its not going to be the first animals humans have put to extinction...so i guess its okay for him

Chris Packham and David Bellamy are spot on. It may not be a popular opinion... but it is fact.

I think that what they see is this... even when humans are trying to do good there is an element of selfishness.

Ahhh... cute lovely little panda's... they are just so adorable... Yeah right!!! More like marketable!!!

Would people feel the same if it was a species of Termite??

I think that the message that Chris and David are trying to give is this...
If we are not careful we could end up with an almost lifeless concrete planet with a few pandas in cages.

No one is suggesting that it is not sad that the Pandas are becoming extinct... just that it would be far more wise to spend the money buying up the precious land, for conservation, that is disappearing. If you buy just a few thousand acres of forest, how many species can live and thrive there?

It may seem a little harsh... but the WWF have limited funds and need to use what they have wisely.

If governments did their job there would be no need for organizations like the WWF.
Conservation of critical environments is one area where a global body like the U.N. could have a major role in providing needed funds; especially to countries with struggling economies.

The caveat being that the solution is doable, such as when reversing a man made problem. When you have a severe drought like there is in east Africa right now, then there is much less that can be done.

could it be to inter-breeding and small gene pool?
i hear they aren't the smartest animals. maybe they are the equivalent of labrador retrievers? a genetic thread that just weeded itself out?

edit: not to say that labs weeded themselves out.

[edit on 9/28/2009 by zooplancton]