Shipping
Shipping the art is not included in the sale price. The item/items will be shipped directly from the artist. This is to mitigate damage to the art in transit. The majority of our artists are UK based, however, many are from South Afracica, Europe and the USA.
Once the art is purchased, the artist will contact you to arrange shipping and to make arrangements for the shipping payment. They are also happy to chat and answer any questions you might have.
Please take note that there may be import/export costs payable for international deliveries.
If you wish to discuss anything before purchasing art, please contact us via the live watsapp chat button or email [email protected].
Artist Bio
Working as an illustrator for over 15 years, his client list varied from broadsheet newspapers, magazines and design agencies. Hashim became more interested in developing his own paintings and started exhibiting, demonstrating and running workshops. He is now a represented artist and has won numerous awards, he is the author of ‘Vibrant Acrylics’, ‘Painting Urban and Cityscapes’, Dorling Kindersley Artist’s Painting Techniques’, ‘Painting Portraits in Acrylic’ with a new acrylic book coming in 2023. He has two paintings in the national collection and is also a regular contributor to The Artist and Illustrators magazine
IUCN Red List
The Tiger is listed as Endangered under criterion A2abcd. Based on the evidence of Tiger population and/or range declines across the 30-year assessment period (upper bound of GL (7-10 years)) in at least nine of the 13 countries, which had extant Tiger subpopulations at the beginning of the assessment period, we applied a conservative precautionary approach to the assessment. However, we recognize that there are several uncertainties (see below) in the available data from the past and that the classification of Endangered as opposed to Vulnerable is marginal. There are only two population estimates available that may be used as baselines for estimating population changes over the past three generations (21–30 years): 1) in 1998, the global Tiger population was estimated at 5,000 to 7,000 Tigers (Seidensticker et al. 1999) and 2) in 1996, Nowell and Jackson (1996) estimated global Tiger numbers at 8,262 (based on a summation of their regional estimates). Based on the most recent national estimates (see Supplementary Information), the global Tiger population numbers between 3,726 and 5,578 individuals and is restricted to ten countries. Assuming that, on average, 70% of Tigers in a subpopulation are mature (see Supplementary Information), this provides a best estimate of 3,140 (2,608–3,905) mature individuals. Comparing the numbers of Seidensticker et al. (1999) to the upper and lower bounds of the current population estimate results in estimated population declines ranging from 22% to 63%. Based on these results, the Tiger qualifies for a range of possible Red List Categories from Near Threatened to Endangered applying criterion A2ab (see Supplementary Information). Comparing the estimate of Nowell and Jackson (1996) to the upper and lower bound of the current population estimate results in population declines ranging from 53% to 68%, classifying the Tiger as Endangered under criterion A2ab in all cases (see Supplementary Information). Based on these analyses, we classify Tigers as Endangered under criterion A2ab for several reasons: 1) of the nine possible outcomes from these comparisons, five result in assessing Tigers as Endangered (see Supplementary Information), 2) a precautionary approach is warranted given the severe, ongoing threats to Tigers and their extirpation from several countries since the turn of the century (see below and Supplementary Information), 3) a precautionary approach is recommended by the IUCN Guidelines and, 4) even if the lower bound of the estimated population decline would be applied, the IUCN’s five-year rule would only allow moving a taxon from a Category of higher threat to a Category of lower threat if none of the Criteria of the higher Category has been met for five years, which is highly unlikely for the Tiger. Comparing Seidensticker’s et al. (1999) estimate and Nowell and Jackson’s (1996) estimate with the current estimated population size in 2021 results in applied generation lengths of 7.7 years and 8.3 years respectively, both of which fall within the estimated range of the estimated Generation Length of 7–10 years (see Population section). The calculations over 7 or 10 years would not change the decline significantly to change the listing of the Tiger as Endangered. Moreover, information on trends in global Tiger numbers in the 1990s are insufficient to justify linear or exponential extrapolation of the global population to explore the full range of the 7- to 10-year generation length. Evidence indicates that Tigers have undergone a range contraction of >50% over the past three generations leading to a suspected population reduction of >50%, thereby satisfying subcriterion A2c. In 1994, Dinerstein et al. (1997) estimated to total 1.64 million km² in 159 Tiger Conservation Units (TCUs), roughly equivalent to discrete meta-populations, not including Russia (later estimated at 270,0000 km², making the total 1,910,000 km² (Sanderson et al. 2006)) and China. This exercise was revised and updated ten years later, when the occupied Tiger range was estimated at 1.1 million km² in 74 Tiger Conservation Landscapes (roughly equivalent to discrete meta-populations; Sanderson et al. 2006). The TCL analysis was conducted again in 2021 (Sanderson et al. in prep.) when the occupied range was 978,293 km², a 54% decline since 1994 and a 7% decline since 2001. That there are currently between 654,254 and 1,030,027 km² of unoccupied Tiger habitat (includes 654,254 km² of Restoration Landscapes and 375,773 km² of Survey Landscapes (Sanderson in prep.) is testament to the severity of poaching of Tigers and their prey and recent local extinctions in Viet Nam, Cambodia and Lao PDR are directly attributed to poaching (Sanderson et al. 2006, O’Kelly et al. 2012, Johnson et al. 2016). Based on this, we infer a >50% population reduction over the past three generations, thereby satisfying subcriterion A2d. Declines over the past three generations are largely due to poaching and habitat loss. Both threats continue throughout the Tiger range; hence, criterion A1 was dismissed (Walston et al. 2010; Sanderson et al. 2006 and in prep.; Robinson et al. 2015). Criteria A3 and A4 were also dismissed because future trends are unclear. In parts of the Tiger’s range, Tigers have more recently been protected from these threats well enough to stabilize or even increase Tiger numbers (e.g., some protected areas in India, Nepal, Thailand, and NE Asia; Dhakal et al. 2014, Duangchantrasiri et al. 2016, Jhala et al. 2019). However, in other areas, such as most of Southeast Asia, Tiger numbers continue to decline (Walston et al. 2010, Raspone et al. 2019). These regional trends are expected to continue, with some gains in South and possibly Northeast Asia and further declines in Southeast Asia. Gains in South Asia with high Tiger densities may well offset losses in Southeast Asia, resulting in an increasing future trend in global Tiger numbers. Seidensticker et al. (1999) and Nowell and Jackson (1996) did not specify whether the estimate of 5,000–7,000 and 8,262 Tigers, respectively, reflected all cohorts or only mature individuals. Still, given the low quantity and quality of data available at the time, it is likely that it included all cohorts except, perhaps, cubs, which are not normally included in population estimates. If that were the case, the estimate of mature individuals would have been lower, possibly representing <50% decline needed to qualify as Endangered. Neither of these two estimates from the 1990s were based on significant field surveys where population density was estimated or modelled from known densities, and hence caution has to be taken when estimating population trends. Nevertheless, they are the only most accurate available estimates to compare the current estimated population size to. Moreover, the decline in Tiger occupancy of >50% may not represent a >50% population decline because the decline was predominantly in Southeast Asia, where Tiger densities and subpopulations are relatively low. The low Tiger subpopulations in Southeast Asia, even at the start of the assessment period, means that their contribution to the overall range-wide decline of Tiger numbers may be relatively small. However, given intense pressures on Tiger subpopulations from poaching and habitat loss, the extirpation of Tigers from Viet Nam, Cambodia, Lao PDR since the turn of the century, and vast tracts of habitats across the species range, including regions in South Asia where the species is still sparsely distributed, or entirely absent, we believe a conservative, precautionary approach is warranted. We provide the first reasonably rigorous estimate of global Tiger numbers, based largely on capture-recapture and occupancy methodologies (see Supplementary Information). This is particularly true for South Asia range states, which make up 76% of the global population. As such, it sets a realistic baseline for future Red List evaluations. We caution the use of previous Red List estimates as a basis of comparison because of the lack of scientific rigour and poor range-wide sampling coverage. For example, the estimate of mature individuals (2,154 Tigers) from Walston et al. (2010) used in the 2011 and 2015 IUCN Red List Assessments of Tigers is very likely an underestimate of the number of mature individuals because it included only protected areas large enough to contain 75 adult Tigers, and hence, excluded many smaller protected areas known to contain mature, breeding Tigers. Further, many protected areas that were subsequently surveyed were not included in this analysis. Hence, this estimate was not and will not be appropriate as a baseline for comparison for future Red List Assessments.
SOURCE: IUCN REDLIST
