response 45 of 82:

Oct 8 01:45 UTC 2003

The White tigers are not albinos.  They do not  have pink eyes, the main
charactaristic of albinism.  They are a seperate species. They breed true.

response 47 of 82:

Oct 8 03:42 UTC 2003

Coincidentally there was another tiger incident here in NYC.  Some guy liv
ing in a rent controlled apartment in a high rise in Harlem was found keeping
two pets, a full grown half siberian/half bengal tiger named Ming and a giant
alligator named Al.  It was a three bedroom apartment and Ming the tiger and
Al the alligator had their own bedrooms.  The tiger's bedroom had a bed and
an indoor sand pit.  The alligator's bedroom had a bed and a baby pool for
Al to swim in.  The tiger and the alligator had apparently bonded, and this
man considered them to be his brothers.  The animal control authorities have
just yesterday removed the animals and shipped them off to a zoo.  The guy
was interviewed and is heartbroken that the housing authority won't let him
have his pets back.  But really, an apartment in a housing project surely
isn't the ideal place for a tiger and an allligator to live.  The man is being
charged with reckless endagerment, even thougb it is clear he loved thos
animals.

response 49 of 82:

Oct 8 04:22 UTC 2003

Re #45:  Bruce... look up the definition of "species".  I'm sure it
will show that you're wrong (again).  I will lay money down that
white tigers are inter-fertile with the normal forest breed of
their native land, and that they're no more different species than
Siamese cats and Maine Coons.

response 51 of 82:

Oct 8 15:00 UTC 2003

re #35 . born and raised on a farm ... been there, seen that. dad would
separate teh albinos fromt eh general population for their protection.
  
i have seen, rarely because they were usually removed to safety early, the
resident non-albino population attack teh 'different ones.'
  
'different ones' alwyas need protection from teh general population, adn
taht applies to humans as well.

response 53 of 82:

Oct 8 18:13 UTC 2003

re #52...the man in question was bit on the leg by the tiger while playing
with it.  when he went to the hospital to have the bite mark tended to, that
is when authorities realized it wasn't any dog bite.  then the cops went to
his apartment and saw the tiger looking out the window at them

response 57 of 82:

Oct 8 19:18 UTC 2003

In the long run, habitat protection would be cheaper - and have a better
result. A captive breeding program is forever. Land needs to be purchased
just once. The main problem with captive breeding programs is that they
are initially cheaper, and hence more likely to be done, but with a worse
long-term outcome. Additional problems with captive breeding programs are
genetic drift and the threat of diseases in small populations. 

response 59 of 82:

Oct 8 23:38 UTC 2003

I'm finally starting to remember the famous tiger/lion/beast attack that
happened on some old live-TV variety show.  Might have been Ed Sullivan. 
Anyway, the animal attacked somebody, and because it was live and such they
best the director could do was switch to a camera on the audience.  A very
shocked-looking audience, with horror on their faces.

If I couuld remember more detail I'd probably be able to find the info on
Google.  I did see a clip of it a few years ago..

response 61 of 82:

Oct 9 02:25 UTC 2003

Rane, how large a wild population would it take for us to let them be and have
them preserve their species?  If each tiger requires a territory of 600 square
miles[1], and those territories would have to be contiguous for the population
to meet and breed with each other, you're talking about an enormous amount
of land.  Even for Siberia.  Even if you aren't worried about poachers.  And
habitat protection for an animal that doesn't have many wild members would
still require a captive breeding program to come up with the animals that
you want to live in the preserved habitat.

I'm not saying that habitat preservation is a bad idea--especially as captive
breeding merely for the sake of species continuation is, as you say, an
infinitely long project.  I'm just pointing out that habitat preservation for
a wild tiger population is an *incredibly* costly endeavor.

[1] http://www.lpzoo.com/tour/factsheets/mammals/siberian_tiger.html

response 63 of 82:

Oct 9 06:51 UTC 2003

Re #61: what I couldn't find quickly is the area that would be necessary
for maintaining a healthy tiger population. The articles mostly only mention
an individual tiger's territory (which differ widely). But let's say it
is something like 2500 square miles (of suitable habitat). That is not
really enormous - Yellowstone NP is ca. 3500 square miles. Take a look
at the globe - that is a little spot. The area per-se isn't the problem,
but rather prior political claims to it against the world's desires to
protect biodiversity. 

My point was that while that is expensive, it is much MORE expensive - and
probably bound to fail - to maintain a captive breeding population for
thousands of years. 

response 65 of 82:

Oct 9 16:30 UTC 2003

You think they will both last thousands of years? 

response 67 of 82:

Oct 9 16:58 UTC 2003

 i hope so for the sake of my grandchildren.