Reply to comment

Li Quan tells that too much importance has been attributed to "a single study" (Tilson et al., 2004) that concluded the South China tiger was functionally extinct. Adding she co-funded the survey for such study "in spite of advice of many individuals from large conservation organizations" telling her Tilson was not suited to do the job, she states "I choose [sic] Tilson because he wrote a paper in 1998" on the impending extinction of the tigers in the wild. Curious about these claims, I decided to take a closer look at them (and, no, I have not met Ron Tilson either):

- Was Tilson et al. (2004) the only study to claim this tiger was functionally extinct?

In Taming the tiger trade (http://preview.tinyurl.com/6nq28h), a 2007 Traffic East Asia report, Nowell & Ling wrote (p.2): "it is generally accepted that the South China Tiger is functionally extinct, there being no viable population (Anon., 2002a; Huang et al., 2003; Breitenmoser et al., 2006; Sanderson et al., 2006)."

In Far from a cure: The tiger trade revisited (http://preview.tinyurl.com/5t2ml3), Nowell wrote (p.19): "The South China Tiger is now considered the most endangered Tiger subspecies and is virtually extinct in the wild (Nowell and Jackson, 1996 and Tilson et al., 1997)." (Not to mention p.v, where it says the "population had been virtually exterminated" not long after the tigers were given legal protection in China.)

But even if Li Quan were not to read reports from the major conservation groups, one can certainly expect she has read Survey of pre-selected sites in China and recommendation on a pilot reserve for the re-introduction of the Chinese tiger by Anderson, Defu, Hualong, Jun & Stalmans. They write in the Executive Summary (p.4): "The South China tiger (Panthera tigris ssp. amoyensis) has become virtually extinct as a result of past policies and hunting that impacted directly on its numbers and also reduced its prey base." And, to make sure the reader remembers it, they write it again (p.8): "The South China tiger (Panthera tigris ssp. amoyensis) has become virtually extinct as a result of past policies and hunting that impacted directly on its numbers and also reduced its prey base (Lu 1987)."

Why do I maintain Ms. Quan must have read this report? Because her own organization commissioned it, and her name (plus phone and e-mail) is given on the cover as a the contact person for enquiries. Two additional elements are germane for understanding the relevance of this report (and the irrelevance of her claim): (1) the report is of January 2004 but Tilson's et al. paper appeared a month later; and (2) Hu Defu (Beijing Forestry Univ.) is a co-author in both publications. What Ms. Quan claims is false at various levels.

- Did she receive the "advice of many individuals from large conservation organizations" against Tilson?

The website of her organization records her numerous complaints about the negative attention they received from the conservation groups, such as these of April 11, 2003: "Three years ago (early 2000), when I was preparing to set up our organization Save China's Tigers, I had to "beg" tiger conservationists to pay attention to the South China Tiger. [...] Then, I was informed that people who attended the Tiger forum in Russia on the Amur tigers and Amur leopard were "laughing at" me." http://english.savechinastigers.org/node/272

These and other complaints against conservation organizations (coupled with the professional record of Tilson) make her claim quite difficult to believe. In fact, it becomes totally unbelievable after reading the February 14, 2003, entry in that website: "Save China's Tigers is extremely grateful to Dr Tilson and his team, who accepted China's request for specialist assistance when many others had refused." http://english.savechinastigers.org/node/278

So, Ms. Quan's claim is false as well. Her own site indicates Tilson was the only willing to do the survey after others had refused to do it.

- Did she "choose Tilson because he wrote a paper in 1998" on the tiger's impending extinction?

The paper of Tilson, Traylor-Holzer & Qui (The decline and impending extinction of the South China tiger. Oryx 31:243-252) was published in 1997. What Ms. Quan claims there-- oh, well.

Regarding the rest of her posting, I contend it does not deserve more recognition than being another revealing, petty attempt of character assassination of a competitor. Readers interested in what seems an unbiased comparison of Quan's rewilding plans versus Tilson's non-rewilding plans should read the Science piece "Can the Wild Tiger Survive" (317:312-1314) of September 7, 2007. If you do not have personal or institutional access to the magazine's archives, the copyrighted piece is also available at the website Save China's Tiger. http://preview.tinyurl.com/66qas6