Why should we care about tigers?

The first results of the unofficial tiger census are out and the new numbers show that tiger population levels are much lower than what was previously estimated. This is partly due to poaching but also because the previously used pugmark census method is thought to be inaccurate. [Totally untrue. The picture on the left shows me when I made one of my many sightings of herds of tigers during an OFFICIAL tiger census in 2002.]

My question is, why do they adopt these new fangled approaches when the old approach did such a great job of inflating and conflating the tiger numbers, thus keeping everyone happy. The forest officials were happy since the existence of tigers in a tiger reserve is argued to be important for their job security, so were the poachers who could kill tigers with impunity, the Chinese Traditional Medicince practitioners who could use tiger's genitals in potent aphrodisiacs (not making that up) with a guilt free conscience, and you and me who could rejoice that our national symbol was safe.

Ok, everyone was happy except the tigers who could then be denied extra protection on the basis that they are not really endangered. But should we care what the tigers think? It's not like they think of us much before wolfing us down. In fact, I'm sure the only thought on a tiger's mind when they see my considerable midriff is what a tasty morsel it would make.

Wildlife conservationists come up with a lot of reasons for why we should protect wildlife. One reason is that is often cited is that our planet is a complex ecosystem of which we are all a part. If that balance is disturbed, by say killing every single tiger, then it could come back to bite us in the ass (not the tiger which as you would no doubt have noticed, would be dead). Humbug! We have been systematically cutting trees, polluting air and water, and reclaiming land for centuries and my ass looks as rotund and un-bitten as ever.

Another reason cited is economic. That countries could stand to make a lot of money through eco-tourism. Has anyone cared to ask the tigers whether they want to see tons of Indian tourists descending in hordes hoping to catch Mr. and Mrs. Tiger do it like they do on the Discovery Channel?

But the reason that that is cited most often is an ethical one. This is framed in a number of ways. Being an expert on ethical matters, I will answer all those questions.

Q. Shouldn't we leave this planet in a better state than we found it for our children?
A. No! what have those selfish little cretins done for us lately? And besides who is to say that having more tigers is a better state?

Q. What and who gives us the right to destroy other species?
A. Let me ask a question in return. What and who gave George Bush the right to invade Iraq? But yet, to prevent Saddam from killing, torturing and maiming thousands of people, George Bush chose to step in to prevent such wanton and senseless bloodshed by the sacrificing the lives of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. While other equivocated about rights, George Bush just did what he thought was right. I'm not trying to convince you that we have the right to destroy tigers, but we certainly have the right to look the other way, just as most of the world is doing with Iraq or Tibet.

Q. Don't we as the most rational species on Earth have the responsibility to protect other lesser species?
A. Yes but not at a detriment to ourselves. India's total land area is roughly 3 million sq km. A male tiger requires between 60-100 sq km, which he will not deign to share with other male tigers (such selfishness). That's a maximum of about 37500 male tigers. Now when you compare that to India's 500 million plus males living in relative harmony [with 16 people sharing 28 sq. metres in Mumbai slums], I ask you who is a more worthy occupant from a rational space utilization perspective.