Pulling the plug on the panda

[grokefish]

Just saw on TV that a suggestion has been made to pull the plug on funding panda conservation and just allowing them to become extinct to free up finance for other species (Presumably that are of more importance to humans)
It would be terribly sad to see the last surviving panda die.
I am not going to put anything else forward until I have read peoples replies to this.

What do you guys think ?

Matt

[Bas Pels]

It would be sad, and I wonder whether the WWF, the World Wildlife Fund, if I remember the meaning of the letters correctly, will allow the panda to go extinct - after all it is their logo

But, when the natural habitat of a species is destroyed, beyond repair, the few surviving animals have only a life in the zoo to look forward to - and I don't think that is the best way to spend conservation money on - perhaps education ,might fund the panda, but keeping pandas alife would in that case not have much to do with conservation - after all, there is nothing to conserve anymore

Perhaps the money would better be spend on migratory fish, such as Pangasius gigas, I don't know

[L number Banana]

Oo, that would be truly sad.
I guess if there's enough funding to keep the species going even in captivity, that would be something. My optimistic but somewhat unrealistic thought is that maybe someday when there's habitat restoration, they could be put back?

Why are we funding things like mars exploration again?...grr. I love all things space but if you compare the two things, ##^%$ the space program!

Hmm, Michael Jackson's massive land isn't being used all up...hey Jackson family, could you plant some bamboo and welcome some new friends? In fact there's lots of "useless" land here and there.

Did you know that two of the most fabulous places on earth for diversity, reclamation, restoration etc are Chernobyl and the no man's land between warring middle east countries? No people. Lots of critters reappearing. Seems again, we are the problem.

[grokefish]

Seems again we are the problem.

Agreed, so funding the space program is imperative so everyone can fck off there and leave the planet earth recover.

Matt

[racoll]

Agreed, so funding the space program is imperative so everyone can fck off there and leave the planet earth recover.

[Chrysichthys]

I thought that, in China, saving the panda from extinction was a matter of national pride, and therefore a high priority.

There's a case for letting the cheetah go extinct. They are inbred to the point where it impairs their fertility, due to a genetic bottleneck sometime in the past.

[L number Banana]

Grokefish wrote:
Agreed, so funding the space program is imperative so everyone can fck off there and leave the planet earth recover.

But only the politicians and the very rich. Now that would be a funny reality show, I'd tune in the second year, just when they realize that nobody needed them and they're no longer important to anyone. Tune in at 8 when Putin and Obama both want the last snickers bar.

[Richard B]

From what i saw this morning on TV the original "suggestion" came from Chris Packham (UK wildlife photographer & 'expert') & has been misquoted a bit. He was bemoaning the fact that a LOT of money was spent on the panda at the expense of other species, which were to all intents & purposes "brushed aside" as they were less"desirable" - ie not cute & cuddly.

The point he was trying to make was that we should do all we can to protect the future of ALL species.

A lot of funding for panda conservation does indeed come from the Chinese government & not the WWF (WorldWide Fund for nature as it is now called).

This seems to be a case of good intentions put across very badly - someone correct me if i'm wrong - maybe the TV interview this morning was a damage limitation exercise or a PR salvage job???

[T4FR]

I thought that, in China, saving the panda from extinction was a matter of national pride, and therefore a high priority.

There's a case for letting the cheetah go extinct. They are inbred to the point where it impairs their fertility, due to a genetic bottleneck sometime in the past.

You have point on the cheetah, but cheetah's are THE coollest animals on earth, so to lose them would be such a terrible waste!!

[sidguppy]

same goes for humans

if there's anything inbred; it's humanity, especially the more religious kinds where it's all the rage to use cousins, daughters, sisters or even little kids to get offspring

unfortunately animals like the panda or the cheetah lack the voice to speak up for themselves; whereas humans keep going on and on and on

if you think about itreally hard and take in the whole picture, I mean globally, and think about what would make sense in the short run (say 20 years from now) or in the long run (evolutionary); it would make a LOT more sense to eradicate all religions and their followers, starting with the inbred yahoo'sof all major religions and protect the panda and cheetah, than reverse

it sure would make up for a better, nicer and cleaner planet as well.

and now that we're at it; add all managers to the "to do list" next to the reli freaks as well

[grokefish]

Well actually he said to let them go extinct, those exact words and I for one agree with him on this, strange though it may seem.
The money spent on the panda from what I gather (maybe erroneously though it's probably true) is massive and they will one day have no real natural habitat to live in, which is very sad.
Pandas dying out isn't going to change an entire ecosystem and to be honest, they have become so specialized in their diet that it was bound to happen with or without humans.
There could be a wee tiny bug out there that IS very important to one of the major ecosystems e.g rainforrest that if not identified and protected could take out a whole ecosystem or worse.
Maybe money is better spent on that?

Matt

[andywoolloo]

I would be sad if they let the pandas go. Every animal is important.
isn't the loss of any one species detrimental to our world? Aren't they all here for a purpose?

Steve Irwin would of saved them. I saw red pandas either at his zoo or at the Tarango zoo in sydney.
Can't remember which zoo.

I used to donate to save the wolves but now they are letting people kill them cause now there is too many.

[sidguppy]

the big problem is that if they let the panda's die out, there's no 'need' to preserve those bamboo forests either.

and China, being the ecological hellhole that it is, will destroy those habitats within the year the panda's are gone. count on it.

now the panda's presence motivate the people to let the habitat in peace. also: panda tourism brings in a large amount of money and publicity.

shortsighted decisions like "letting them go extinct" will not motivate people to conserve natural habitats at all.

to save a habitat you need some animal in there that appeals to the people. a 'poster child animal' so to speak.
if it's 'just a forest" with bugs in it and little else; it's only a matter of time before it's gone.

this is one of the big problems with conservating large freshwater fish. many large freshwater fish are ugly as sin and the water is turbid.

while coral reefs in general look like a "Nemo marine tank" and hence have a "cute factor" the turbid waters of the Yangtze or the Ganges lack this.
imagine Pagasianodon being pink, fuzzy and cuddly; looking like a Pokemon animal, and it's home waters clear as tapwater; we'd have NO problem whatsoever of mobilizing public opinion and getting the public aware and ready toprotect it.
now it's just a big smelly ugly fish.....


the guy who put that one up is remarkably shortsided and he might be a scientist, but he doesn't have a thing on the knowledge of how human nature works.

[grokefish]

I think they are destroying the bamboo forests anyway and that is the problem, they will be extinct in the wild anyway.
Effectively that statement is already true, because they could only be possibly living in some kind of "nature reserve" which is by it's very nature not natural, if you get me.

I don't believe it is short sighted, but I get what you're saying Sid.
I think the cuddly animals really are distracting the public from what stuff is really important to conserve and maybe better education of how important insects are to the whole earth system, which are really not cuddly, is needed.

Matt