Don't stop panda extinction

Don't stop panda extinction, says Chris Packham

TV wildlife expert Chris Packham has controversially called for giant pandas to be allowed to die out – with tigers next.

Chris, host of BBC2’s Springwatch, believes the millions spent preserving pandas could be put to better use elsewhere.

He argued: “Here’s a species that of its own accord has gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac. It’s not a strong species.

“Unfortunately it’s big and cute and it’s a symbol of the World Wildlife Fund – and we pour millions of pounds into panda conservation. I reckon we should pull the plug. Let them go with a degree of dignity.”

The cash should instead go on saving biodiversity hotspots, he argued.

Chris, 48, claimed breeding threatened species in captivity then releasing them into the wild was “nonsense” – and said tigers would die out within two decades. He told the Radio Times: “Animals are invariably becoming extinct because there’s no secure habitat for them.

“Where are you going to release them? I don’t think tigers are going to last another 15 years. How can you conserve an animal that’s worth more dead than alive? You can’t.”

Fellow wildlife expert David Bellamy last night backed Chris and said: “I agree completely. When I was a WWF trustee I begged them to buy big chunks of the land in which these animals live, not just go on spending millions on rearing pandas in captivity.

“You can’t release them back into the wild if there is no wild left and we shouldn’t rear animals just to put them into cages.

“Even the WWF admitted there is no longer enough land for them to live on.”

www.mirror.co.uk...


I don't quite know where i stand on this issue. Obviously i don't want to see pandas die out, im sure nobody does, but it seems a hopeless case.

Should we really just give up though?
I don't like the sound of that

Yes, let them die because we took their environment for getaway hotspots and hotels for the rich. Let them die because they are no longer profitable to us.

What the hell, these guys wouldn't be so worried about it costing more to keep their own family alive if someone told them "Just let your wife and children go, they won't last 15 years in the city".

Keep the pandas alive, if not for the right reason then to just spite these ignorant fools.

Originally posted by LiveForever8
“You can’t release them back into the wild if there is no wild left and we shouldn’t rear animals just to put them into cages.

These guys are right - And they have a lot of credibility between them... They are not just faces of the telly.

The hardest thing is that the image of Pandas is so engrained in out psyche regarding conservation that unfortunately the public may loose faith. But sometimes sentimentality can have unfortunate side effects...

Maybe think of the beloved family dog that is kept going just a few years longer than maybe would of been best, sure Fido will smile for you, and is old hip bones will still hold his weight for a while at least, but it's not a dignified exit from the world. Now compare Pandas to a species that have been kept going on life support - because that's actually the case...

I was surprised to read it in the papers, but coming from these guys I respect their opinions on such things...

Now cue the people saying well if we let Panda's die out, what next, Whales?? That is a totally different issue, most endangered species will take care of them selves if left alone, Pandas no longer have that ability.

Let giant pandas become extinct. The males have little interest in sex, the females have little interest in maternity. Picky eaters too.

My guess is that these guys aren't really saying let the Pandas and Tigers go. I hope they are only trying to shock people into paying attention to the habitat issue.

They are completely right about that. It is so obvious the Pandas and Tigers need a place to live if they are indeed to live.

But its not one or the other. The gene pool has to be maintained and the habitable environments needs to be expanded to a point where they can sustain a viable population of each species.

Not so hard to do. Bamboo for one grows fast. Just get the people out the areas -- a more difficult thing to be sure, but not impossible.

I think they're looking at it from the wrong angle. If they're spending millions to keep a species alive and after all the time and effort the species is still on the brink of extinction then obviously they're doing something wrong. As he says the breeding in captivity isn't doing the job.

Many species have been on the brink of extinction in the past, and are now doing quite well for themselves - in the wild. Take the white rhino as a random example.

If we're spending millions on trying to conserve a species, and at the end of the day we're not making a difference, then the obvious resolution should be to change the strategy, not just give up...


[edit on 22-9-2009 by Gemwolf]

Originally posted by Now_Then

Originally posted by LiveForever8
“You can’t release them back into the wild if there is no wild left and we shouldn’t rear animals just to put them into cages.

These guys are right - And they have a lot of credibility between them... They are not just faces of the telly.

The hardest thing is that the image of Pandas is so engrained in out psyche regarding conservation that unfortunately the public may loose faith. But sometimes sentimentality can have unfortunate side effects...

Maybe think of the beloved family dog that is kept going just a few years longer than maybe would of been best, sure Fido will smile for you, and is old hip bones will still hold his weight for a while at least, but it's not a dignified exit from the world. Now compare Pandas to a species that have been kept going on life support - because that's actually the case...

I was surprised to read it in the papers, but coming from these guys I respect their opinions on such things...

Now cue the people saying well if we let Panda's die out, what next, Whales?? That is a totally different issue, most endangered species will take care of them selves if left alone, Pandas no longer have that ability.

I see your point, but you're comparing one animal to an entire species. So we let pandas die out, then 10-20 years later environmentalists can guilt trip us with pictures of extinct animals, and one of them will be the panda.

It's total irresponsible thinking, "Oops we messed up the environment for them, and our reservations are not working, maybe its cheaper to just let them die".

Pandas are picky eaters? The males don't have interest in mating? The females are bad mothers? Whats another species like that? *cough humans* They are picky eaters because we mess up their main diet by killing their environment, I don't know about the males not being interested in mating, Ill look that up later. As for females being bad mothers, I highly doubt that.

I guess what really bothers me is when they were stated as "A weak species". They are weak because we made them weak, and now they have to die because we no longer wish to repair the damage because its pointless, because it costs too much.

Originally posted by LeTan
I guess what really bothers me is when they were stated as "A weak species". They are weak because we made them weak,

Well yes - but every species that has ever become extinct (save single point events - such Tibbles the Cat and the wren colony on Stephens Island ) Has died out because one species or more has gained an upper hand, be that because an asteroid changed the paradigm in favour of small mammals or modern farming techniques make life hard for the humble field mouse.

You have to remember that yes we Humans are the big bad monsters of the natural world - but on the flip side we are the only species ever (that we know of) to be concerned on a global scale and do things about it, Humans are responsible for many many little critters succeeding - and others not succeeding, that's part of evolution - it's just we have the luxury and cognitive ability to sit back and ponder - Tiddles probably spent 5 minutes wondering where the Wrens were and moved onto the mice!

Edit - and plus it was not Humans per say that made them weak, the evolutionary step that took them into a such a unique diet would of happened eon's ago - way before humans could really have a hand in it - now they require massive areas so that they can live peacefully or they are not happy little Panda's - area's that are simply too big to monitor or protect WITHOUT being invasive! So there by the very actions one could put in place to protect one species you could be doing unknown damage to unknown species... Where do you draw the line?

[edit on 22/9/2009 by Now_Then]

reply to post by Now_Then


In other words we should just sit back and let the "weak species" fend for themselves?

Let's disregard the social impact of conservation and consider the threats to biodiversity. At a quick glance it would seem like if we take a species out of the equation, that life goes on as if that species never existed. But if you look closely you'll see that it's all a house of cards. Pull enough cards out, and the whole thing will come tumbling down. At some point our lives will be affected.

Sure, we can sit back and say "Meh, pandas. Who needs them?". And they'll disappear and we live happily ever after. And then we can sit back and watch the tigers - and these guys have killed many humans, so good riddance - disappear into nothingness. But surely we can't stop there. Surely there is another weak species at the top of the list? Who decides when enough is enough? Who decides which species is simply too "weak" (against the big bad wolf that is humans) to try and intervene?

Is it really "evolution" to kill animals simply because they make good trophies?

Rats and roaches are doing very well for themselves (as you say we had a hand in that as well). Why don't we just sit back and let "evolution" do its job, i.e. if we're not going to help "weak" species, then we shouldn't try to stop "strong" species...?

There's a popular saying you'll notice in many stores. You break it. You pay it. I don't see why this rule shouldn't apply here as well.


[edit on 22-9-2009 by Gemwolf]

I'm so glad to see this idea finally seeing the light of day. It has been my view since when...the 70s or so? Whenever it was that they became so threatened. We really must allow the gravely endangered to just go gracefully. If they were viable, they would recover. But when an animal needs porn to "re-educate" on the fundamentals of reproduction, you have to admit that it's already gone the way of the dodo.

To me, all the preservation activity has just become a freak show. It's like bringing back the mammoth. Don't be so stupid - and for God's sake, don't think you're smarter than Nature!

All things that rise must eventually fall. If we want to save something, let's think about stopping certain nations from lopping off shark fins and throwing the animal back to it's death. Let's save our tears and efforts for something sensible.

reply to post by CosmicEgg

But when an animal needs porn to "re-educate" on the fundamentals of reproduction, you have to admit that it's already gone the way of the dodo.

Are you talking about Pandas or people???

Are you saying people should just go the way of the dodo too? If not, then perhaps you need to rethink your POV about the Panda too.

Originally posted by Gemwolf
There's a popular saying you'll notice in many stores. You break it. You pay it. I don't see why this rule shouldn't apply here as well.

Well we could tinker with their genetics to get them eating cheese burgers? Would that help? - They eat bamboo, they take ages to digest it for very little energy, they have to live where there are very few predators because they are a sitting target - evolutionary speaking they painted them selves into a corner a very very long time ago.

Species will die out - really the Pandas were destined to die out, you can push rocks up hill all day, but there has to be someone to do it. And now a days those people will require more and more money, more and more access to areas that may be disputed and dangerous.

Do you want to save them so they will only ever live in captivity? Or would you rather see them as a lesson and a symbol for the future? There is a real possibility of the whole issue becoming something of a joke for future generations - where as I would prepare a dignified resignation to the facts that we can't just always roll our sleeves up and save a species, we have made too much of an impact on the planet in the last couple of thousand years... All we can do is learn and move on. - And besides I still maintain Pandas are simply not meant to thrive in the wild in this world - they have as much chance of surviving without human help as much as Paris Hiltons handbag dog in a mosh pit

For the resources that are probably spent on Pandas you could change the paths of any number of species, that are not quite as news worthy or cute, but if you have a finite amount of resources you have to pick tour battles.

If Polar bears start having trouble up there in the far north, in all likelihood they will just move south, if things go well for them they will almost be a new species in say 10 generations - Polar bears will survive in that way, there is a viable species.... Panda's, leave them to their own devices and they would be happy to shuffle of the mortal coil - it's almost as if they know it's time, and have known much longer than us.

[edit on 22/9/2009 by Now_Then]

...and I suggest we stopped caring altogether for our environment in our efforts to preserve humanity -- after all, of its own accord, it has driven itself into this evolutionary cul-de-sac.

If the problem is only that there is not the land there to support the natural growth of certain species of animal then we as humans, flattening and destroying everything in our path have a moral obligation to keep these species going, being as we are the ones that have robbed them of areas of their natural habitat.

as harsh as they sound, they are most likely right.

Its a simple case of survivial of the fittest, of the bear famly panda's are deffinitelly not the strongest of their species and if we were not on earth they woudl most likely eventualy die out anyway.

millions of species have probably came and went and we dont know a thing about them.. of coruse its sad, but a fact of nature..

maybe they can cryogenicly save some panda sperm and eggs of as many as possible, then when the time comes they can jurrassic park them back to existance by artificialy fertalising normal bears (it might work!)

I vote to put the money into stem cell research and clone everything lol issue solved.

What utter bull.

Originally posted by Now_Then
You have to remember that yes we Humans are the big bad monsters of the natural world

There is nothing 'natural' about humans anymore. Once, the silliest little disease or even illness would kill us off. Now we have doctors, and medicine. The 'weakest' of us tend to receive more medical care and thus live long lives, rather than die off at a very early age, as nature intended. Hell, even things like home plumbing, and even homes, help us to live much longer than we would naturally.

Our actions are not natural. Anything that is caused by us has nothing to do with natural selection. If we break things, we should fix them.

Originally posted by Now_Then
the evolutionary step that took them into a such a unique diet would of happened eon's ago

Hmm, lets see, born in an environment surrounded by miles of bamboo - so you evolve to live off it - sounds like a perfect evolutionary plan to me. The Panda was doing just fine before we came along and caused it so many problems.

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
you have to admit that it's already gone the way of the dodo.

...and yet another animal that was living quite happily until humans arrived on the scene.

reply to post by Clickfoot


how do we know that these animals were living a good existance before we humans came along? we are unable to look back through time, just speculate.

Originally posted by boaby_phet
how do we know that these animals were living a good existance before we humans came along? we are unable to look back through time, just speculate.

Err... the fact that they are still here tells us that. It isn't rocket science.

Originally posted by wayno
My guess is that these guys aren't really saying let the Pandas and Tigers go. I hope they are only trying to shock people into paying attention to the habitat issue.

Absolutely that is the point they are making:

How can you conserve an animal that’s worth more dead than alive? You can’t.

So why WOULD a Panda or Tiger be worth more dead than alive?

Think about that.

Originally posted by Clickfoot

Originally posted by boaby_phet
how do we know that these animals were living a good existance before we humans came along? we are unable to look back through time, just speculate.

Err... the fact that they are still here tells us that. It isn't rocket science.

Well no actually - we (as in Humans) are discovering life in some very odd places now... Every month we learn that when life catches a foot hold, somehow some of it survives - without the sun, without oxygen in intense heat, in the vacuum of space...

Now a Panda is basically a sub species of Bear, you could equate the Bear sub race of humans, the Aztecs died out, the Myans - the French?.. Well that might take some time... Edit - I really wanted to find a better way to say sub species, or sub race... all I mean is just one of the major species type.

But to say that they survived X amount of time - and coincidently we are here now to debate it? It's just a point in time... I would not mind if there was a Panda paradise that co-existed with the rest of the world, but it don't seem that there is... You snooze you loose, you can't always blame people - after all we have to grow.

[edit on 22/9/2009 by Now_Then]