Hundreds of people around the world are killed every year by marauding wild tigers. Should those tigers be killed or captured simply for doing what comes naturally to them? And yet, should they be allowed to exercise those natural instincts at the expense of someone's husband, or father, or child?
Tough questions. How much influence should we, as human beings, even feel entitled to invoke with respect to what we feel is right or wrong for the tiger?

In India, entire communities of people have been moved out of tiger territory against their will. Whose land is it? And who is entitled to make decisions regarding whether or not that land is better served by having only animals there, only people there, or a combination of both?

Even when the human "animal" is removed from the equation, many ethical dilemmas associated with tiger conservation persist. For example, should some tigers be killed so that other tigers might live? That's exactly how Mother Nature handles it. When there's not enough land for two (very territorial) wild tigers to survive together, the weaker one is forced out by the stronger one, and is likely to die of starvation.

Or, should some tigers be kept in cages so that tigers in the wild can be better understood or in order to have a possible backup solution in the event of extinction in the wild? That's what we do with our zoos. Can we overcome the ethical dilemma of holding some tigers in captivity simply by enriching their environment? If we do try to enrich that environment, how far can we, or should we, go? Should we allow those tigers to breed as they do in their wild environment? If so, we don't have any place to keep the cubs. If not, we condemn captive tigers to a very unenriched environment in captivity.

Then, why is it so important to work towards the conservation of the tiger as opposed to the conservation of other equally endangered species? Few people are concerned with the many species of very endangered insects, even though several are much more endangered than the tiger and a good argument can be made that their extinction would be more dangerous to the biosphere. Should we favor the tiger, in terms of our efforts to conserve it, simply because we find it more attractive? Is that the basis on which we intend to proceed with respect to all conservation? Serious arguments against such a basis have been, still are, and will forever be leveled.

For that matter, why is it important to work towards the conservation of the tiger at all? The fact is that tigers are not endangered … in captivity. They breed readily, and can be kept in zoos or animal parks forever without fear of extinction. Why, then, is it essential for us to pursue the conservation of the wild tiger? Is it because knowing that the tigers are safe in the forest gives us hope for the future of our own species?

Each of us must carefully evaluate our approach to the ethical questions involved in the conservation of every endangered species, and especially with one so complicated as the wild tiger.