« The Relentless Application of Self-Interest | Main | Fuel for Thought» Don Boudreaux
August 15, 2006
Roaring Applause for this Proposal
Don Boudreaux
Barun Mitra, the vastly talented head of India's Liberty Institute, has this splendid op-ed in today's New York Times. In it, Barun proposes that the best way to keep tigers from going extinct is to allow them to be owned and traded -- that is, objects of commerce.
Here's the gist:
But like forests, animals are renewable resources. If you think of tigers as products, it becomes clear that demand provides opportunity, rather than posing a threat. For instance, there are perhaps 1.5 billion head of cattle and buffalo and 2 billion goats and sheep in the world today. These are among the most exploited of animals, yet they are not in danger of dying out; there is incentive, in these instances, for humans to conserve.
So it can be for the tiger. In pragmatic terms, this is an extremely valuable animal. Given the growing popularity of traditional Chinese medicines, which make use of everything from tiger claws (to treat insomnia) to tiger fat (leprosy and rheumatism), and the prices this kind of harvesting can bring (as much as $20 for claws, and $20,000 for a skin), the tiger can in effect pay for its own survival. A single farmed specimen might fetch as much as $40,000; the retail value of all the tiger products might be three to five times that amount.
Yet for the last 30 or so years, the tiger has been priced at zero, while millions of dollars have been spent to protect it and prohibit trade that might in fact help save the species. Despite the growing environmental bureaucracy and budgets, and despite the proliferation of conservationists and conferences, the tiger is as close to extinction as it has been since Project Tiger, a conservation project backed in part by the World Wildlife Fund, was launched in 1972 and adopted by the government of India a year later.
If we truly value the tiger, this crisis presents an opportunity to help it buy its way out of the extinction it now faces. The tiger breeds easily, even in captivity; zoos in India are constantly told by the Central Zoo Authority not to breed tigers because they are expensive to maintain. In China, which has about 4,000 tigers in captivity, breeding has been perfected. According to senior officials I met in China, given a free hand, the country could produce 100,000 tigers in the next 10 to 15 years.
........
Wildlife farming and ranching could potentially break the poverty trap that most forest villagers find themselves in. In Zimbabwe, before the current spiral into chaos, villagers had property rights on the wildlife in the forests around them, and they earned revenue by selling a limited number of hunting licenses. They had a stake.
At present there is no incentive for forest dwellers to protect tigers, and so poachers, traffickers and unscrupulous traders prevail. The temptation of high profits, in turn, attracts organized crime; this is what happens when government regulations subvert the law of supply and demand.
But tiger-breeding facilities will ensure a supply of wildlife at an affordable price, and so eliminate the incentive for poachers and, consequently, the danger for those tigers left in the wild. With selective breeding and the development of reintroduction techniques, it might be possible to return the tiger to some of its remaining natural habitats. And by recognizing the rights of the local villagers to earn legitimate revenue from wildlife sources, the tiger could stage a comeback.
Market economics greatly favor the tiger. If China decides to unleash the tiger’s commercial potential, the king of the forest might be more secure in his kingdom.
Posted by Don Boudreaux in Environment, Property Rights | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200d83430d42053ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Roaring Applause for this Proposal:
» Barun Mitra: Sell the Tiger to Save It from Knowledge Problem
Lynne Kiesling I heartily recommend Barun Mitra's op-ed column in today's New York Times on the importance of property rights in the conservation of the tiger: Yet for the last 30 or so years, the tiger has been priced at... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 15, 2006 10:42:16 PM
» Property rights and saving the tiger from Pienso...
For the last 30 or so years, the tiger has been priced at zero, while millions of dollars have been spent to protect it and prohibit trade that might in fact help save the species. Despite the growing environmental bureaucracy [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 15, 2006 11:14:06 PM
» Barun Mitra and Chinese tiger commoditization from citym.org
Interesting but flawed piece on Cafe Hayek the other day. In this entry, Don Boudreaux extolls a NYT op-ed piece - a flaweder piece - by Barun Mitra (original NYT piece): But like forests, animals are renewable resources. If you... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 16, 2006 10:41:24 PM
» Save the tiger: from Pajamas Media
Braun Mitra shows us how it can be done. (HT: Cafe Hayek)... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 24, 2006 6:44:49 AM
» dfg34hdb from competizione lazio
tutti culo mondo costruire case quanto costa compito barelliere [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 10, 2006 8:14:34 AM
Comments
If tigers taste good, they will never go extinct. Sign me up to try tiger steak if it becomes available.
It's grrrrrrrrrrrreat!
Posted by: Al | Aug 15, 2006 12:20:36 PM
I don't know. I once watched a bull chase my brother across a field. That was funny. Would it have been as funny watching him evade a man-eater? or two or three of them?
What a creative proposal! I just hope the tigers are kept 12,000 miles away from my house.
Posted by: John Dewey | Aug 15, 2006 12:40:35 PM
Although the idea may be repugnant to PETA and those with the idea that animals need to live in the wild in order to ensure that their "animal knowledge"... how to survive... is passed on from generation to generation, the concept is not too strange considering how zoos have been around for millenia and animals in those facilities "earn" their keep by drawing in paying gawkers.
The difference here is that it may be quite difficult to "domesticate" tigers and the alternative is to confine them in rather prison-like environments until their "by-products" can be "harvested."
Sounds like a bad science-fiction story.
Posted by: Bruce Hall | Aug 15, 2006 3:54:39 PM
Agreed. I often annoy ill informed Luddite self styled conservationists that Whale Oil is the obvious prefered alternative to petroleum as whales are the renewable resource.
Posted by: Robert Cote | Aug 15, 2006 3:58:14 PM
A better way to save the tiger might be to flood China with subsidized Viagra. Yes, they use other parts of the tiger as well, but the demand is driven largely by that one most valuable (male) tiger part that the article forgot to mention.
Posted by: Ann | Aug 15, 2006 5:17:56 PM
This principle has been well proven in Africa; In those countries where elephants are "Protected" by the regime, corruption and poaching are producing near-extinction. In countries where they are held by private owners, elephants are so plentiful as to become pests.
Posted by: True_Liberal | Aug 15, 2006 8:36:13 PM
Although all of this is true, part of the desire is to have the tigers roam free in their natural habitat. Tigers raised on ranches aren't in their wild, natural state.
- Josh
Posted by: Wild Pegasus | Aug 15, 2006 8:57:55 PM
Ask the tiger to choose between a built environment and dead. Well I guess since the tiger isn't answering we better choose for it.
Posted by: Robert Cote | Aug 15, 2006 10:27:08 PM
It is a thought, a typical out-of-the-box type. But, there are many other things that have to bear in mind.
1. Do we, human beings, alter the law of nature? Are we attempting to domestic the grand wild cat and diminish its call of the wild?
2. There is a limit to what you can commoditize. Men have commoditized women already. It cannot get worse than that. Spare the wild life please!
3. Like correctly mentioned, it is the funding that is an issue. Tigers are expensive to maintain. They are left best in the wild. If China can do it, why not India? Infact Indian wilderness conditions are better suited to the Tiger than Chinese. Why not capitalise on that?
4. The proposal to eventually butcher Tigers for their parts is as unethical as cloning is. What is the difference between a Tiger and Cattle then?
5. Religious tolerances! Some communities / countries, Tiger is sacred. One dare not tamper with religious tolerances.
6. If Tigers were bred with such vigor, the commercial value is going to dip. It is because of their rarity that they are as expensive.
While Tiger conservation is a very important activity to be undertaken, this is the last method that should be adopted. I would rather not have it adopted than see those magnificient creatures traded like commercial items.
Posted by: rubic_cube | Aug 16, 2006 1:37:09 AM
American bison were near extinction a century ago, with fewer than 1,000 remaining. Nearly 400,000 bison now inhabit North America. A few are found in national parks, but most bison live on ranches in the western U.S. and Canada. The development of the bison meat industry has ensured the survival of this magnificant animal. Continued expansion of this industry will also grow the economies of very poor counties in the Dakotas and other states.
American bison ranching was definitely a win for bison and a win for some humans. So why not tigers also?
Posted by: John Dewey | Aug 16, 2006 10:42:22 AM
cube:
Responding in order to your points:
1) "Tigers are wild" is a law of nature? I've seen tigers in zoos, yet no rift in space-time was apparent. Maybe The Tsunami was Gaia's punishment for violating her laws.
2) Where are the woman farms? Texas, I'll bet.
3) Homes are expensive to build. It is best to use naturally occurring shelter.
4) What is the difference between tigers and cattle? Ummmm. Errrr. I give up. What is the difference?
5) In some communities and countries, cows are sacred. And yet we dare to domesticate and eat them. They're delicious.
6) Oranges became common, their price dropped... egad! it was rarity that made them valuable! Now no one wants to grow oranges, because they aren't as valuable. Which is why you can't find them anywhere anymore. A tragic and all too common case of capitalism causing shortages of supply by increasing the efficiency of production.
You'd rather see tigers extinct than see them lose what you perceive as their dignity. How noble of you.
Posted by: Morgan | Aug 16, 2006 10:49:38 AM
John Dewey,
I agree entirely. The only way to save the tigers is to eat them. I just don't know if they taste any good. I almost certain they're useless as pets.
Someone should open a thread for recipes . . .
Posted by: Al | Aug 16, 2006 12:42:07 PM
Morgan,
I agree with all your answers, except for the swipe at Texas. My wife is a native Texan, and she would rip your eyes out at the mere suggestion that Real Texas Women could somehow be "commoditized". Unless you've been married for 30 years to a Texas woman, you probably can't appreciate how independent they truly are. But just consider these examples: Barbara Jordan; Ann Richards; Molly Ivins. Texas Republican women you may know are a bit more reserved, but just as iron-willed.
Posted by: John Dewey | Aug 16, 2006 1:53:13 PM
Al,
Perhaps tigers have no use as pets. But remember the lion that Jerry Orbach used in "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight"? He used it to hasten the "insurance" payments from local businesses.
Consider how effective a tiger would be at guarding a warehouse. Burglars might attempt to outrun a doberman, but will likely pass on a building with a "Beware of Tiger" sign.
Posted by: John Dewey | Aug 16, 2006 2:04:25 PM
John,
I damn sure couldn't have put it in Missouri, or I'd have had trouble closer to home.
I used to know a song - "Can you tame wild women?" or something like that. Experience says no, and they're all wild in their own ways.
Truth is, though, I chose Texas because Halliburton is headquartered in Houston. I thought it was a good bet they were running these farms, what with being so evil and capitalist and all.
Posted by: Morgan | Aug 16, 2006 2:29:04 PM
Regarding tiger as pets, they are no different cats, just a whole lot bigger.
My grandfather during his service as a forest officer had both a pet tiger and a pet fox(or wild-dog) before it was outlawed in India to keep such endangered animals as pets.
The problem with markets doing the conservation is that once tigers go out of fashion(either as pets or as replacements for viagra), there won't be any will to conserve them at all, then what?
Posted by: Vishnu Vyas | Aug 16, 2006 10:29:19 PM
Vishnu,
Could the market for tiger pelts and tiger meat be large enough to sustain at least a few tiger ranches? Consider the example of American Bison ranches I offered earlier. Only a tiny percentage of humans eat bison meat. Yet that small demand is sufficient to justify ranch herds in excess of 300,000 animals.
I guess I trust free markets enough to believe that some level of commercial tiger ranching will always be economical.
Posted by: JohnDewey | Aug 17, 2006 3:42:34 AM
John,
I don't mind if there is a small market, my worry is that if there is no market.
Regarding tiger meat, I'm not sure there will be a market at all, (because tigers like other carnivores don't pack that much of a punch in their meat in terms of nutrition, etc..). The only place where I can see a market for tigers is viagra replacements and chinese medicine. Hope that doesn't go out of fashion.
Secondly, I can't seem to come up with a good reason why we should conserve in the first place? We might loose bio-diversity, but so what? Even nature doesn't mind conservation, there are storms, floods etc.. that regularly kill lots of animals. So is there any reason that we should conserve at all?
Posted by: Vishnu Vyas | Aug 17, 2006 5:36:46 AM
Vishnu,
Very few if any storms and floods wipe out entire species. It is the rapid and deliberate elimination or near-elimination of species by humans that is so appalling. Tens of millions of American bison roamed the American West for at least a million years. In a mere two decades, humans had slaughtered all but 750. No storm or flood ever had so rapid an impact.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised to hear the question: "Why should we conserve in the first place?" I don't remember ever hearing anyone ask that question in my lifetime of 55 years. I have heard some question the economics of zoos or evvironmental restrictions. But never anyone questioning whether conservation is desirable.
Mitra's proposal bypasses the issue of whether we should spend money to preserve species. He simply says give the free market a shot at doing so. It costs no one except the entrepreneur willing to risk it.
Incidentally, it doesn't matter to many consumers whether tiger meat is tasty. The key for some is whether or not tiger steaks will impress their dinner duests. I don't know where you live, but if it's the U.S. you are probably aware of how much disposable income our wealthy and near-wealthy citizens enjoy. They won't blink an eye at spending $50 or $100 a pound to impress others.
Posted by: JohnDewey | Aug 17, 2006 7:33:21 AM
Bravo! Most environmental problems result from transgression of private property rights.
Now, if only we could start applying the same thinking to whales. The free-range model of ranching is well known, well studied, and easy to implement on the high seas. Whales can be "branded" with electronic tags, and harvested in "roundups.
As I've written before, I cannot understand the political dynamic that allows governments to pursue failed environmental policies --- over, and over and over.
Posted by: Jeff Younger | Aug 17, 2006 1:38:40 PM
John,
I asked the question about wether we need conservation at all because, Hard as I might try, I can't come up with a convincing answer.
People talk about bio-diversity and other such stuff, but again why?
What's wrong if the world is full of plantations of cash/food crops that humans need, we only rear animals that we eat or use as pets or have some use for, etc..?
Would that affect human beings in anyway at all?
(The only thing that I've come up with so far, is opportunity cost, i.e some thing like the HIV killer lurking inside the rain-forest).
Posted by: Vishnu Vyas | Aug 17, 2006 4:25:39 PM
Vishnu: "People talk about bio-diversity and other such stuff, but again why?"
Here's three explanations:
http://tinyurl.com/ltjbj
http://tinyurl.com/oscgj
http://tinyurl.com/rd8pq
If you need more, simply go to GOOGLE and type in "Why do we need biodiversity?"
Posted by: JohnDewey | Aug 18, 2006 12:37:13 AM
"I don't mind if there is a small market, my worry is that if there is no market."
If there is no market, then the animal is left alone in its original environment, problem solved.
The reason species get endangered has two possible explanations depending on cases:
1) destruction of its natural habitat for human profit,
2) there's a market for its "byproducts" AND herding is forbidden.
Marketisation of all endangered species might not entirely solve problem 1, but as reported in the post, authorizing breeding might just be the solution for problem 2.
I know from experience that letting people breed parrots help in both conserving the species AND reducing poaching. Erithacus parrots are a good example. Friends and I are fighting for the right to breed species that are rarer and more "protected" like Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus.
Posted by: Jesrad | Aug 18, 2006 9:18:21 AM
In Thailand elephant herds can devastate crops so they became a problem to humans. (The crops were better eating than what was available in the jungle. The solution was to have elephant camps where the elephant herds would live. They are used to entertain tourists and to do work. As far as I can tell the camps are privately owned.
Posted by: Will C. | Aug 19, 2006 9:23:31 AM
great suggestion
i also would enjoy trying a tiger steak lol
Posted by: great | Aug 19, 2006 7:22:44 PM
Thomas Sowell said in one of his books that the only endangered animals are those that aren't owned by anybody.
Posted by: Alan K. Henderson | Aug 21, 2006 12:01:42 AM
Domesticated bison do not interact with any natural predators, do not live in a natural ecosystem and do not play any role in increasing the biodiversity of a country. It is an entirely different matter to have wild bison, wolves, grizzlies, cougars, wolverines ... wandering over large natural areas where the destructiveness of man is kept to a minimum. Wildlife conservation is all about quality and not quantity. The ten thousand captive tigers in the U.S mean nothing to biodiversity, while the 2000 wild tigers in India are icons of the entire natural world. Mitra's ideas are useless at best and dangerous at worst.
Posted by: RSC | Aug 22, 2006 9:25:59 PM
Buy Generic Viagra - Buy Generic Viagra
Generic Viagra - Generic Viagra
Generic Cialis - Generic Cialis
Generic Levitra - Generic Levitra
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generic Propecia - Generic Propecia
Generic Meridia - Generic Meridia
Generic Zocor - Generic Zocor
Generic Soma - Generic Soma
Generic Prozac - Generic Prozac
Posted by: William | Sep 13, 2007 12:31:55 AM
Please save Tigers , they are going to extinct. All the crap credit goes to poachers, they hunt tigers for their cheap mean , to satisfy their money needs. Just think over it.All money money with no plants no other species. Only we human and money. Time to think over it, before its get too late.
caverta
Posted by: kamagra | Sep 25, 2008 8:49:18 AM
Good article
Posted by: ady | Oct 6, 2008 5:52:33 AM
Posted by: laptop battery | Oct 13, 2008 12:03:43 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
