- checking login information
Loading...Let the Panda Die
BBC nature presenter Chris Packham has caused some upset with his statement that we should “pull the plug” on the giant panda.
“Here’s a species that, of its own accord, has gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac. It’s not a strong species. Unfortunately it’s big and cute and it’s a symbol of the WWF, and we pour millions of pounds into panda conservation. I reckon we should pull the plug. Let them go, with a degree of dignity,” said Packham.
Living in the mountains of China, pandas are considered an endangered species with various guesses on their actual population from fewer than 1,600 worldwide to less than 2,500 pandas in the wild, with about 250 in captivity. The leading factor in the pandas dwindling population is loss of habitat as a result of human development.
While Packham may have pushed the envelope with his comments, he raised a point regarding the efforts and expenses used to protect only one species because it’s cute when we could be using these resources to protect larger areas of critical habitat.
However, those on the other side easily counteract his argument by pointing out that by protecting the panda’s habitat, or the habitat of any larger species, will act as an umbrella aiding other flora and fauna that live there, preserving biodiversity in the area.
Despite its elusiveness, the panda doesn’t live in isolation. It’s part of a community of other animals, plants and trees that work together in a balance that allows all creation to continue. If the panda, or any species, is lost, no one knows how its link in this web will be filled or what impact it will have on the future of nature.
Read more: animal welfare, chris packham, conservation, panda
creative commons
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may
not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
Recent Comments from Causes
Il cane ha agito d'istinto, invece le persone sono cattive perchè vogliono esserlo.
Sounds like a great idea as a "first aid" solution - but THEN ?? What do (can) they do with the resulting…
IF you have a lot of money you can choose what ever you want to buy.... SOME people have no choice so…
meet our writers
87 comments
+ add your ownWhat an idiot he just opens his mouth and out comes rubbish. I dont watch springwatch anymore now hes replaced Bill Oddie and Kate.
What an idiot he just opens his mouth and out comes rubbish. I dont watch springwatch anymore now hes replaced Bill Oddie and Kate.
What an idiot he just opens his mouth and out comes rubbish. I dont watch springwatch anymore now hes replaced Bill Oddie and Kate.
What an idiot he just opens his mouth and out comes rubbish. I dont watch springwatch anymore now hes replaced Bill Oddie and Kate.
What an idiot he just opens his mouth and out comes rubbish. I dont watch springwatch anymore now hes replaced Bill Oddie and Kate.
If we can pump billions of dollars into prisons for prisoners, I would rather save the pandas.............So my my vote is get rid of the low life's in prison (and no I don't mean turn them out on society) and take care of the animals.
Anything that humans destroy, we should have to fix. We have destroyed their habitats, why should we let pandas die as a result of it? I understand the intent of the statement, the person who said it believes there is no point saving a species so close to extinction. However, I personally believe we should work as hard as possible to save the pandas until there is nothing left we can do. It's kind of like the "you break it, you buy it" theory. Now we must pay off our debt to the shopkeeper if you will, the panda whom we destroyed the "shop and items", or habitats, of.
There's an uproar because what Packham said was obviously wrong (browse Google or factcheck) but is an issue worth discussing.
Totemic species like the Bald Eagle or Giant Panda are economically worth preserving, just for their impact on public morale - the pride in stewardship they evoke in their homelands. That huge level of public interest generates revenue, and the political will to protect extensive habitats such animals need to survive. Those reserves shelter a panoply of other species which are valuable to the local economy in tourism and resources, but invaluable to the nation as a heritage for its future.
Cheetah and Rhino are a case in point - both highly endangered and not very competitive with other species in their habitat. But the effort to protect them is financially sound because people like them, and their reserves earn considerable tourist dollars. When I worked for USAID in W.Africa and S.Africa, one of the cheapest and best things we ever did was provide seed money for eco-tourism. It's not about any single species but protecting the whole network of sustainable life in a region, its forests, animals, farms, and people as a whole.
Finally, a note on Acinonyx Jubatus which clearly is genetically bottlenecked: Anyone who has been around Cheetah knows what beautiful and graceful animals they are, well worth preserving despite the challenge. Losing them would be like losing a unique work of art. The same is true of the Panda. Extinction is final.
And by the way I am not a chris packham supporter. i hate the guy.
Note that I never said anywhere that I agreed with his statement that we should "pull the plug". I just feel that alot of the uproar over this is unwarranted.
login to add your comment
use your care2 login
add your comment