animals
or animal parts is legal provided that appropriate import and export
permits are issued by the respective countries. Trade of captive animals
or animal parts within a given country, however, is not subject to any
CITES restrictions. Regulation of ownership becomes a domestic issue.
Trade in parts is a domestic issue. In the USA, 20 states allow tiger
ownership. It is perfectly legal and essentially unregulated for a
privately-owned tiger farm in Texas to sell animals to someone in Idaho,
provided local permits are obtained. A similar legal environment prevails
in China.
     
As to tigers under public stewardship, it is disingenuous to call the
China Hengdaohezi Feline Breeding Center in Harbin a ‘tiger farm’. One
might just as well call the Wulong National Nature Preserve or the Chengdu
Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding ‘panda farms’.  That is an insult to
the professionals who work in those places. They are not circuses or bear
gall factories. They are breeding centers for species preservation. They
cannot be discussed in the same context as privately held animal
facilities. 

It is also not helpful to castigate China’s SFA for its limited impact and
control over private ownership of tigers. As with any government
organization anywhere in the world, it has limited resources. Instead of
tossing insults, interested observers ought to direct their energies into
supporting this responsible organization to do its work. For comparative
purposes consider the (poor) degree of Federal government control over the
entirely captive and mainly privately-owned tiger population in the USA
and check the (very limited) level of US Fish and Wildlife Service
enforcement of its rules governing tigers.

Around the world, responsible zoologists and zoological institutions work
together to preserve and protect animal species, and the Chinese
government is an active participant in that effort. The Breeding Center in
Harbin is one of the most successful endeavors of its kind in the world.
They began in 1986 with only 8 individuals. They now have over 1,000. The
program is operated under scientific principles. Animals are segregated by
generations. Their heritage is carefully documented. Breeding is done
selectively so as to maximize DNA diversity within the population and
minimize potentially damaging inbreeding. Domestication is minimized. Work
at this site, and interaction with other captive purebred tigris altaica
populations around the world is carefully managed.

About 18 months ago a pilot program was started in Harbin with less than a
dozen cubs to reintroduce captive-born tigris altaica individuals into the
wild. A goal is to see the reintroduced population to total 650
individuals. This program could possibly lead to reintroduction of the
tiger into Central Asia if it is successful. But problems abound. A
population of just 50 tigers needs approximately 4-5,000 square kilometers
of contiguous viable habitat (cover, water, food) if it is to sustain
itself. Appropriate sites of such size and with such natural conditions
are not readily available to be set aside for in situ species
preservation. 

Further, predator animals in situ present special problems. The
reintroduction of wolves into western USA has not gone well, either with
hunters or farmers.  The animals do not recognize land titles or political
boundaries and spread where they will. They don’t differentiate between a
doe or a calf. And, if enough game is not available, they’ll begin to eat
little girls and boys. It would be hard to expect tigers to behave
differently. 

As a mental exercise think about the costs and logistics it would require
to remove and relocate all privately-owned ex situ tigers from the USA to
in situ sites within China and native habitats elsewhere.

The debate about feasibility or desirability of in situ or ex situ
population management is real. It is not a simple topic. It is a serious
topic.  Its substance should not be buried under emotional rhetoric.
Reason needs to prevail.

Cultural Considerations

Some people don’t like to see animals eat other animals. When I took my
son and his friend to see the tiger breeding center in Harbin they noted
the acres of deer fenced across the road from the preserve. My son
exclaimed, “Oh, look Dad. There’s a zoo here, too!”

He was initially disappointed when I told him, “No, son. That’s not a zoo.
It’s a pantry.” 

People who are upset to watch a live chicken or duck fed to a tiger are
possibly the same people who would never think of buying a live chicken
from the fresh market to take home and butcher in the backyard or on the
balcony. Most people in China see nothing out of the ordinary about
either. It’s cultural. (I understand -- making dinner a spectator sport is
disgusting to many.)

Our feelings about animals are culturally biased. People in Thailand are
horrified by the notion of eating a turkey; those are ornamental birds,
for goodness sake! You keep them in the garden to admire, not to eat. My
Vietnamese friends see nothing wrong with eating dog meat stew in the
winter, same as my friends in Harbin. One adult elephant contains enough
protein to feed a village of 400-500 people for a month. Where families
are hungry, elephants die. The amount of African elephant poaching today
and the amount of infant mortality/malnourishment in any given part of
Africa is directly correlated. Surprisingly, the same correlation does not
hold for the amount of elephant poaching vs. the world price of ivory.
Elephant hunting remains legal under CITES Appendix II rules in five
African countries. 

Tigers in China hold an allure. As is well known, tigers maintain an
important place in Chinese culture and in the realm of traditional
medicine. As such people want to look at them, own them, touch them if
possible, and maybe even eat them. So what!? I feel the same about
chickens (got the flu? Chicken soup!). My friends and I used to hunt
gibbons in northern Thailand for their meat. We cannot do that anymore
because habitat destruction has diminished the wild gibbon population but
I can tell you this:  if it were possible to buy gibbon meat in a Thai
supermarket -- and I knew that a portion of the price went to pay for
improvement of gibbon habitat -- I would buy it. It is delicious barbequed
(sensational if I may say so).

Consider this:  The remaining wild tigers in China are officially numbered
by the SFA. If you ate tiger meat in China last year it was ex situ home
grown and illegal; it might have been stir fried but it wouldn’t have been
poached. 

And this:  if Americans valued tiger meat as much as they do Black Angus
steak, there would be an awful lot more captive tigers in the USA today --
and maybe even some “free range” tiger to boot.



Background: The author has been a zoologist for 45 years. He lived and
worked in China for 25 of the years during that period.
		
Thomas Robert Pickering
4 April, 2014