Random Panda inquisitivity...

[Gill Catton]

Don't most bears take advantage of whatever is in glut at the time? I remember watching another documentary where bears (and I think it was grizzly bears but I could be wrong) who ate nothing but moths for a few days of the year when the moths were congregating in huge numbers under stones to hibernate. And bamboo is always in 'glut'.

but yes many species end up so specialised that they may lose out in the future when their associated food source, habitat, pollinator changes or is lost.

I'm watching the panda programme now (natural world on the iplayer) and I'm really not sure they're doing things the right way. If they put all the money spent breeding captive pandas and hand raising babies into protecting and improving natural habitat I'd have thought they'd have a much better chance of keeping the species. No point breeding them in captivity if there's no decent habitat to put them back into, and once you've improved the habitat the pandas may well naturally increase their numbers and come on their own.

Oh god I hate to see them in those little concrete boxes.......

in fact the whole programme is rather depressing, what is the point of captive breeding pandas that can't mate or raise their own babies

[Lindsay-c]

agree with you Gill Catton it does seem a bit pointless and depressing to see them like this. But it seems they are probably doing it for the country's economy since the pandas attract a lot of tourists...

It's like when I watched a very traumatising documentary on crocodiles which developed pansteatitis (program was a natureshock documentary called "The crocs that turned to rubber") and the crocs had developed the condition because of the humans that had moved to their habitat according to research... they didn't cure it but tried to. Reason for trying was because the site and the crocs were a popular tourist attraction. What ever happened to doing something because it's kind or the morally right thing to do?


Anyway heres an article which helps to answer my origional question thought you all too might like a read:

How the giant panda lost its taste for flesh - life - 05 December 2010 - New Scientist

[Paul mabbott]

Yes, bears (in a general sense) are basically omnivorous - much like primates. Environmental pressures may cause them to veer towards herbivory or carnivory over time but, in many cases, humans for instance, populations may switch back at any time. The giant panda (lets not forget the red panda which is not very closely related - lovely little beast) is weird in that it sems to have switched to a very limited diet and lost the ability to broaden its tastes ... but there have always been 'weird species' - genetic dead ends.

Have to agree with you about the conditions under which these breeding animals are kept - but it's not too unusual in many parts of the world with many species. We should perhaps ask ourselves whether, if this is an evolutionary dead-end, aren't there better things to spend time and money on? The Giant Panda is very important to the Chinese ideologically - perhaps they could concentrate on something else?

PS: off topic but reading this up on Wikipedia I read: "The limited energy input imposed on it by its diet has affected the panda's behavior. The Giant Panda tends to limit its social interactions and avoids steeply sloping terrain in order to limit its energy expenditures." Sounds like me, especially the last bit!

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

Don't most bears take advantage of whatever is in glut at the time? I remember watching another documentary where bears (and I think it was grizzly bears but I could be wrong) who ate nothing but moths for a few days of the year when the moths were congregating in huge numbers under stones to hibernate. And bamboo is always in 'glut'.

but yes many species end up so specialised that they may lose out in the future when their associated food source, habitat, pollinator changes or is lost.

I'm watching the panda programme now (natural world on the iplayer) and I'm really not sure they're doing things the right way. If they put all the money spent breeding captive pandas and hand raising babies into protecting and improving natural habitat I'd have thought they'd have a much better chance of keeping the species. No point breeding them in captivity if there's no decent habitat to put them back into, and once you've improved the habitat the pandas may well naturally increase their numbers and come on their own.

Oh god I hate to see them in those little concrete boxes.......

in fact the whole programme is rather depressing, what is the point of captive breeding pandas that can't mate or raise their own babies

[werdnal]

Originally Posted by Lindsay-c

theN * not 'them'

Well if a sweet tooth can cause a species to make a lifestyle change which could threaten their existence then we have trouble !

is mother nature aware of this pickle?...

But we have a whole generation of humans being brought up on chips and burgers, so perhaps there is some truth in your statement!

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

Yes, bears (in a general sense) are basically omnivorous - much like primates. Environmental pressures may cause them to veer towards herbivory or carnivory over time but, in many cases, humans for instance, populations may switch back at any time. The giant panda (lets not forget the red panda which is not very closely related - lovely little beast) is weird in that it sems to have switched to a very limited diet and lost the ability to broaden its tastes ... but there have always been 'weird species' - genetic dead ends.

Have to agree with you about the conditions under which these breeding animals are kept - but it's not too unusual in many parts of the world with many species. We should perhaps ask ourselves whether, if this is an evolutionary dead-end, aren't there better things to spend time and money on? The Giant Panda is very important to the Chinese ideologically - perhaps they could concentrate on something else?

PS: off topic but reading this up on Wikipedia I read: "The limited energy input imposed on it by its diet has affected the panda's behavior. The Giant Panda tends to limit its social interactions and avoids steeply sloping terrain in order to limit its energy expenditures." Sounds like me, especially the last bit!

Sounds like me too!!!

[Tiger]

Pandas and bears are of the Order Carnivora. In this sense pandas are classified as carnivores, even though they have evolved to eat a different diet.

The animals that changed from eating meat to bamboo would have been a very distant ancestor to the modern-day giant panda. It would have been so different that it would have been classified as a different species to the one we know today.

Evolution is not a forward-thinking process, and if a genetic mutation allows an animal to be successful and breed in large numbers then it will give rise to a new species. If eating bamboo was advantageous at the time, then anything that could eat it would have been at an advantage. Extinction is a natural process and many species have died out over the years (eg. the dinosaurs) as conditions have changed, but humans are now causing mass extinctions and that is very sad.