Editor’s preface: Netflix’s recent docuseries, “Tiger King,” offers a glimpse into the peculiar realm of private big cat ownership. The series delves into the lives of distinctive personalities, such as Joe Exotic and Bhagavan “Doc” Antle, touching upon themes of multiple marriages, substance dependency, and charismatic leadership cults, all while investigating an enigmatic disappearance and a contract killing.
For Allison Skidmore, a doctoral candidate at the University of California, Santa Cruz, specializing in wildlife trafficking, the documentary fell short in adequately highlighting the pervasive issue of big cats held in captivity.
Having previously served as a park ranger, Skidmore commenced her research into this particular concern within the United States following the widely publicized demise of Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe in 2015. She was taken aback by the minimal regulatory oversight present domestically. We sought her insights on the legality, motivational factors, and the relative ease of acquiring and trading tigers.
1. What is the estimated population of captive tigers in the US?
Regrettably, a definitive figure is not readily attainable. The overwhelming majority of captive tigers are a result of crossbreeding, thus they are not classified as belonging to any of the six distinct tiger subspecies—namely, the Bengal tiger, Amur tiger, South China tiger, Sumatran tiger, Indochinese tiger, and Malayan tiger. Instead, they are categorized as “generic.”
A mere fraction, less than 5%—or under 350 individuals—of captive tigers are managed under the auspices of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a non-profit organization that functions as an accrediting body in the US. This organization ensures that its accredited facilities adhere to more rigorous animal welfare standards than legally mandated.
All other tigers are privately owned, meaning they are not affiliated with any of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums’ 236 member institutions. These are considered generic and operate outside the purview of federal supervision.
There is no legal obligation to register these generic tigers, nor is there a comprehensive national registry for their tracking and monitoring. The most informed estimation places the number of tigers in the US at approximately 10,000. Global estimates for the captive tiger population range as high as 25,000.
In contrast, fewer than 4,000 tigers exist in their natural habitats—a stark decline from 100,000 a century prior.
2. How does the exchange of tigers occur?
The Endangered Species Act and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna prohibit the importation of tigers from their wild environments. Consequently, all tigers within the US originate from captive breeding, with the infrequent exception of an orphaned wild cub that might be placed in a zoo.
Only unequivocally purebred tigers belonging to one of the six recognized subspecies are officially documented; these are the tigers observed in institutions such as the Smithsonian National Zoo and are typically enrolled in the Species Survival Plan. This is a captive breeding initiative designed to regulate the transfer of specific endangered species among member zoos to preserve genetic diversity.
All other tigers are found in various facilities, including zoos, sanctuaries, traveling circuses, wildlife parks, exhibition venues, and private residences that are not accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.
Their transfer can occur through numerous channels, ranging from online platforms to auctions specializing in exotic animals. Prices for cubs can be as low as US$800 to $2,000, while adult tigers may be acquired for $200 to $500, representing a lower cost than many pedigreed dog puppies.
3. Is it legally permissible to acquire a tiger?
The United States grapples with a complex and ambiguous legal landscape regarding tiger ownership.
However, no federal legislation or regulation explicitly prohibits private ownership of tigers. Authority in this regard has been delegated to state and local jurisdictions, and some of these have enacted prohibitions or mandate permit requirements.
Thirty-two states have implemented outright bans or partial restrictions, while 14 states permit ownership with a straightforward licensing or permit process. Four states—Alabama, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Nevada—have no form of regulatory oversight whatsoever.
A unified and comprehensive regulatory framework is absent, and even within states that prohibit private ownership, avenues for circumvention exist. For instance, in all but three states, proprietors can obtain what is termed a “federal exhibitor license.” This license is remarkably inexpensive and easily acquired, effectively bypassing more stringent state or municipal laws.
While a permit is now necessary for transporting tigers across state lines, no such permit is required for intrastate transit.
(Allison Skidmore)
4. What motivates private owners?
Some individuals view this as a commercial enterprise, while others profess a commitment to conservation. I personally regard the latter justification as disingenuous.
Fundamentally, tigers represent a significant revenue stream, particularly tiger cubs. The Animal Welfare Act permits public interaction with cubs between the ages of eight and 12 weeks. Individuals are charged between US$100 and $700 for the opportunity to pet, bottle-feed, swim with, or photograph a cub.
None of the revenue generated from these activities contributes to the conservation efforts for wild tigers. Furthermore, the limited timeframe for direct public engagement necessitates continuous breeding by exhibitors to maintain a consistent supply of cubs.
The market value of cubs depreciates considerably after 12 weeks of age. Consequently, the disposition of these surplus tigers becomes a critical issue. Due to a deficit in regulatory oversight, determining their fate is challenging.
Given that many states do not maintain records of their live tigers, there is also an absence of supervision regarding the documentation and disposal of deceased tigers. Wildlife criminologists express concern that these animals may readily enter the black market, where their parts, collectively, can command prices of up to US$70,000.
Evidence suggests a connection between captive tigers in the US and the domestic illicit trade. In 2003, the proprietor of a tiger “sanctuary” facility was discovered to be in possession of 90 deceased tigers stored in freezers on his premises.
Additionally, in 2001, an investigative operation conducted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service resulted in the prosecution of 16 individuals for the illicit trafficking and slaughter of 19 tigers.
5. What is the influence of social media?
The practice of posing with tigers on social media platforms, such as Instagram, and on dating applications has escalated into a significant concern. This not only poses health and safety risks to both humans and the animals involved but also perpetuates a distorted perception.
The proliferation of images featuring individuals with captive tigers can obscure the critical issue of endangered tigers in their native habitats. This might lead some to question the severity of the endangered status of tigers if they appear so accessible for photographs.
The authentic struggles faced by wild tigers are overshadowed by the ostentation and spectacle prevalent on social media. This marginalizes crucial discourse on conservation and the precarious status of tigers as one of the planet’s most imperiled large cat species. 
Allison Skidmore, PhD Candidate in Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz.
