by Sharyn Beach

This week Advocacy for Animals is pleased to publish this article by Sharyn Beach, a librarian, writer, and Big Cat Rescue volunteer, on a common but misguided notion of conservation and its tragic consequences for the lives of white tigers. (For more information about Big Cat Rescue, see Advocacy‘s articles Big Cat Rescue and Big Cat Bailout.)

Conservation?

Conservation. It is a word that we hear and repeat often. Ubiquitous in the media, it often conjures up a warm feeling, but as a concept conservation is largely misunderstood. Most of us view it solely in terms of individual species: if the number of animals of a certain species is sufficiently great, particularly if it is a species that we happen to like or find charismatic, “conservation” has been achieved, and we may check it off our collective to-do list. Upon closer inspection, though, we see that this conclusion is fundamentally flawed and is not only not preventing endangerment and extinction but is often leaving a trail of suffering in its wake.

The basic problem is that this limited view of conservation fails to consider the big picture—namely, the habitat in which the species that we are trying to save from extinction lives, on which it depends for its survival, and in which each animal makes a unique and significant contribution. It fails to consider the complex interrelationships between species and living systems and lulls us into believing that, as long as we have enough animals living in cages, we need do nothing about the destruction of the places they once called home; nor need we consider how certain animals do or do not fit into those places.

Perhaps no other single species embodies the conservation issue more than the tiger. Sleek and graceful, powerful and exotic, the tiger is the very definition of “charismatic mega fauna,” yet their numbers in the wild have dropped more than 95 percent in just 100 years. We respond intensely to the bold orange-and-black felines, and sometimes even more so to the almost mystical white tiger. Their ghostly white appearance and searing blue eyes are difficult to ignore. Because we are fascinated with things we consider to be rare—like gold—we value the white tiger for its rarity, and find a ready rationalization for perpetuating its existence by simply engaging one, perhaps now meaningless, word: conservation. If orange-and-black tigers are facing such a gloomy future in the wild, then, we conclude, surely the rare white tiger is in the most trouble: it could be the “poster child” for the wreckage that the reckless attitudes of human beings have left in what we used to call wild places.

But if there is any issue for which the white tiger is a poster child, it is our faulty understanding of conservation. The headlines are all too familiar: this zoo or that performer is breeding white tigers to save them from extinction and restore them to their native habitats. The media and the public adore such stories, but the heartwarming and short-lived nature of today’s news belies the real story that will surface for the white tiger cubs tomorrow. The truth is difficult for many people to accept. White tigers are not a species and do not have a native habitat. Tigers do not inhabit any section of the globe in which it would be advantageous for their survival to be white.

A Question of Biology

What we call the “royal” white tiger is in fact a genetic anomaly, caused by a double recessive gene occurring so rarely in nature that experts estimate that only one in every 10,000 tigers born in the wild is white. This anomaly, called “leucism,” prevents the pigment from coloring the skin and fur and, more importantly, robs the animal of a main tool for survival—camouflage. Without proper coloring, the ambush technique upon which tigers depend for catching food is seriously compromised. If anyone were foolish enough to attempt to release a white tiger into any habitat that tigers normally occupy, there is a good chance it would starve to death. Dr. Dan Laughlin, an international consultant on the care of zoological animals, stated it well in “The White Tiger Fraud,” an article written for the Web site of Big Cat Rescue: “when a deleterious recessive genetic mutation randomly occurs that is disadvantageous for the survival of the animal, such as white color in a tropical jungle environment, the animal does not survive to pass on that genetic mutation or disadvantageous characteristic to its offspring” (italics added). In other words, cruel as it may sound, nature does not provide a place for the white tiger.

If nature is designed to prevent the survival of genetic mutations that are a danger to the survival of an entire species, then why do we see white tigers in zoos and circuses across the United States? The answer is simple: they are produced by inbreeding. In an essay published on the Web site of Save the Tiger Fund, Ron Tilson, conservation director of the Minnesota Zoo, writes: “to produce white tigers or any other phenotypic curiosity, directors of zoos and facilities must continuously inbreed, father to daughter, to granddaughter, and so on.” According to Laughlin, in addition to the now famous and severely inbred line of white Bengal tigers that can be traced back to Mohan, a white tiger taken as a cub out of the wild in 1951 and bred back to his daughter and grand-daughters, “a second and separate origin of the white tiger … occurred spontaneously in two separate private collections in [the United States], when both owners inbred brothers to sisters.” Experts agree that genetic diversity is vital to the health of both individuals and entire populations of species. The most critically endangered felines, such as the South China tiger and the Amur leopard, are considered to be functionally extinct by some experts because with numbers as low as 20 or 30, inbreeding is inevitable. Yet in the case of the white tiger, the breeding of mothers to sons and fathers to daughters is commonplace. And there is a price to be paid for it.

White tigers endure a host of health problems about which the public is largely unaware, including immune system deficiencies that cause many to live miserable and short lives, scoliosis of the spine, hip dysplasia, neurological disorders, cleft palates, and protruding, bulging eyes. Many are stillborn and many more turn out to be too deformed to display. Among the ones that look pretty, according to some tiger trainers, only one in 30 will consistently perform.

At this point someone must face the question rarely asked by the reporters who happily recounted the birth of the white-tiger cubs: what now? What happens to the 29 out of 30 white tigers that were too dull and sick to perform? We know that they could not have been, and will never be, released into the wild. The lucky ones will find permanent homes in accredited sanctuaries, but the majority will either be killed or sold to traveling zoos, circuses, and wildlife centers, living lives in quarters that are often cramped, filthy, and rarely inspected.

There is yet another side to this sad story. What becomes of the orange-and-black cubs (by far the majority) born to parents who were specifically paired to render the desirable white coloring? Their fate will most likely include becoming victims of canned hunts, being sold into the exotic pet trade to live out their lives as breeding animals, or being killed and dismembered, their parts shipped to markets in Asia (see the Advocacy for Animals article Fighting for Tigers). Virtually none of them will join their wild counterparts for the purpose of repopulating their severely dwindling numbers. They will never see the wild lands from which their forebears were taken.

Taking Responsibility

Meanwhile, healthy, wild tigers, able to engage in the activities for which tigers were designed, disappear at alarming rates. Just 100 years ago, there were approximately 100,000 tigers living in the wild; some experts estimate that fewer than 3,500 individuals roam the forests of our world today. Three subspecies of tigers are gone forever, and the South China tiger is well on its way to joining their ranks.

If the relentless breeding of white tigers has nothing to do with conservation, and the resulting animals are sick and doomed to life in a cage, then why do people continue to breed them? We do not have to look far to find the answer. The trade in white tigers is lucrative. White tiger cubs have fetched as much as $60,000 a piece. According to Tilson, “white tigers are an aberration artificially bred and proliferated by a few zoos, private breeders, and circus folks, who do this for economic rather than conservation reasons.” Countless thousands of dollars pass through the hands of those who trade these animals like a commodity—countless thousands that do nothing to stop the poaching of wild tigers, do nothing to stave off the destruction of wild tiger habitats, and serve only to keep dignified creatures behind bars. Do we really value genetic mutations more than the habitat in which healthy wild tigers live and thrive?

Laughlin believes that “the genealogical misrepresentation, repeated inbreeding, exhibition and sale … of white tigers … initiated the greatest conservation deception of the American public in history.” The insidiousness of this deception is that the heartwarming stories of individual cubs being born again and again creates the illusion that we are doing something. It creates the illusion that the so-called experts are solving the problems that we create with our own complacency.

It is time to face the issue squarely. There can be no conservation of species without conservation of habitats, and there can be no conservation of habitats without conservation of entire ecosystems; therefore, we are accountable for how our actions affect those ecosystems, in every choice that we make. Conservation. It is not about the white tiger. It is about us.

Will our fascination with tigers give them back the dignified, free life that they had earned by surviving every hardship nature threw at them before we came along? Or will we be satisfied that we have done our job by having enough of them living in cages, performing tricks, and dazzling us with genetic deformities we would never dream of perpetuating in humans? If we choose the second option, then there is one more reality that we must be willing to accept. If we pull animals that we like out of the sinking ship that is their destroyed habitat, put them in cages, and call it a day, every single species that we do not find charismatic goes down with that ship. And with them go clues that could unlock the mysteries of the natural world—along with answers to questions that we perhaps no longer deem fundamental, because we have so thoroughly removed ourselves from that world. It begs one of those fundamental questions: if we can’t let other creatures assume their own roles in the broader ecosystem, how can we assume ours?

—Sharyn Beach