Save the Tigers...But Why?



AFP/Getty Images



No matter how relevant, if an argument is going to evoke a reaction from a reader, it must be sound enough for that reader to listen to what it has to say, and even care as much as the person who made the original argument. If it is poorly structured; without enough evidence, a confident voice or position, or even sufficient research; no one will listen to it, even if it deals with a pressing issue. Such is the case for "Save the tigers from tanking," (6 Novermber 2010), an editorial published in the Globe and Mail.

The fact that I am refuting this argument does not mean that I think that a person has the right to kill a tiger for their own hedonistic purposes. But I do need to know why we should put so much effort into saving tigers, which is something that this argument does not delve into. What the editorial does tell us briefly is this: that tigers will be wiped out within twelve years due to poaching and habitat loss, that we should take action to prevent this from occurring, and that three species of tiger have gone extinct already. Moreover, it just seems to dump down facts--some of which are not true at all--without giving a reason as to why they are important.

The main problem with this editorial is that it does not seem to know why tigers should be saved from extinction. The reasons given are too vague even for a reader to figure out what kind of environmentalist stance that it is trying to exhibit. Is it ecoholist? Is it sentientist? Does it have any environmentalist views whatsoever? The fact that the argument refers to all tigers just as "the tiger" within the text--though not the title--suggests that it is attempting to give the entire species intrinsic value, but the view still does not seem ecoholist.

From the points given, the editorial's reason to preserve tigers seems purely aesthetical instead. It is not the tigers themselves that have intrinsic value; rather, it is the idea that the tigers are there. Ever since people have become aware about the tigers' critical situation, they have become charismatic megafauna almost as pathos-inducing as giant pandas and polar bears. This editorial follows suit here, to the point where it portrays the tigers more as a means to an end than an end in itself.

In doing so, the argument presented contradicts itself. It states that we are to blame for the tigers' endangerment, destroying their habitat for products that will only benefit us, and singling them out as poaching targets because they are so much rarer and more beautiful than other animals. And yet it does not hint at any other kind of value that they might have, other than the statement that the are "one of the great beasts of the Earth." (2010) Instead, emphasis is placed in what we ought to do to help them, as though trying to place a sense of duty in us. But since nothing in the argument says why tigers have rights, again, this duty feels more aesthetical than ethical.

But that is not the argument's only problem. Aside from mixed messages, it just runs through all of its points too quickly, without any evidence to support it other than a citation from the World Wildlife Fund. It lists the reasons why tigers are threatened, but offers no concrete examples of these, instead assuming that we have heard enough already to know that it is the truth. It then goes on to say that all that we need to preserve the tigers is government assistance to end poaching and reverse habitat loss, but it does not go into much detail as to how this will happen. It does suggest the use of corridors for tigers to travel from one habitat to another, but it does not give any evidence that this would work.

Finally, there is the lack of research to consider. Toward the end of the editorial, three species of tiger that have gone extinct are listed: the Javan tiger, the Bali tiger, and the Tasmanian tiger. Although the Javan and Bali tiger are both extinct species, the third is the Caspian tiger, not the Tasmanian tiger. In fact, the extinct "Tasmanian tiger" was not a tiger at all, but a striped, carnivorous marsupial whose actual name was "thylacine." It was also referred to as the "Tasmanian tiger" because of its stripes or the "Tasmanian wolf" because of its wolf-like appearance.

As I have mentioned before, the one source mentioned in the argument is the World Wildlife Fund, which does state that the third species of extinct tiger is the Caspian tiger, not the thylacine. The World Wildlife Fund's page on tigers does share another comment with the article: that there might be as few as 3,200 tigers left, and the editorial does cite the World Wildlife Fund when saying this. There is one difference between the two of them, though: the World Wildlife Fund says that this is possible, whereas the editorial presents this as though it is a known fact. And although that one statement has a source behind it, anyone who knows what a Tasmanian tiger really is will not trust anything else that the argument has to say.

For that matter, the World Wildlife Fund's page on tigers does list a few reasons on why the tiger should be preserved, and the values that they give the tiger also seem more instrumental than intrinsic. Although they do have some ecoholist reasons, which say that tigers play a key role in their ecosystems and maintain biodiversity there, they have just as many instrumental and aesthetic reasons: that tigers are greatly admired and atttract tourism. Like the editorial, the page does not go into detail on the positive effects of tigers on ecosystems, but just assumes that we already know that, or do not need that much explanation to care.

The difference between the information page and the editorial is that although they more or less present the same argument--that we should preserve the tiger--they do so under different formats. The World Wildlife Fund is an organization whose purpose is to get people to care about wildlife, whereas a newspaper editorial is meant to be a solid, sometimes insightful opinion piece that gets the reader to think, or at least present an argument worth considering. In this editorial, the argument given is nothing that the readers have already seen before, only with a rushed execution, glaring research errors, and a voice that contradicts the environmentalist image that it is supposed to have. Although I agree that tigers should be preserved, I believe that it should be for the sake of the tigers themselves and the environment that they affect, not our own aesthetic pleasure.

Reference List

Save the tigers from tanking. (2010, November 6) The Globe and Mail. Retrieved November 9, 2010, from

<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/save-the-tigers-from-tanking/article1769609/>.

AFP/Getty Images.(2010, October 22). Save the tigers from tanking. [Photograph]. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from
<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/save-the-tigers-from-tanking/article1769609/>.
 

World Wildlife Fund. (2010). Tiger: Overview. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from <http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/tigers/index.html>.

World Wildlife Fund. (2010). Tiger: Why Tigers Matter. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from

<http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/tigers/why-tigers-matter.html>.