 Even if you're not one of the tens of millions of people who's already seen Tiger King on Netflix, you've definitely heard of it. Spoilers ahead. This docu-series is, how do I put it? Insane. It's also really well made, especially in terms of how it handles revealing information to the audience. Every time the narrative presents an unbelievable new plot twist, the next turn gets even crazier. Between the completely bonkers storylines about mathematics, expired meat, murder for hire, and feeding husbands to tigers, Allegedly, it's pretty clear that there are no real winners or heroes in the Tiger King saga. But the series does bring up some questions about the private ownership of exotic animals, governmental protection efforts, and what, if anything, can be done by individuals to protect endangered species. Unfortunately, in the end, viewers are largely presented with only two options, exploitation and abuse of endangered animals, or heavy-handed government regulation. But are those the only choices we have? Well, throw on those cat ears, squeeze into your leopard print leotards, and buckle up because we're going on an animal safari to answer that very question on this short edition of Out of Frame. Tiger King begins by introducing us to a couple of key players in the world of big cat owners, Joe Exotic and Doc Ansel. Both of them are shown as larger-than-life characters with atypical predilections and serious obsessions with big cats. The framing is pretty clear. Check out these deviance who just want to have tigers. We're also introduced to the woman who appears to be their foil, Carol Baskin. Carol is also a very odd person who owns big cats, but unlike Joe and Doc, she's channeling her crazy towards getting legislation passed to prevent things like breeding, cub petting, and so on. She's not exactly the good guy, but at least she's trying to help the animals, right? Well, as the show carries on, we see that there are plenty of shady shenanigans to go around. Everyone is using tigers as a way to get money and favors from other people. It's also strongly alleged that Carol killed her second husband and possibly fed him to her tigers. It becomes clear that Carol is no better than Joe or Doc. She's just better at framing herself as a savior for the animals. And to be perfectly clear, I think just about everyone's behavior on the show is reprehensible. The living conditions for the animals that are shown are abysmal. Health and safety conditions for workers and guests are low to non-existent. And distressingly, we learn that it's likely many of the tigers were just being killed once they became too old for patrons to hold and pet. That's not okay. That said, there's nothing inherently wrong with the private ownership of exotic animals, especially if we actually care about increasing the populations of endangered species. In the second episode, one of the less offensive tiger breeders in the show, Tim Stark says, What's the first thing you should do to protect an endangered species? Make more, not eliminate the source. As difficult as it is to agree with Joe or Doc or Tim Stark on anything, he makes a good point. There are more privately owned tigers in the United States than there are living in the wild, and it's super easy to get angry at poachers and habitat loss for causing these problems. Report after report comes out every year, and they all tend to advocate the same kinds of conclusions. Stronger legal restrictions on ownership and commercial breeding of exotic animals are, according to them, the only answer. Animals should never be on display to the public for amusement. This should all be illegal, full stop. But we've tried this approach for decades around the world, and it doesn't actually work very well. And while, yes, there are some people who exploit animals and treat them poorly, not everyone who owns endangered animals does. And economics gives us a functional solution that most people don't really like to talk about. The profit motive. Many animal rights people, as Joe Exotic calls them, cast aspersions on ecotourism, but prominent conservationists in Africa consider it an essential part of wildlife protection efforts. Even trophy hunting, as counter-intuitive as it sounds, when thoughtfully done, has a place in saving endangered species. Is it wise for people in suburban neighborhoods to keep big cats as family pets in their backyards? No, not really. But just like other attempts to prohibit dangerous but desirable things, from drugs and alcohol to certain kinds of weapons, we know that criminalizing the possession of something doesn't make it go away. What prohibition does do is push these transactions into dangerous and less accountable black and gray markets, discouraging upstanding buyers and sellers from participating and encouraging those who are generally more inclined to flout rules and guidelines anyway. People like notorious drug dealer and admitted accessory to murder and dismemberment, Mario Tabro, for example. When these kinds of transactions are brought back into legal channels, they become more transparent. Violence decreases and safety improves. When people can legally profit from protecting wildlife, they often stop trying to profit from killing them. We've seen this from poachers turn protectors of sea turtles in Sri Lanka and elsewhere. And we've also seen the reverse happen with game wardens becoming poachers when their wildlife reserves aren't able to profit. Individual voluntary action can have a powerful impact on how wild animals and those in captivity are cared for. The documentary Blackfish, for example, led to such a public outcry and negative financial impact that theme park chain SeaWorld dramatically changed the way they keep and treat orcas. Public awareness campaigns and boycotts have also led to a huge reduction in the use of animal performances and circuses. Neither of these changes required new federal laws or increasing federal authority. Private ownership of endangered animals and the freedom to earn a profit from them can and does help preserve and grow threatened populations. We've seen it with the American bison. We've seen it with white rhinos. We've seen it with elephants in Zimbabwe. In fact, we're seeing it throughout Africa's private game reserves. There's no reason to think that we can't see the same thing with tigers. The main differences between private reserves in Africa and private big cat parks in America is the level of legality. I know it's hard for a lot of people to believe, but the evidence shows that if people were free to buy and sell big cats legally, we'd see fewer shady actors in the marketplace and increase in the quality of life for the animals and a greater ability to fund sanctuaries that can increase the population of endangered animals in the wild. Hey everybody, thanks for watching this short episode of Out of Frame. Let me know what you think in the comments. If you want to know more about the private conservation efforts I mentioned, check out the links in the description. And don't forget to like, share, subscribe, hit that bell icon to all of our social channels, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Thanks for watching.