To save tigers in Bangladesh, deer farming must end

City Desk :

July 29, 2025 was the Global Tiger Day. WildTeam joined the Bangladesh Forest Department to celebrate this day. The theme was “Increase in Tiger Population, Prosperity of the Sundarbans.” WildTeam (former Wildlife Trust of Bangladesh) has been talking against deer farming in the country since 2010.

Being a deltaic country Bangladesh, had extensive forest reserves of which many are lost today. The remaining natural forests of the country not only hold a wide variety of wildlife but also serve as a protection from natural calamities like cyclones.

In addition to this, millions of people also depend on forest resources to earn a livelihood. Needless to say, the sustainability of the forests is intertwined with the survival of the wildlife they hold. Therefore, if any species of fauna is threatened, it threatens the forest as a whole. Without wildlife, forests will not exist and so will we not. Indeed, no matter whether it is an urban dweller or a rural fisherman, our lives are directly or indirectly linked with our natural heritage.

Among the many wild mammals found in Bangladesh one is the spotted deer, the majority of which are found in the Sundarbans. Apart from the Sundarbans, some introduced populations of spotted deer are also found in NijhumDwip of Noakhali and Char Kukri Mukri Wildlife Sanctuary in Bhola. Deer play an important role in the complex systems of a forest; large mammals such as deer can act as keystone species that determine ecosystem diversity and distribution through alteration of vegetation succession. For instance, foraging by deer affects the survival rate of herb, shrub and tree species.

Deer also contribute to nitrogen cycling and disturbance regimes and they provide direct food for predators such as tigers. Indeed, spotted deer are the main food for tigers in the Sundarbans, and any decline in the wild population of deer will, in turn, directly affect the survival of our national animal.
Enayetullah Khan, Founder, WildTeam

In summary, the removal of such keystone species will therefore risk the future of the whole ecosystem and its biodiversity.
Despite these risks, the Government of Bangladesh has formed a policy to allow commercial farming of spotted deer. The policy allocates the Forest Department and the Government Zoos the authority to sell wild spotted deer as the primary stock for farming thereby allowing anyone to raise spotted deer as ordinary farm cattle. The source of the primary deer stock for farming is not specified.

The policy will be of concern to anyone who is well aware of the scenario that prevails in the communities adjoining the Sundarbans: lack of wildlife crime monitoring and inadequate law enforcement have led to out-of- control spotted deer poaching and consumption in and around the Sundarbans. As many as 11,000 deer per year are consumed in the eight upazilas adjacent to the forest. Indeed, the lack of law enforcement means that the poachers and consumers do not even fear getting caught. Some may argue that farming is an effective tool for reduction of poaching of wild animals.

However, experience of wildlife farming in other countries shows that this venture gives rise to more demand for wildlife products and stimulates poaching thereby putting even more pressure upon wildlife populations and their ecosystems. The legal market provides a route for illegal traders to sell their illegally poached wildlife, leaving law enforcers helpless to apprehend criminals because it is impossible to tell the difference between farmed and wild products.
In the case of spotted deer, the commencement of legal farming and trade inside Bangladesh will therefore result in an increased demand for deer products, and therefore increased poaching of wild deer.
There are a number of arguments that people may put forward in favour of wildlife farming, but for each of these there is a strong well-reasoned counter argument. Wildlife farming policies stand as stark contrast to some of our other policies that actually take environmental sustainability as their first objectives.
Farmed deer have higher production costs than wild deer. When farmers see that they can more cheaply avail wild deer from the wild, they might collect stock from the wild and sell them under the farm’s name. Several thousand deer are poached every year from the Sundarbans. We do not know the effect of the current large amount of poaching is having on the long term future of the Sundarbans deer population, yet we introduced a policy which would likely stimulate more poaching?
Additional poaching pressure can be managed by increased law enforcement Government resources are already limited and also poachers do not fear the law. About 93per cent of deer meat consumers in the Sundarbans periphery know that deer poaching is illegal but they still ignore the law and consume deer meat because they are fond of its taste and do not fear getting caught by law enforcers.
The government departments are unable to manage this existing level of poaching and fraud, let alone the additional poaching and fraud that would be stimulated by the advent of farming. Even countries with excellent anti-poaching staff, still experience a degree of poaching. Staff just cannot be everywhere all the time. So we should not be making the situation even worse for them.
Nearly one in every three people from the Sundarbans periphery who consume poached deer meat gets it at no cost. So why would they pay for farmed deer meat? Some consumers prefer wild deer meat, so farmed meat is not an equal product in their eyes.

Farming is a conservation tool because farmed wildlife can be released back into the wild if wild populations become too low. Why create the problem in the first place? Why introduce a farming policy which stimulates poaching, and then put the farmed animals back into the wild? Why not just avoid the policy in the first place and instead focus efforts on reducing the already high levels of poaching?