"It is time to let the Panda go"

[karohemd]

Interesting viewpoint and I think quite valid as "survival of the fittest" applies here and the panda is, quite frankly, too stupidill adapted to survive. It would be entirely different if all it took was to conserve or expand his habitat.

I'd be interested to hear what my naturalist/conservationist friends think about this.

(thanks to raggedy_man for the link)

Comments

[ginasketch.livejournal.com]

I'm laughing at the uproar this has caused.

The way I see it, he was saying that people love to save/pay attention to the big, fluffy animals but ignore the potentially more important smaller endangered species such as plants and insects which could be beneficial to mankind.

Yes it would be sad if there were no more wild pandas, but does anybody give a shit about small bat species and beetles? Nope. Hypocrites.

[blue-cat.livejournal.com]

I agree with virtually everything you say but still wince at the need for animals to be beneficial to mankind.

[ginasketch.livejournal.com]

Oh I didn't mean to imply they had to be in order to be saved. I just get mad at the people going all goo goo over the cutesy fluffy animals yet there is probably a plant or something out there that can cure cancer and it's likely they wouldn't give a damn because that plant/animal would be "ugly."

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

*nods* That's how I understood it, too.

Yeah. I might not be a good example for this but while I love, for example, penguins, I'm equally fascinated by animals/organisms that have adapted to living in, for example, extremely caustic, boiling water.

[blue-cat.livejournal.com]

Actually in my first (or second?) year of Uni, in the Ecology & conservation class this was brought up by my lecturer ~ why bother. Also, if the statistics were correct 10 species had become exinct since breakfast (9am lecture) and could we name one. (no) also, with all the talk about mankind causing extinctions, could we name one of those without saying 'DoDo' (only 2 of us could: Stellar Sea Cow & Passenger Pigeon)

The panda is a dead end. However it is also a flagship animal. Cute fluffy/sexy animals get cash which preserves the habitat which means non-cute/sexy animals get to survive on that same patch of land.

Also, just because you may consider them a dead end that would have died out quite naturally some time back if they wern't so freaking fluffy and iconic doesn't mean you can't learn a lot about conservation by trying, learning and taking those lessons to other species. There isn't a clearer example of Animal+Habitat interlinking out there frankly.

So yeah. Panda are an expensive luxury item. But one that draws the crowds to pour their own money into 'saving animals' of which some can then go to saving animals with a real chance at a long term future.

[mr-malk.livejournal.com]

Oo! Oo! I know one: Yangtze River Dolphin. That's probably been in the news lately, but I was curious about it since reading "Last Chance to See" back in 1994. Ah, those crazy Latvians!

[faerierhona.livejournal.com]

Would the panda survive if humans had not damaged it's habitat/ taken it.

If yes, then we have a duty to protect it. Simple as.

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

*nods* That's the main question and I guess the answer would be no.

[faerierhona.livejournal.com]

I don't know that that is true, and would have to check it. Humans ARE destroyign its habitat, so maybe it could survive if not for that, I am not an expert

[fearmeforiampink]

Y'see, to me a more important question is "Can we actually save it?"

Has the numbers dropped sufficiently such that the panda just won't survive pretty much whatever we do?

Also, what about the (making up numbers here) three/seven/twenty less cute but more viable species, that have more drectly been put in an insurvivable position by us, and that could be saved with the money that's currently being spent trying to save Pandas?

(Not serious)

[robinbloke.livejournal.com]

Important question: What does it taste like?

Re: (Not serious)

[ginasketch.livejournal.com]

lolol I thought about writing that then decided against it.

Re: (Not serious)

[robinbloke.livejournal.com]

Our other option is to force evolve the panda and feed the damn stupid animal steak, to show it what it's missing.

Re: (Not serious)

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

I don't think a panda would taste very nice.

Re: (Not serious)

[robinbloke.livejournal.com]

Probably not, just eating bamboo, mind you cows only eat grass and they taste great.

Panda recipes

Re: (Not serious)

[raggedyman.livejournal.com]

apathetic chicken

[mr-malk.livejournal.com]

I did hear a conservationist (who knows, maybe him) espouse this view on the radio a few months ago. His rather wonderful turn of phrase at the time was "I would cheerfully eat the last panda in existence if I could have all the money that has been spent on panda conservation, to spend on conserving other animals." I thought that sounded like a fair proposition, and not just because I'd be curious to find out what panda tastes like.

Of course, the comment about it being a flagship animal is correct, and as hypocritical as it is for people to donate to save the fluffy stuff while they couldn't give a toss about the arthropods (and so on), the money that the cute pandas bring in to the WWF is spread around all their programmes. Is it worthwhile in black and white terms (no pun intended, honest!)? I don't know. Maybe the WWF should trial a fund-raising campaign that uses a different logo and makes no reference to pandas, to see how successful it is.

[fearmeforiampink]

Based on the wikipedia article of Chris Packam, I think it was him.

[eryx-uk.livejournal.com]

I have often thought that the panda is going nowhere. Nature seems to have selected it to die out and we're just postponing the inevitable. That just seems to be the way it is.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

we're just postponing the inevitable

It is we who made it inevitable in the first place. Pandas were doing perfectly well for millions of years until humans came along, and would most likely have continued doing so in our absence. The only way Nature "selected it to die out" was by inflicting humans upon its habitat.

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

I think a better alternative is to put them all in our back garden, which is full of uncontrollably breeding bamboo.

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

Isn't part of the problem that they are really specialised and wouldn't even touch your garden bamboo? (a bit like koalas who will only eat leaves from their tree but not quite that extreme)

Habitat

[fractalgeek.livejournal.com]

A recent Panda discovery: Pandas left to rear young in caves or hollow trees can raise two young at a time; We have cleared most hollow trees from their bamboo preserves.

Saving big animals in the wild means habitat preservation and removing human pressures like poaching for food. In passing, that helps save many smaller species. Keeping them alive only in zoos doesn't have this beneficial effect.

Re: Habitat

[zenmeisterin.livejournal.com]

Much like polar bears do in ice caves, which is why captive polar bears rarely if ever successfully raised young. Most of their zoo enclosures had nothing comparable. Took a while for the conservationists to figure it out.

Re: Habitat

[professoryaffle.livejournal.com]

This is very true. I guess the key with any conservation effort is what position does that species play in the web of life in that ecosystem. If pandas support lots of other life and without them other species would also die then more effort should be spent but if the ecosystem would continue in a very similar form without the panda it might not be worth it. Chris Packhams comments don't really cover that respect to the Panda