"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

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