1

As long as it not makes money I am afraid those old men in charge do not give a hoot.

And in Thailand are also living 65mil people who are living almost everywhere (also in that 15% managed under the care of those old men) and I am not sure if they are so happy with tigers roaming around ... wait they will be happy because they will shoot them and sell some parts to the old Chinese man to be used as herbs & medicine.

You know love animals and love tigers, elephants and dino's but I am very happy that they are not living in my back-yard.

Chang Noi

2

They might realise that there is money in being the premier eco-destination in S.E. Asia.

You might want to check out how wildlife and humans can coexist - it doesn't involve tigers in your back yard. It is largely conflicts over land usage that start the problems.

population of Thailand is bout the same as UK, but the country is TWICE the size. A lot of the land wasn't developed until the 20th century.
Deforestation has occurred since WW2 and is not always the result of economics but was political.
Take a look a the population densities in the Western Forest Complex and the other countries they wish to include.

A lot of the forests in Thailand suffer from encroachment - some even have habitation before they became NPs or Sanctuaries and there are some issues here but the report takes into count the human population and has already identified and made proposals to handle this in ways that accommodate both humans and animals.

of course one good thing about the "old men in charge" is that they ae old and will hopefully become extinct before the Tiger.

3

the key word is "could" I doubt it "will" be

4

Quite a big issue really so I won't get drawn into semantics especially when they are tangential to the main idea