Chris Packham defends position on Giant Panda conservation

[Guest guest]

http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/packham-panda342.html#cr

 

Chris Packham - It is time to let the Panda go?03/06/2009 16:55:25 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.<http://www.wildlifeextra.com/do/ecco.py/view?listid=18 & listcatid=294>

Read the comments about this article and leave your own comment 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<http://www.wildlifeextra.com/do/ecco_user.py/signon?forwardurl=/go/news/\

packham-panda342.html>

*