white tiger breeding should be illegal

I'm new to this site, and appreciate the opportunity to "cut my teeth". That said, let me get right to it. Should I violate any norms, please forgive me (and hold me accountable, though, so I can learn). I'll begin with some preliminary points: My opponent has put forth the proposition that White Tiger breeding should be illegal. This is a different proposition than, say, tightly controlled. Or even "should be avoided by zoos". Many zoos have begun to make their own decision to not breed White Tigers any more. ". .. William Conway, director of the NY Zoological Association, which later became known as the Bronx zoo. .. said, "White tigers are freaks. It's not the role of a zoo to show two headed calves and white tigers. " "[1] This is a legitimate point on the part of zoos; it is, however, not my opponent's point. Tigers are, in general, an endangered species, across the board. I argue that ALL efforts to preserve them serve the purpose of conserving the species as a whole, provided those efforts are undertaken with some measure of responsibility. I concede that IRRESPONSIBLE breeding of White Tigers can lead to unnecessary Tiger deaths, and can drain resources away from conserving Tigers that have not been inbred to the point of deficiency, I argue that White Tiger breeding should perhaps be limited, controlled, or regulated, but not completely banned. White Tigers are pretty, and pretty animals get attention. I think that's a premise that can be accepted easily by my opponent. So-called "cute" animals aren't eaten, but pigs and cows go right onto the chopping block. In much the same way, aesthetics may be a reason for the breeding of Tigers in the first place, and preventing the White Tiger breeding may not free up resources for "Regular" Tiger breeding, but rather prevent the breeding at all. Siegfried and Roy might not have chosen Tigers at all if there hadn't been any white ones. And some zoos may see an uptick in attendance when they have White Tigers. While not convincing arguments for preferring White Tiger breeding by any means, I do not believe that limiting the breeding should be done unless absolutely necessary. Since my opponent opened with some points, I'd like to address them. For the sake of character limits, I may use ellipsis to draw the reader's attention to the original comment while still making this response of a readable length. "white tigers could not exist in the wild. they are inbred in captivity. white tigers are white because of genetic mutation. made white by breeders. " While it is true that many White Tigers are "inbred in captivity", it is flatly untrue that they "could not exist in the wild". To prove that: "Rewa Maharaja Martand Singh first observed male white tiger Mohan during his visit to Govindgarh jungle at Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India. After hunting for months, he was able to capture the first living white tiger seen in nature. " "Estimations show that around one in 15,000 wild Bengal tiger births will result in a white tiger. " "Siegfried & Roy performed at least one outcross. [27] In the mid-1980s they offered to work with the Indian government in the creation of a healthier strain of white tigers. " [1] They can exist in the wild, and are not necessarily inbred, although I'd certainly concede the point that they are for the most part; this is not, however, a debate about how well the White Tiger breeders behave, but whether it should be allowed to breed them at all. "think. where do tigers live? green places or grassy places. .. the tiger cant depend on the needed attack on their prey. " This point is unsupported. While it would seem to make sense, at the same time it is known that they have been known to exist in the wild, albeit in small numbers. Before I can accept the "evolutionary argument", I'd need to see it backed up. However, even if it were backed up, it would not necessarily mean that White Tiger breeding should be outlawed. There are many species of dogs, for example, that would never survive without humans, but we allow their breeding. I would rebut the "they shouldn't even exist evolution-wise" (if it were accepted as true. .. I actually have some arguments against its very validity, but I request my opponent back up the point before I attack it, since they are the one who presented the point in the first place) by saying that that doesn't matter. White Tigers can breed "Normal" Tigers, if putting Tigers back into the wild is the goal; further, as noted below, it may be possible to introduce White Tigers themselves into the wild, so the point may be completely invalid. "no legitamite conservation effort has made any plans to release white tigers in the wild. white tigers that are born in captivity stay in captivity. " So are most "Normal" Tigers. However, there have been efforts to reintroduce them into the wild. I have only the following link, but the blanket statement that there have been no efforts whatsoever to reintroduce them, I think, would be falsified by it (while at the same time I concede that this may not have been a "legitimate" conservation effort, particularly since I didn't find more about it and it's from 2010): . http://www.thehindu.com... "inbreeding causes other defects in these tigers. " This is a true statement. However, it is a point about the negative effects of irresponsible breeding, not of the negatives inherent in breeding White Tigers. If this debate were about banning inbreeding, I'd be on the same page. And I concede the point that most White Tiger breeding is done in an irresponsible manner. But the "white gene" is recessive, but present, in more tigers than just the whites themselves. A responsible breeding program would take that into account. "every white tiger has crossed eyes. .. " Crossed eyes may be compensated for. Many people have Strabismus (I'm one of them, in fact), but we don't prevent their breeding. While it is a "problem", it is by no means severe enough of one to warrant prohibition (it is by no means as bad as the problems caused by inbreeding). "1 in 10,000 white tiger cubs will be white. none have ever been recorded to be an adult. " I request clarification. The gene is recessive, however, the cub of two White Tigers will be white, and the child of a White Tiger and a "Normal" tiger with the gene has a 50% chance of being white. .. I suspect that the "1 in 10,000" is a statistic of cubs in the wild? Wikipedia uses an estimate of 1 in 15,000, which includes cubs born from the majority of tigers who don't have the recessive gene, but I'll again ask clarification. White Tigers have certainly been seen as adults, and the last one shot in the wild was no cub. "normal tiger behaviors would prevent a white tiger from ever being born. " Since the first white tiger officially recorded was taken from the wild, I think this claim can be safely considered rebutted. Conceded to be very uncommon, though. "8 out of 10 cubs will die from the inbreeding needed to make the white show. " Citation, please. But also irrelevant unless you make the argument that the behavior of bad actors makes prohibition worthwhile over regulation, particularly in such an endangered species. While your math at the end is correct re: genetics, it contradicts your earlier, confusing statement about 1 in 10,000. And it discounts breeding with one parent that has a fully expressed recessive gene, which brings the likelihood up to 2/4 cubs, a respectable chance considering that most litters are around 2-4 cubs. As regards to the cubs killed because of the lack of their desirability, that is again an argument against irresponsible breeding, not against the breeding in the first place. [1] -- . http://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you, and I look forward to a response.