Last night, I tuned in to watch Tigers About The House on the BBC. It was aptly filling the suddenly void Springwatch slot and who doesn’t want to see cute tumbling tiger tots on the telly. Well, me actually. It took about ten minutes before I started to feel anxious and annoyed, but once it set in it stayed with me throughout the entire programme.
Set in Australia Zoo, the park pretty much put on the map by Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin, my heart sank a little pretty much straight away. I’m not anti-zoo, but the recently formed coalition between Australia Zoo, Bindi Irwin and SeaWorld disturbs me greatly. After all, Australia Zoo, home of the Crocoseum and daily shows, already walks a fine line between zoo and circus. They say it’s where their wildlife warriors take on conservation issues, but actually it’s no more than a reptile-themed lion tamer’s act, with the animals being coerced with food into lunging and rearing aggressively in order to be fed.
The Tiger Temple features a splash pool for the tigers and numerous toys are provided. I’m pretty confident that welfare isn’t an issue at Australia Zoo. Keepers are often very passionate and strongly attached to their animals, especially when they can be hands on as is the case here. But the splash pool is a viewing station where you can watch swimming tigers and the toys provide ample photo opportunities for the tourists. Let’s not kid ourselves that any large corporate zoo is set up with animal welfare and conservation in mind. They need to make money just like any other normal business and corporation. Their money is wrapped up in their livestock and it needs to be pleasingly presented and available 24/7 in order to make the most money. As London Zoo are currently discovering, tiger cubs are major revenue drivers. You couldn’t swing a cat in Camden at the moment without bumping into an oversized tiger banner!
When they say Sumatran tigers are critically endangered and that conservation is a key issue, they are completely correct. And when they say that the vast majority of Sumatran tigers in captivity are closely related having come from the same gene bank of approximately 14 individuals, they are also correct. But breeding from a tigress not from this gene bank although preferable, has nothing to do with conservation. No tiger cub born in captivity will ever see the wild. The only population being made more genetically diverse and increasing in number is the captive one. All Australia Zoo and any other zoo breeding tigers are doing is protecting their investment. They are conserving their ability to make money in the future, certainly not a species that numbers less than 400 in the wild.
Australia Zoo is involved in conservation projects, with anti-poaching patrols, equipment and vehicle provisions, which are all certainly admirable. But they are aiding already existing organisations and projects and there is a huge difference between supporting something and spear heading a movement. We won’t be seeing new reserves, habitat or release schemes being endorsed by Australia Zoo or a similar corporation any time soon. The more endangered, difficult to see and less tactile the wild animal is, the more precious the captive one becomes. But not in the way you think. It may, one day soon, get to the point where the only place you will see a tiger is in zoo. And to these corporations, that will be a major bonus.
It would also be pretty impossible not to be involved in conservation in some way. When your marketing team are falling over themselves to make the most of even the tiniest PR opportunity whilst your tigers are still cute, fluffy money magnets, you have to at least look like you’re doing something for the greater good. But whose is the greater good in the end? And of course, there are such lovely enticing tax breaks for charitable corporations.
So finally, onto the programme itself and the bit where they separate the cubs from the mother for their own wellbeing. This is where everything fell apart for me. I’d swallowed the corporate conservation codswallop until then, but this was nothing but nonsense. The cubs were perfectly healthy, mum was attentive and happy. But there is only limited PR opportunity in tigers raising tigers. A tiger in the house, raised by a keeper? Could you imagine?! Mrs Keeper is worried about what might get damaged whilst Mr Keeper is worried about getting a good night’s sleep and Kiddie Keeper just wants to cuddle a cub. I mean, there’s at least a TV series in that, not to mention press and PR that would make any marketing department giddy.
We were told that mum was happy with the arrangement, but let’s not forget that we only have a five second sound bite and the work of the editor (who I’m guessing wasn’t from the BBC natural history unit) to go on. What we now know about big cats and their complex emotive states, all relatively recent research, is that they are similar to elephants, apes and cetaceans in their neurological makeup. This is just a bad idea all round and I doubt very much that mum was indeed fine with the arrangement. Nor were the cubs, who took to formula like a turkey takes to Christmas. Then they suffered upset stomachs. This could have been the formula (no reason or what the illness could be is ever mentioned), but the house itself presents an environment where perhaps genetically vulnerable wild animals might not exactly prosper. Cue the arrival of the two dogs they share the house with and goodness knows what man-made chemicals, food stuffs, etc. Is now a good time to mention that the critically endangered Amur tiger and leopard are being threatened by a number of species-jumping canine carried viruses? Don’t believe for one second any of this is being done with the cubs’ welfare in mind.
And ask any midwife about the precious antibody building components of mother’s milk. It’s a fair question to ask if they would have gotten ill if they’d been snuggled up with mum, and many hundreds seemed to be asking just that on Twitter last night. I’m guessing the programme possibly isn’t going down as well as the BBC hoped. For me, this is encouraging, and possibly marks a change in people’s perspective and attitude to how we see animals in captivity. Of course though, there is a corporation that claims serious conservation credentials and also separates mothers and offspring as they see fit, good old SeaWorld. It would seem Australia Zoo is keen to learn old tricks from its new relationship.
There are plenty of organisations that are knee deep in the hands-on conservation of big cats and I have listed the best below. Sumatran tigers need to be protected, bred and raised in the wild. This is where conservation needs to be focused. We need to protect their habitat, prosecute poachers and fight the Chinese medicine trade. Going to the zoo won’t do any of that.