When I saw this quote on a Visit Florida website, announcing what's new in Florida for summer 2009, I just couldn't resist posting it. (The bold type is my emphasis). I probably shouldn't, since this topic has been well debated on other threads, but I am posting the quote just to stir up mischief. "This summer, Naples Zoo welcomes one of the rarest creatures of the natural world, white tigers." Let the fun begin...
In front of me I have a postcard of 'Mohini' the first white tiger at NZP Washington. Now that was 'rarity' value!
Previous White tiger cub at NZP Washington? On th same subject, I recently saw an old colour postcard of three tiger cubs at NZP taken in about 1930. There is no mother in the photo, but one of the cubs is WHITE. Caption says 'rare white tiger born at the Washington Zoo'. No other info. I presume this was a 'freak' birth to normal tigers living at the zoo at around that time( definately not the 1960's era) but would like to know what happened to this cub. Did it die young or grow up, for example?
Quite frankly, white tigers piss me off. There have been a number of zoos (Naples, Lowry Park, Memphis, etc) that have replaced critically endangered sub species (Sumatran, Malayan, Amur) with white tigers. The argument is that the white tigers will bring in more people that will, in turn, benefit tigers in general. I have yet to see this. Too me it seems to confuse the public. People visiting Naples will now think the white tiger is in more peril of going extinct instead of the IndoChinese (Malayan) subspecies. No one will stop private breeders which in turn will create cats that need rescuing. Which I also realize is why some of the accredited zoos have white or hybrid tigers (Franklin Park zoo, DAK, and even White Oak). Even more frustrating is the case at Lowry where the had white tiger cubs, not only once but twice! I know it will never happen but I would be fine with white tigers being completely phased out.
White Tiger at Franklin Park I share loxodonta's concern about white tigers, but need to speak to the issue at Franklin Park Zoo in Boston. The tiger exhibit at FPZ was not part of the zoo's development plan. The feds conducted a sting operation on some illegal big cat breeders and wound up with two tiger cubs, one "orange" and one white, as a product of the sting. They asked the zoo to take them and the zoo built an exhibit for them. Like all white tigers, FPZ's white tiger is the result of inbreeding and the zoo was very concerned about exhibiting him. The signs at the zoo very clearly explain the origins and genetic problems of white tigers, as well as the history of their white tiger. They also post staff at the exhibit to further explain the issues. It has been a unique educational opportunity, probably a better opportunity than choosing not to take or exhibit the tiger (who, btw, is neutered). FPZ also has the Amur and a number of other big cats.
Aren't they technically rare, just not endangered? Like, they are a rare occurance, and I don't mind zoos stating that. What annoys me is when they're a "critically endangered subspecies extinct in the wild" bla bla bla....
New AZA rules, filtered through the Tiger SSP, will recommend (strongly) the cessation of all breeding of "generic" tigers, including white tigers, in AZA zoos. No doubt there will be some controversy over this, and possibly some zoos like Wildlife World choosing to leave AZA rather than comply. But it's the right move--way too many tiger spaces are being wasted on these pretty but inbred and--from a conservation standpoint--useless animals.
I was in no way putting down DAK, FPZ and others for having rescue tigers. Actually, FPZ is the only zoo I have been to that explains why they have Luther (white) and Anala (hybrid orange). Every other zoo just displays white tigers and doesn't talk about the genetic defects and problems that occur when breeding them. At the Tiger Tales exhibit, there is a picture of a deformed white tiger and explains why it looks the way it does. Franklin Park Zoo does deserve credit for their tiger exhibit.
This is fascinating. I presume it is a hand-colored black & white photo? (If it is not, then there is no way it was 1930, because color photography didn't exist yet!).
