Why do people hunt Tigers?
 

So this is completely random...but I was watching some videos online about Tigers and i just think they are one of the coolest animals.

I'm curious about why people hunt them. I know people hunt elephants for their ivory tusks, but what is the value of killing a tiger? And who are these people?

$$$$$$$$$

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_...FH=E&SECTION=4

http://www.worldwildlife.org/tigers/index.cfm

Yeah I figured it was for money, but I didn't know which part of the Tiger was actually the thing worth the money.

Thanks for the links.

The said part it's not all direct killing. As these articles point out, numbers are dropping because of lose of habitat and lose of the tigers prey to hunt.

Why can't we all just get along?

Don't they make clothes and rugs from tiger skins? Being a vegetarian I'm against all forms of killing and hunters have always baffled me .... it's not like they need to hunt for their survival is it, not like in the animal kingdom ....


David

Threats to tigers can be separated into two categories: Poaching (Hunted for their pelt and bones) and retributive killing, which includes the illegal trade of tiger parts and human wildlife conflict, and habitat destruction and fragmentation, including illegal logging and commercial plantations.

Me too. What occurs most often these days isn't really hunting. Usually it's some fat old guy shooting at a recently (same day) released caged animal. Wait, that's our VP! :eek:

I don't have a problem with the killing (I love a good steak) so much as the pretense that it's any different than a slaughter house. If you want to hunt, take a knife into the woods, make whatever weapons you can with the raw materials there and have at it. Sitting in a blind with a cooler full of beer and a high powered rifle isn't hunting any more than shooting your best friend in the face by the side of the road.

Not to mention varous "parts" of Tigers are thought to be potant umm.. ED drugs in Asian cultures.

I'm against hunting exoctic animals like Tiger, etc, but Deer, Coyotes, and other domestic animals that are increasing becoming a nuisance to residents (hit by cars, destroying gardens, carry disease) should be hunted so as to maintain the herds, packs etc at a tolerable level. If we let them expand without limits, we'll see them encroaching into every aspect of our lives. How would you like to hit a deer with a new Ford Mustang? Or let your children go out an play in the evening with wild dog/coyote packs running around your area?

Its a delicate balance that has to be maintained and rather than let disease kill them, why not let the hunters kill them for at least they use a majority of the meat, fun, etc. I'm not a hunter but I can see the need for them to maintain an environmental equilibrium.

.....meat, fur, etc * ..... i need to proofread before posting. sorry.

You can simply click on the Edit button to the right of the post and edit it to your heart's content.

First, deer and coyotes aren't domestic animals, and they wouldn't be a problem if humans weren't invading their territory. The way to maintain a delicate balance is to stop encroaching on their habitat. In Connecticut there is (was?) a herd of deer in the southeast part of the state that "hunters" considered too large, so the state held a hunt. There were less than three dozen deer at the start of the hunt. It's a sad statement about humans that we can't leave enough open space to support less than 40 deer. I don't see how anyone that participated in that hunt could be proud of what they did.

"Hogster the Vegetarian"...so you don't like pork or bacon. You have a pet pig? I hear they're good pets.

I'm betting Hogster rides.

ahhh...that'd make sense. Although a pet pig would make for a better story :D

...and be more ecologically minded! :D :D :D

Haha, actually my surname's Hogg. Yes I've heard all the puns before.

I read about that on Wikipedia...the things they think Tiger parts do are beyond ridiculous.

Anyway, at least this one Tiger didn't die in vain, she took a poacher with her:

http://www.savethetigerfund.org/news.../04_6_03w1.htm

Which would mean that humans would have very little land to live on indeed. But there is no problem with deer and coyote populations. In fact, humans have expanded the range of viable habitat for them to such an extent that they are nuisances in certain areas, which was the original point, I believe. There are more White-tailed Deer in the U.S. now than when the Pilgrims came to New England.

Not at all. I didn't say anything that meant anywhere near giving all the land back to the animals. Only that the small amount land still availabe to them shouldn't be destroyed. The logic getting you from not enough land to support 40 deer to not enough to support humans escapes me.

There are also HUNDREDS of times more humans, but I seriously doubt anyone took a credible survey when the pilgrims landed. Since ALL of the land was suitable habitat for deer at the time, I don't see how its possible that we could have expanded on it.

No, not ALL of the land was suitable for deer. There were huge stretches of land that were not, but now are because humans have planted trees, shrubs, crops, etc., which make more habitat available for them than when the Pilgrims arrived. We studied all this extensively when I was working on my Masters in Zoology with a specialization in Wildlife Management years ago. Their numbers were down in the mid-20th C. because of over-hunting, but they've come back strong.
- see http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...06/ai_20135606 since you have such a keen interest in deer populations and how hunting (and the lack thereof) has affected them.

Not that this has anything to do with hunting Tigers . . .

That's very interesting stuff, Phil.

Thanks for sharing.

It's the same problem whether you're 'hunting' deer or tigers. The animal has virtually no chance, since its habitat* is greatly diminished and it can easily be killed from a great distance. There's just no sport in it.


* Deer have eaten some of the bushes in my own back yard, but I wouldn't call that part of their habitat. It's just a place they can get some food when their limited habitat is running low.

First, deer and coyotes are domestic animals, understand the definition of "domestic". It means "existing or occuring inside a particular country", thats what I meant by domestic, not domesticated animals like cats. Use some common sense please. Secondly, stop encroaching on their habitat... are you kidding? I suppose you should go join a tribe of indians somewhere so that we can stop evolutionary/technological expansion all together. Where ever you live, where ever I live; its encroaching, so please, refrain from the hypocritical statements. Lastly, any senseless killing of animals is unfortunate, but you seem to be quite bitter about animal killing in general. Heres a though; we'll bring 20+ rats to your house, rats that have been "saved" from sewers and such from extermination and let them loose in your house. I'm sure that will bring things into perspective regarding "tolerable levels." Please, I beg you, use some common sense and logic when commenting on this post. Thanks.

Note that a semicolon is different from a period, which ends a sentence. The words "not foreign or international" do not constitute a third definition. They complete the second.



So neither definition applies to deer or coyotes, since both are found in more than one country and both are rarely kept as pets. I realize that it's become popular over the last six years to attack the messenger whenever you don't like the message, but please try to be accurate. OS 10.4.x comes with a built-in dictionary. Use it.



My Post #7 "I don't have a problem with the killing (I love a good steak) so much as the pretense that it's any different than a slaughter house."
As I said, it isn't the killing that bothers me. It's the macho b.s. demonstrated so effectively by Dick Cheney, a fat old guy with a heart condition who would never in his life put himself in a position where somebody might shoot back, going out to shoot caged birds in order to make himself feel like a real man.

The rest of your post borders on sheer nonsense. Perhaps you should do a little reading before further comment:

http://subscript.bna.com/SAMPLES/der...4?OpenDocument

http://jgrr.blogspot.com/2005/01/why...tat-alone.html

http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2001/12/12/point/

http://www.sierracampaign.org/GiantSequoia.html

Let’s encourage hunting under new rules!
 

If you hunt under currently accepted rules (which are horribly lopsided), then I believe you have a moral obligation to make use of the entire animal. Skinning it and handing the head for a taxidermist to mount on a piece of plywood as proof of your manhood to visitors of your abode, doesn’t count.

I think tiger hunting should be allowed -- but only with hand-held knives. Same with rhinoceros and elephants. And it must be winner-takes-all: If the hunter dies, then his or her entire fortune should be forfeited to secure habitats for the winner’s progeny.

Furthermore, heads of multinationals and major shareholders should be especially encouraged to hunt under these revised terms... :cool:


Barbarically yours,
ArcticStones

I think all hunting should be done by hand. If you want to hunt a tiger, or a deer, then you'll have to do it with your bare hands.

Good luck.

:)

BTW: cwtnospam, I also don't get why hunting deer with a gun makes people feel macho. It's like arm wrestling a five year old and feeling so great about it when you win.

Hmm... That would certainly reduce the catch figures of Norwegian and Japanese whaling, which is claimed to be done "for research purposes". But I think the efforts would make pretty darned good documentary for Animal Planet or National Geographic’s TV channel.


Now hold on a minute! That is a more radical proposition than even what I am suggesting.
:D
.

cwtnospam, maybe you should read up on what a "habitat" is. There's more suitable habitat for deer now than ever, unless one has a very idiosyncratic understanding of the term. You can admit to being wrong from time to time. ;)

This thread is rapidly becoming an embarassment to this forum. Counting down to closure. I think we do better when we stick to topics that are sorta kinda related to Mac/Apple.

Come on, Phil. A bit of surrealism spices up this forum; in fact more of it should be encouraged.

Besides, tigers eat Apples, so this is highly relevant.

by cwtnospam: Dick Cheney, a fat old guy with a heart condition who would never in his life put himself in a position where somebody might shoot back, going out to shoot caged birds in order to make himself feel like a real man.

Totally inappropriate! I had missed this. Can't see this discussion shedding any more light for the human race. Bye bye.