Well-said. This follows the argument that rather than spreading the net wide and more expansive (and expensive) than it ought to be, focus on your strengths (these 2 reserves); more tiger saved per dollar spent. Tiger parts demand, though, remains inelastic, and history bears this out. This plan is a good medium-term strategy, I would agree, but has no end-game. 4,000 is still a small population at the end of it, and expanding reserves down the line and relocating animals will still pose the same problem it is now: it's too expensive to maintain so many reserves. And just 2 reserves puts too many eggs into too few baskets. Sudden population collapse due to disease would pose too great a risk to the species. Allowing legal hunting of tigers for sustainable tiger-derived products, and using those revenues for conservation would preserve the species, as the case-in-point with alligators in the Babbage post pointed out. I don't see a strong counter-argument to that as a sustainable long-term strategy.