Chris Packham and giant pandas

[Nightranger]

I know this does not sit easily in a forum designed around British wildlife but it does have implications for British wildlife if not now, some time in the future. I understand what Chris is saying and it does make a lot of sense to talk about an effort with hindsight vision (i.e., the WWF should have looked to buy land). However, I am concerned that Chris may inadvertently create an unnecessary division within conservation itself. It is already a little awkward that the aims of conservation vs animal welfare vs animal rights have diverged but it seems madness to look for a division within conservation itself. A friend of mine already emailed me after taking this argument to an obviously pessimistic conclusion, asking whether it was worth saving anything at all in the face of rising human populations and the inevitable encroachment/hunting that has plagued the giant panda. Don't get me wrong, I have not turned anti-Chris all of a sudden but I thought it was worth raising this debate if only because this is what Chris wants to do. I am interested in what everyone thinks so it would be good to get as many comments on this subject as possible. Key points to think of:

• if you agree with Chris, what happens if it were to be a British species?
• would you be torn between species preservation and land conservation should it come to a choice of where your money went?
• does leaving a species that is heavily hunted to die out only legitimise that hunting?
• if a species is sufficiently threatened, should no action be initiated in the first place?

Let's get the debate going.

[NJP87]

While i can sort of see what he's saying about the panda, i don't agree with him.

While the panda is still here i think we should continue to try and save it and it's habitat

If we were to give up on the panda and say it's not worth saving then what happens next? Tigers, rhino, gorillas and a whole lot of other species that would be easier to just let go.

[Cotham Marble]

Originally Posted by Nightranger

I know this does not sit easily in a forum designed around British wildlife but it does have implications for British wildlife if not now, some time in the future.

Really the only kind thing to do, is to let Chris Packham go extinct without any more fuss or misplaced resource allocation.

CM

[loripo]

It would be interesting to turn this into a poll. I would hate for the pandas to die out in my lifetime. I did comment on another thread that I had started to check what had gone extinct during my life and it was too depressing to complete. There are so few left though that it might be too late anyway.

[Ukwildlifeo]

Well I think its fair to say chris packham has a point. If you think of the millions spent 'saving' the panda, which is heading quickly to having no suitible habitat and then compare it to the relatively few thousand pounds it takes to save an amphibian or reptile species.

That said, the panda is a great 'flagship species' so long as they actually preserve the habitat they live in, which benefits the other animals there - which is not something Im convinced they are doing...

[Susie]

This reminds me of the old joke, preserve wildlife - pickle a squirrel.

[thebeard]

its difficult to agree or disagree really there are good and bad points for his argument. personally, i don't care much for the 'megafauna' side of conservation. although it is very important to save any wildlife, i prefer to think about other factors concerning conservation. however, it could be argued that not saving the panda could be applied to other species/habitats/etc, if we can give up on the panda, surely we can give up on any other species. sure, the panda isn't a keystone species as such, but if people gave up on saving them, then they could just as well give up on saving UK grasslands, or red kites, or whatever. everything is important for different reasons really.

i think the panda, as well as other megafauna, is a very good 'tool' for aiding the progress of international conservation. people are more inclined to save 'cute and cuddly' species, as they are more charismatic and it could be seen as more of a shame to lose them than less 'favourable' species such as invertebrates and lesser plants. using a panda or a rhinoceros as a way of reaching the public to make them aware of global conservation issues is good, as it makes them aware of the problems which these animals are facing. people would not be so interested if they started a campaign to save the slime moulds!

good thread by the way, i like a good debate!

[Jason Green]

Hi all,

The Panda is an iconic endangered species, and whenever mentions of vulnerable animals are mentioned people think about Pandas. What message does it send out to the public if they're told it would be kinder to let it go - thus all the time and money on related conservation didn't help ultimately? Will the same public want to try and save other species after that - or then think that too would not help?

I don't agree with his statement.

Take care,

Jason

[Meta menardi]

I think the fauna is an indication of the health of the habitat, and whilst I understand his arguement, I think the abandonment of the whole habitat and ecology that supports the panda is a serious step back from a whole ecological structure. Needs serious thought.

[Nightranger]

Thinks: Mauritius kestrel - pink pigeon. Did the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust get it so wrong? After all, the estimated population of Mauritius kestrels after a typhoon in the 80s could be counted one hand.

OK, I am feeding you snippets but this is what Chris wants.