While I do agree that most white tigers are inbred, Taj is not the off-spring of two white tigers (you can see that her sister is a lovely orange Bengal). I feel that it would be rude to the facility that these two are from to add that to the description, especially since the description is minimal and also does not include anything about tigers being endangered/poached/etc. This facility has no intentions of ever breeding Taj because they are also aware that white tigers are not a 'natural' variant of tiger. The habitat even has an entire board explaining white tigers, the commonness of inbreeding and their unnaturalness since they would never survive in the wild.
They don't have to come from white x white parents to be white. They can come from golden x ? and white x golden as. Golden (not normal orange) is a midpoint between white and normal bengals. That said, the sister is normal colored, not inbred golden. I can't find information about the parents, but that's aside the point.
The zoo they inhabit from is reputable (they were rehomed, yes), but so many people have no idea that white tigers are inbred and the zoo supplies this information for a reason: to keep people from supporting bad industries that do breed them.
I'm aware that white tigers can come mixed parents, otherwise she wouldn't have been born. I volunteer at a nature center with wolves, coyotes and foxed. I understand your point. However, most people do not pay enough attention to connect A with B so if I write that white tigers are typically inbred in the description without write an entire backstory, most people are going to jump to the conclusion that this facility is inbreeding tigers. Unfortunately, people often ignore details and I would rather not cause this facility a public relations issue should people jump to the wrong conclusion. While it is important to spread awareness about various animal issues, context is also extremely important, otherwise people misunderstand.
Stock are images that other people are allowed to use. All stock is subject to various rule (ESPECIALLY HERE ON DA) and it is best to read each stock providers rules before using any of their images. For example, my images are not allowed to be used commercially (as in for profit purposes) and can only be used for personal projects. Other artists might allow people to use their stock commercially. You can use stock for things such as references for drawings or in photo manipulations.
Because I TOOK the photos. It isn't just free property for the world to use. I work hard on my photography work so I don't see how it is fair for the entire world to profit off of my work. If somebody is offering images as 'stock' and they did not take the images themselves, they are probably breaking a copyright law and probably have no right to offer the image as stock in the first place.
I've seen those 'stock providers' who are clearly just taking images off of google. It always makes me angry because they definitely don't have the right to be offering those to other people. All of the images in my gallery were photos taken by me.