Sign up for our Free email Newsletter
and get all the latest wildlife news!
Choose:

Browse Old Articles


BROCHURE RACK

Chris Packham - It is time to let the Panda go?

03/06/2009 16:55:25 news/Chris_Packham

WHO ELSE CAN SEE THE CON IN CONSERVATION ?

Part One - Can we afford Pandas?

I've been upsetting most peoples sentimentalities again recently by saying, loudly thanks to BBC Radio and the written media, that it time we found the courage to give up on Pandas. Let them go, wave goodbye, maybe have a party, or a wake, whatever, just stop wasting money trying to ‘save' them from extinction. I know, a bit controversial to question conservation, the great invention of all the good folk who want to save everything from themselves, let alone spout such heresy about its most sacred icon. For those of you who are not aware of my maverick musings on this matter I'll précis them here.

An ex-carnivore bamboo muncher unfortunately ends up in the most populated place on earth. Its food predictably all dies with disastrous regularity and its digestive system is poorly adapted to its diet. It's slow to reproduce, tastes good, but in a blind strike of evolutionary luck it is plump, cute and cuddly. That is from an anthropological point of view. So given only the latter in the formative days of conservation the pioneers choose it as a symbol and begin to investigate its conservation. Panda porn, or the lack of it, made us all giggle in the sixties and seventies and gradually the fat pied ones became greater than the sum of the sense in keeping them alive. But having spent so much it's very difficult to stop. We are now spending millions and millions of dollars on a loser which lives in a country being stormed by the whole worlds greedy despite its horrible politics. It's Catch 22 for Pandas and we're caught by the credit cards despite our very own desperate credit crisis. So I say stop, save our relatively paltry funds for cases where we can make a real difference, because that's our job.

Leopards would change their spots

Dr Mark Wright from WWF was called to comment on my outbursts and very kindly offered a voice with an opposing opinion. The trouble is that we seem to agree about much of the argument, apart from letting them become extinct of course, but it's difficult for me to get cross about the views he outlines because they have a heritage of useful practice and a legacy of great success, and he certainly seems to agree with my view that now is a time when we face critical choices and these will come with a cost. But perhaps where we deviate a little is that I forcefully believe that we have to admit our mistakes and that times change and ideas must move with them and as the rate of that change accelerates so must the speed revision of our methods of best practice. That's evolution, adapt to changes or die out. You see the old maxim is wrong - ultimately given time a Leopard could and would change its spots!

Conservation - It's a business

So what's the problem? Conservation is very, very conservative and frighteningly inflexible. For all its modernisation it still seems rooted in a time when worthiness and self righteousness were essential fuels or tools to brow beat or confound or embarrass opponents into action or inaction. Despite the massive increase in the size and consequential financial turnover of the giant national and international charities, despite their necessary but often unpalatable corporatism, they still don't seem to realise that conservation is not a vocation, a religion, or a field where ‘being right' is the answer. It's a business and we're running a little, ill respected and frequently ignored company whose managers continue to think that caring counts enough to change the world. It's no longer even a quaint or nice idea, it's an embarrassing naivety. It's why we are still waiting for old ladies to leave us their small fortunes instead of being taken seriously by global corporations. It's why we are still playing with nature reserves and Pandas instead of planning to make a real difference, now when we could, and so desperately need to.

And there's worse... Some of conservations ‘big-boys' do actually have a little clout, and even more importantly they have rightfully earned respect, but because they are wrapped up in their new found game of politics, and all the compromises this sorry, silly game imposes they are increasingly pulling punches which should be launched and landed to make maximum impact. They can't do A because it will have a knock on effect with B which means C will get set back. They've joined the liars game and they are playing at our and the planets expense. Nice. It's a power issue, the have a little but are too scared to use it, because then some of their new friends won't talk to them, and some of their sacred members might get a bit upset.

Can we afford Pandas?

But here is the paradoxical truth of it. We are all right; we are all motivated by an honest desire to look after our world, even the Pandas. That's why I wouldn't argue with Mark Wright on Radio 5, he wants the same as me, and you, and I'm not going to undermine that through public bickering because I want a result, the best result we can afford. That's why it's my job to ask, ‘Can we afford Pandas?' Think about it please.

Click here to comment on this article.

Read the comments about this article and leave your own comment

Pandas are important

pandas do have a purpose
otherwise why would god have placed them on this planet
they seem to provide an important role in the ecosystem
they eat bamboo which decreases and regrows if kept and they do good work in keeping rodent and other small mammal populations under control thus helping humanity
human beings are the ones that should be helping keep god's marvelous creations alive not hunt them to extinction!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: irishturtle0124 | 13 Oct 2012 23:46:32

must save pandas.

Posted by: naveenchllakapati | 13 Apr 2012 06:05:20

Think about it

We want pandas to survive because they are cute and fluffy, and maybe because we don’t want to feel guilty about causing their extinction. We want pandas to survive because they are the symbol for extinction and because if they can’t survive, then what hope is there for other threatened species? The point is that whether pandas die out or not (and the likely hood is that they will) there is very little hope for the rest of our ecosystem remaining exactly the same as it is today. But why would we ‘hope’ that it will do so? Our ecosystem won’t die, it will adapt. We have all learnt about natural selection in biology, about the ‘survival of the fittest.’ Apply that to this situation and you will understand that Pandas just aren’t the strongest anymore and it is not natural for them to survive when they have been outcompeted by humans.

I don't like the thought of it and, as an animal lover, it does make me sad but I've come to realise that the best things in life are often born from the worst and that moving on crucial to life on earth. I think that maybe we have to accept that for Pandas there is no future and begin to focus on more effective ways of conserving biodiversity.

Posted by: Georgia Stewart | 14 Mar 2012 21:07:06

A short reply to Citizenlen

I find your words and reply to Chris's piece aggressive and childish. I take it that you had nothing to do with the Pandas demise? That it was not you and your forefathers that fuelled the growth of nations and the destruction of pristine environments and the extinction of fauna and flora around the world!?!

May I remind you that it is you that is on the endangered list along with the rest of the human population. and its epitaph will be…
We came, We saw, We plundered the world to extinction...

Posted by: Ian Warburton | 13 Feb 2012 20:49:00

What if?

What if the Dinosaurs were still here would we be having this same discussion over the last T-Rex, and its reintroduction back into the UK??? These arguments could go on and on, and will, until we ourselves become extinct.

I can see where Chris is coming from and would like to add that, everything we do within conservation is driven by two factors, the need to hang on to the past and guilt. How long are we going to cling onto Constables idyllic England...I'm sorry, the paint faded many years ago...Wake up...we can't conserve our own population never mind our Biodiversity

I worked in Africa in Aid and Development and had to get out because I was sick of seeing and smelling death because only 20% of YOUR money was going to the people and 1% of that had any impact! We are all guilt driven, we like the latest mod-cons and food from all over the world but we don't see the environmental destruction, the hunger and death of the people that make the sacrifices so we can live as we do.

There is a bigger picture going on here and spending money chasing dreams will do nothing to put the paint back on Constables idyllic England nor conserve the Panda

One could say that the money we spend on conserving our built heritage could house the whole population of the UK. Where are our ethics then when we conserve a Victorian building while people are starving on the streets???

Chris is right, we need to be looking to the future even if it means sacrificing the past. We need to come up with Global strategies on Sustainable bio Development into the future...or we won't have one...we will be the next extinction!

Stacey, I fear we are beyond damage limitation...We are in a time of...Critical Crises Management World Wide...
With regards to the Panda, who are we to comment on or condemn other nations. Did we consider our Biodiversity when we were building our nation in the Victorian times...I think not

Are we 'really' considering it now?

Posted by: Ian Warburton | 13 Feb 2012 20:07:42

Packham or Prickham. He should be the one on the endangered list.

First of all, Pandas did NOT "end up in the most populated place on earth." PEOPLE ended up in Panda territory due to over population and land encroachment plus the high demand for panda fur. Honestly, how did this guy became a wildlife "expert".

To give up on Panda is basically saying let's stop all conservation effort and let Panda be hunted down for fur so that rich British people can wear them! When China, who has closed its doors for many years and do not have a good track record for both human and animals rights are actually making some kind of commitment to conserving these animals means we are on the right track.

Perhaps the money can be spread out a bit more, but the money was donated specifically for Pandas. And can you blame these people? Ask a child which he/she would rather give that $1 or 1 pound to...a panda or a guinea worm. Bet your ass a panda.

It seems like he has an endangered animal hit list. Eliminate the Panda, then the tiger and everything else later. What kind of a wildlife expert is he if he quits on one species because he thinks their survival rate is minimal? Isn't the reason why wildlife expert like him has a day job because wildlife are actually being saved today!

If he has anything to get pissy about, it's how lenient the government are against poachers and fur traders. I think all this anger, he could have better spent lobbying for tougher poaching laws than bitching about a Panda which is making him look like a prick!

To those who agree with him, shame on you! After the Pandas are gone, then we'll be scratching our head thinking of ways of how we could have saved this magnificent creature. We're is the logic and the heart? How can people agree with this Packham to cruelly let an animal be eradicated that has been around for thousands of years. It's no fault of the Panda, that humans have stolen their homes, killed them for fur. If anyone should be on the endangered or extinct list, it should be people like Prickham.

Posted by: citizenlen | 19 Aug 2011 08:18:38

I half agree and half disagree

Chris' view of saving pandas is very contraversal and his point about actually letting pandas go extinct is very over-the-top, surely he doesn't actually want to see 'pandas have become extinct' on the headline news?! I'm not sure that is the point he is making though, I think his main point is about the money being spent on panda conservation when other areas are neglected and other species are being declared extinct in the meantime, perhaps the money spent on pandas should be spread more evenly... I personally think the money for pandas should be spent protecting their environment and last habitats, jointing up their last habitats and protecting these reserves / national parks properly rather than so much being spent on captive breeding programmes for the panda. I understand this is deemed important as pandas have such a slow reproductive rate, however, what is the point in captive breeding pandas and then releasing them into an ever decreasing habitat? There will be no point if there is nowhere for them to go because human habitation has taken over.

So I don't want to see the panda or any other species go extinct but agree with Chris that there can be a lot of money wasted in some conservation organisations and money needs to be spent a lot better on habitats and working with human communities to allow us to live alongside nature better rather than having all natural areas fenced off like large zoos.

Posted by: Nicola | 06 Jun 2011 13:37:19

think before you say anything!


You have to bare in mind that pandas live at elevations where nothing grows except for bamboos, so they had evolved a way of just eating bamboos. Pandas did not have any predators (until humans arrived) so they had to have a way of sustaining their population and that is why they have such a low birth rate.

I think Chris could have put the message in a milder way so that it does not hurt anybody. But it might be true that other species also need our support.

if anybody wishes to comment on my writing please do mail me at muralisholai@gmail.com

Posted by: Murali | 18 Nov 2009 10:43:28

I feel that Chris Packham is wrong to suggest it's time to let go of the panda. The panda has as much right as any other species on the planet to survive and I feel it's our responsibility to help it as it's numbers are declining due to humans destroying their habitat.

However, I do understand his point about panda's being poorly adapted to the changes in their environment but i don't think this is any reason to just give up on them

Posted by: Megan Pounder | 15 Nov 2009 16:37:50

Pandas offer a greater benefit in the bigger picture

Packham’s willingness to let the panda species die out will only open up a whole can of worms as every species can be considered by one person or another as being weaker than the next as it becomes a matter of opinion that can be backed by some type of research. Eventually conservation of any animals would be considered a waste of money and time because the interpretation of what is weakness really does vary. Survival of the fittest is no longer the single aspect of brute physical strength in today’s world where it has evolved to be quite complex. Having these gentle giants in the world gives us hope during even our toughest days as just seeing them brings a smile to most of our faces at least and we cannot discount the emotional benefit they bring to perpetuate us to want to make a difference. The aspiration to save the pandas results in more donations from the community, an increase in volunteers, and the desire for 2 countries that may have been at ends on many issues, to work together towards a common goal by sharing their research and findings. You can even call it goodwill.

If the world only consisted of people with no compassion with the willingness to let whole species die out because of what they feel is a weakness, we would really be in trouble. There would be more crime in the world as people would be taking what is not theirs by brute force under the excuse of we are just decimating a weaker sector or for fear of showing weakness. It sounds like promoting gangs doesn’t it? So yes, Mr. Packham, if you do want to eliminate the human race as you mentioned in your original article, letting the pandas die out is a good start as you are perpetuating a world where everyone will kill each other until we find only one man standing and no one to help reproduce the human race.

Posted by: Lotus | 13 Nov 2009 17:45:41

Conservation?

I think Chris Packham is right to bring it to a forum, we need people like Chris who will raise the stakes and make us think about our conservation.

Can I make comparison with the Pandas. My interests are not just wildlife conservation but aviation, biuldings, waterways to name just a few. We have thrown vasts amount of money at the Avro Vulcan project "Vulcan to the Sky" and success the Vulcan has flown, but will it continue without more money being thrown at it?

I live in the United Kingdom and their are many species on the edge of distinction not as big a Pandas or cuddly but just as important to us. I know I am blinkered but is that not a bad idea.

Posted by: John Davidson | 26 Sep 2009 19:10:23

Setting a dangerous precedent

I only agree with Chris on one point: the cost of saving a species whose habitat is inevitably going to become more and more encroached upon by the species whose increase could sign the death-knell for the planet - humans. We HAVE to control our own population, it's the primary subject on our 'to do' list.
But letting the Panda go would set an extremely dangerous precedent, and could affect efforts to save that next iconic creature, the Tiger and all its subspecies, or the Amur & Snow Leopards, or whales, etc. If we made other huge efforts to save sepcies teetering on extinctions' brink at some point in the future, the planet-raping multinational corporations would just turn round and say "well, you let the Panda go, what's the difference?...."

Posted by: Jonathan Piers Tyler | 26 Sep 2009 14:48:58

We need Pandas, we don't need Packham

Chris Packham is wrong about the Panda. His negativity is also harmful to biodiversity generally because it will damage the public support for conservation efforts around the world.

When enough mud is thrown, some of it will stick and Packham packs a lot of mud, and in places where it is likely to do damage. What a pity he now co-presents SpringWatch. Unlike Bill Oddie who demonstrated a genuine interest and concern for wildlife and won the viewer over with his passion and enthusiasm, Packham comes across as a presenter far more interested in himself than in the subject, and is an irritating distraction from the real stars of the show, the wildlife.

The Panda is a globally recognised emblem species for wildlife conservation and the WWF. It is an invaluable brand, and to let it die out would be catastrophic for the conservation effort. It would send out a signal that we can afford to lose a proportion of the world's species, even iconic ones. If that view were to take hold, it would have a domino effect leading to almost every species being seen as dispensable.

Flagship species like the Panda appeal to the public and thus serve the broader goal of raising finance and support for the protection of their habitat and all the indigenous flora and fauna it supports. This is the most crucial aspect of conservation, as without functioning habitats we have nothing.

To talk of extinctions being the norm through history and to say that the loss of a species here or there is of little consequence is to miss the point: we are in the middle of the sixth global mass extinction of species and this one is being caused exclusively by us, the human race. The destruction of species that had existed on Earth for millions of years began in prehistoric times with the eradication of the big mammals – mammoths, woolly rhinoceroses and so on. The pace of extinctions then gathered pace and accelerated most rapidly in the last hundred years: we have now reached a tipping point. If we do not change course in this century, we will wipe out everything. Already we are told we are within forty years of having no harvestable fish left in the world's oceans. We are in no position to dictate what species survive or die.

The world's habitats and ecosystems sustain human life on Earth. If we need flagship species like Panda in order to secure the future of habitats, then the money necessary to save it will be money well spent. What we don't need are people like Packham who make controversial comments for the sake of publicity and who care not one whit for the damage they might cause to wildlife and ultimately to humanity itself. This website is guilty by association and should refrain from giving Packham a platform for his self-promoting twaddle.

Posted by: Coilin MacLochlainn | 26 Sep 2009 05:33:22

martin

Okay Chris. Very controversial. We'll all rush out and buy your next book on the basis of your contrarian views. But remember, there are a lot of idiots out there who might just take you seriously.

Posted by: Martin Parsons | 25 Sep 2009 18:07:00

Rsesponse to Chris Pakham

Perhaps Chris is thinking about the amount of cash that goes in to the captive breeding programs for Giant Pandas. I could be persuaded that it could be better used. Better used perhaps to preserve wild pandas. In the Qinling Mountains there is a beautiful reserve that is home to perhaps a few dozen pandas. It is also home to a large number of other interesting animals as well as plants. Putting more money into preserving such areas, and where possible extending them, and linking them with corridors, will help pandas as well as the rest of the fauna and flora. We don't have to give up on pandas!

Posted by: Clive Mann | 25 Sep 2009 16:41:30

The 'con' in conservation

I'm with Chris Packham pretty much all the way. I don't share the arrogance of busybody conservationists who wish to curtail or reverse evolution or draw some arbitrary line to which we should return because that's when everything was 'right and proper'. And that goes equally for those who wish to eradicate Britain's grey squirrel population and those who seek to reintroduce wolves to the UK.

Evolution is fascinating. Let it be. What comes and what goes is what makes for the richness. Too many conservationists are concerned about the aesthetic loss to humanity of another species decline or extinction. But that's about us, not the affected species, which neither feels nor understands it's loss.

And whilst I understand what some contributors are saying about the greater importance of supporting the higher species - those who have taken the longest to evolve - I would personally value more highly a bug at the bottom of the food chain, on which we might all ultimately depend.

What I support more than anything is where I think I see David Attenborough going. If wildlife conservationists were to join in demanding we check the most out-of-control population in the world - our own -it would be the most positive contribution they could ever make to the natural world.

We, at least, have evolved sufficiently to understand the benefits of contraception, and, for the greater good, we should use it.

Posted by: Trevor Williams | 25 Sep 2009 15:05:26

Do the math

One trident sub £5 billion.

Lets not bicker about the costs of keeping life on earth - provided its used effectively. Lets not rob pandas to pay peanuts to head of the sixth great extinction.

Chris is right we need to up the game of the conservation movement, the RSPB has hit the nail on the head with there Letter to the Future campaign (you can sign up from their website) www.rspb.org.uk/lettertothefuture/letter.asp?source=LTFITH0043 - we need a fair deal for nature and the environment.

Seems a bit of a cheap shot to expect a bit of money spared by giving up on pandas (their habitat and everything else that goes with it) to tackle the true extent of the problem.

Posted by: Ken Buss | 25 Sep 2009 14:02:47

The panda is doomed, unless it's going to evolve the equipment and taste to handle a diet just a tad more varied. And get better on the jiggy-jiggy front.

It's clearly stupid to fight natural selection when the bizarre evolutionary niche occupied by Mr Panda has all but gone down the pan. So stuff a few of the brutes and try keeping a zoo-based population going for a while.

The panda battle has been lost. Time to move on.

Posted by: Ian | 25 Sep 2009 08:35:52

Darwin is turning in his grave

So let's sum up his reasons for not bothering to rescue the Panda from extinction.

People, according to Packham, think Pandas are especially worth saving because people prefer to save cute and cuddly creatures rather than horrible slimy creatures and bug eyed monsters that only a mother could love. Shame on us for judging animals by whether they are cuddly or not!

Furthermore, all creatures are equally deserving of being saved and our conservation money should be spread more equally and the Panda is one which is sucking up too much of the funds which would have otherwise gone into the "save the puffball beetle" society (my example as he gives none). A beetle which only lives in puffballs and which are extremely rare due to the lack of good puffball habitats in the world (true story, I've seen them, amazing things).

Whilst we all love the puffball beetles and would never want to see them go, given the choice, most people would go for the Panda. Why is that? Not, as Packham says because they are cute and cuddly, but because they are higher order animals. The puffball beetle being quite a low order creature, doesn't take very long to evolve (compared to a Panda) as there are so many other similar beetles that even if it died out, if puffballs came back, very quickly a puffball beetles would re-evolve and would look very similar to the old version, probably behaving in a similar way etc.

A Panda on the other hand was probably a puffball beetle 750 million years ago and it clawed its way up Darwin's evolutionary tree until it became a lizard for a few 100million yrs then eventually became a shrew-like creature 60 million years ago and from this shrew like creature gradually became a bear like creature which then moved into (I cant believe I have to write this) the bamboo forests of east asia where it eventually became a lovely soft cuddly black and white bear that only eats bamboo.

My point is, not all animals are equal and equally deserving of being saved. It is much more important to keep the higher order creatures because they have been on an evolutionary journey which is much harder to repeat. We also like Pandas because they are our close neighbours in the evolutionary journey. They have evolved a certain amount of intelligence and dexterity etc etc. If the beetle is matchbox car, the Panda is Bugatti Veyron. One is vastly more complex than the other and God spent a hell of a lot of time making it, and for that little twerp Packham to come out and try and convince people that a Panda (or Rhino or Tiger which he also mentions) are just evolutionary anachronisms that are sucking up vital funds for the puffball beetle or the hummingbird moth is completely insane. I can't understand what is wrong in his head but it could be that it has evolved into a nice compact puffball beetle brain.

Posted by: RJ Cobain | 24 Sep 2009 23:50:32

pandas

i hate to agree with chris, having always considered myself an animal lover, but the money we spend on pandas may actually save multiple species, that do stand a chence of returning to the wild, as some point. the pandas, although truely lovable, and iconic are unfortunatley destined, if savable at all to end up only as zoo creatures anyway. if thats their only chance, then perhaps the zoo's should spend their spare money only on them, as the attraction value for them may be their only chance. it is unfortunatley the needs of the one outwieghing the needs of the many? and thats surely wrong

Posted by: neilspncr | 24 Sep 2009 17:23:35

jooles

As hard as it sounds it makes sense to let them die out. No habitat no pandas, otherwise man will have to support them forever.
An animal with such a limited diet and lifestyle would have died out anyway

Posted by: jooles | 24 Sep 2009 16:06:31

Brave point? Or moron?

When someone says the money could be spent better elsewhere...you mean spent better saving another species. Until of course that proves costly, so lets move to the next one. Why not then just go out and shoot all the Pandas and all the other 'expensive' animals and lets keep all the cheap to run ones. I am sure all the wild life charity donaters such as myself would be most pleased. Obviously not.

What I would like to know is why is the money I and many others donate in the hands of morons such as this? You are there because a species is in need. When a company is over spending what do they do? Shoot all the employees? No, they find ways to cut back and be more efficient but the goal is ALWAYS to save the company.

It is YOUR failure in the use of the money to protect the species, so if millions of pounds is not helping. Ask yourself, why the hell not?

Once this kind of mentality is condoned you can say good bye to a LOT of species, because animal conservation is expensive. After all, this is the same idiot that said Tigers will go extinct because they are worth more dead than alive......NOT if we change that by making it more expensive and more difficult for poachers. Imagine, if all poachers were hit with a huge fine making the risk far out weigh the result. Then bring in better ways to catch poachers...is it that hard? If one fine counters 100 tigers, then what? If you come down on the people buying the tiger skins to kill the demand....there are solutions, but of course Captain Quit is here to tell us not to bother.

But once again, this fool comes out with a statement comparable to saying 'ooh thats a tough one and it hurts my brains, lets move onto the next one until I get bored their too'. Expert? Expert of giving up and hurting conservation - No one Pandas are in so much trouble if this is an example of who is on the front line protecting them and others.



Posted by: Daniel | 22 Sep 2009 17:07:18

Can we afford to lose Pandas?

Money is an issue in all aspects of life. Money controls all, rules and overrules all. It's up to each one of us to let it rule our way of life and emotions too. (Money is the root evil that has lead to the appalling situation that we all face in the world today).

I feel that Chris is right when he says that perhaps we are spending too much (money, sweat and blood) on one species (that will probably not make it) BUT there are two main issues here. First of all when do we start giving up on species? (When do we start giving up on biodiversity?) Secondly the Panda is a flagship species, or should I say, THE flagship species on the world of conservation. Letting it go (after so much hard work) would be admitting defeat on any conservation efforts and would undermine many is not most of all future projects. It is a species that everyone associates to conservation and struggle to save the little wilderness left over. The Panda is like an ambassador, a general on a battle field, if it they disappear how will the soldiers find inspiration to continue fighting?

It is very important to persevere with this animal, as much as all the others. Flagship species (besides cute and cuddly,..) are normally top on an ecosystem, if they are "saved" normally also are all the living forms living in that ecosystem too.

Posted by: Ricardo | 15 Sep 2009 08:01:21

can we afford pandas?

I have to say that Chris makes a very brave point. No conservationist, or animal lover for that matter, wants to think that they have given up on a species, but the stark truth is that the money spent on saving pandas, could be put to use on so many other projects. Projects that would have a markedly higher success rate, and would make a bigger impact in the constant battle against anthropogenic change.
Unfortunately conservation is still done in a traditional -because we always have- basis, instead of basing it on the scientific evidence it should be based upon. Evidence would suggest that the smaller the population becomes, the higher the change of genetic disorders, just to add to the Pandas plight. One other scientific aspect to consider is, the panda isnt at the bottom of the food chain, and as such has a lesser effect on an ecosystem if it were to disappear. Where as there is a desperate need for money in areas (such as amphinbians) that if they were to be wiped out would have a catastrophic cascade effect on the local populations.
Its sad but true that maybe all we can hope for this far down the line, is damage limitation.

Posted by: stacey | 29 Jul 2009 10:52:55

To post a comment you must be logged in.
CLICK HERE TO LOG IN AND POST A COMMENT

New user? Register here

 

Click join and we will email you with your password. You can then sign on and join the discussions right away.