Article on the misleading nature of Tiger King:
https://www.outsideonline.com/241141...=pocket-newtab
Without knowing all the true details, this article defends Baskin somewhat, but I found this interesting:
Quote:
|
Let’s jump back to the breeders for a second, though, because that’s where Tiger King really drops the ball. The show gives voice to the idea that breeders are helping wildlife by increasing their numbers. “We’re makin’ more of ’em,” Joe says. This is one of the most common arguments you hear from tiger owners and breeders. It’s also intellectually dishonest, and the fact the series does not give anyone a chance to correct it in the documentary is irresponsible. Virtually all privately owned tigers in the U.S. are mutts who do not belong to any of the six distinct subspecies found in the wildand therefore are genetically useless to conservation efforts. The show lets Joe and others suggest that if it looks like a tiger, it must be a tiger, never bothering to point out that that’s not actually the case. Tony the Tiger would do better in the wild. At least he wouldn’t muddy wild genes.
|
I think it was the Stark guy (not Robb or Bran or Ned) in Tiger King that stated that they were "making more of them" so how could it be bad?