BBC responds to Giant Panda Artificial Insemination Birth story posted on AAPN

[Guest guest]

---------- Forwarded message ----------

NewsOnline Complaints <newsonline.complaints

Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 3:06 AM

RE: BBC's inefficiency

 

 

 

Thank you for your email. We apologise for not getting back to you sooner.

 

We are not panda experts here, but we have done some research into your

comment. As far as we understand it, a breakthrough did indeed happen in

1980, when scientists learnt how to freeze panda sperm in liquid hydrogen.

But in July this year, the technique worked to produce a successful live

birth - which has been elusive until now.

 

Once again, we're sorry for the delay - and thank you again for contacting

us, and for your interest in the site.

 

Regards

*BBC News Website*

*http://news.bbc.co.uk/*

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml*

 

------------------------------

** [journalistandanimals]

*Sent:* 20 October 2009 07:48

*To:* NewsOnline Complaints

*Subject:* BBC's inefficiency

Dear Sir,

From the attached email you will perhaps understand why I

think the BBC has been inefficient in dealing with the truth regarding the

said story. Unfortunate given the assurance that I would receive a response

from you.

Regards,

 

Yours sincerely,

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------

 

Sep 29, 2009 1:55 PM

Your story on Giant Pandas

newsonline.complaints

 

 

Dear Sir,

Exactly a month ago, I received the appended message from your

organisation in response to a query of mine regarding a story you had

published on artificial insemination of Giant Pandas. I was told you were

looking into the issue and would revert and am therefore writing to you

again.

I was just wondering if you have been able to make any progress till date

and would be in a position to give me any feedback? I would find your input

particularly helpful in the face of what Chris Packham of BBC's 'The Really

Wild Show' has recently said on Giant Panda conservation.

Thank you for your attention and I look forward to your response.

Best wishes and kind regards,

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

fromNewsOnline Complaints <newsonline.complaints

tojournalistandanimals

dateMon, Aug 31, 2009 at 9:01 PM

subjectFW: Feedback [NewsWatch]

mailed-bybbc.co.uk

 

Thank you for your email. I'm sorry we've been delayed getting back to

you, but we are investigating your comments and we'll get back to you

shortly.

Thanks for your patience, and sorry again for the delay.

 

 

journalistandanimals

[journalistandanimals]

17 August 2009 15:52

NewsOnline Comments

Feedback [NewsWatch]

 

Email address: journalistandanimals

Country: INDIA

COMMENTS: Sir,

I work for WWF in India and this is in reference to your story

entitled " China announces first panda from frozen sperm " that was

published on 24 July, 2009. A former veterinarian of National Zoo in

Washington disputes this information. I am attaching her response and

would be grateful if you could respond to her concerns and mine.

Thank you.

Regards,

Truly,

 

 

 

journalistandanimals

[journalistandanimals]

17 August 2009 15:52

NewsOnline Comments

Feedback [NewsWatch]

 

 

Email address: journalistandanimals

Country: INDIA

 

COMMENTS: Sir,

I work for WWF in India and this is in reference to your story

entitled " China announces first panda from frozen sperm " that was

published on 24 July, 2009. A former veterinarian of National Zoo in

Washington disputes this information. I am attaching her response and

would be grateful if you could respond to her concerns and mine.

Thank you.

Regards,

 

Truly,

Comment on report that a cub recently born at Wolong was the first to

result from frozen sperm

 

Sent to AAPN 28 July 2009

 

 

 

Kati Loeffler <katiloeffler

Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Re: (CN) First artificially inseminated Giant Panda

birth in China

AAPN List <<aapn >

 

 

 

Panda cub not the first ...

 

 

 

I am afraid that this story is built on erroneous or misunderstood

information.

 

 

 

The first panda cub born from frozen semen did so in 1980. Since then,

the Chengdu Research Base for Giant Panda Breeding has regularly

produced cubs from frozen semen: it is used just as much, if not more,

than freshly-collected semen for fertilization of captive pandas via

artificial insemination. I believe that Wolong is no different; we are

uncertain how this story came to be so misdirected.

 

 

 

Please also note that the common statement that pandas 'have low sex

drive' and 'have trouble reproducing' is erroneous in that it is taken

completely out of the context of the natural behavior and reproductive

rate for the species.

 

 

 

In the wild, giant panda females are in estrus once a year and the

period of receptivity for fertilization is believed to last no more than

12-24 hours. Cubs remain with their mothers for 18 to 24 months, during

which time the mother does not cycle. All told, a female panda living in

the wild will produce perhaps 6 or 7 cubs in a lifetime. In captivity

in China, pandas are asked to produce cubs annually, preferably bearing

two cubs each time. This rate of reproduction requires 1) that the cubs

are removed from their mothers at the age of 3-5 months so that the

female will cycle again the following spring, and 2) an intensive

artificial insemination program is undertaken to make up for the lack of

captive individuals (male and female) who are able to mate naturally.

 

 

 

The latter is a behavioral issue believed primarily due to inappropriate

socialization that begins with the premature removal of a cub from its

mother, followed by the intensive human handling that cubs undergo when

reared in breeding facilities and the paucity of socialization in a

normal panda social environment due to the isolated lives that these

animals live in captivity.

 

 

 

The physiologic and emotional stress to the female that results from the

intensive artificial insemination program (which often requires that she

is anaesthetized daily or twice daily for several days in a row,

sometimes also placed with a male while she is still recovering from the

anaesthetic), bearing cubs annually and losing them more than a year

before she would normally let them go are entirely unknown and

unacknowledged.

 

 

 

Moreover, the captive giant panda population is currently well above

250, and not 120 as is cited in the article.

 

 

 

The principle objective for captive giant panda breeding is meant to be

for the development a self-sustaining captive population. This means

that the population be of sufficient size and genetic diversity to

sustain itself without input from wild pandas; ultimately this

population may serve as a source for supporting the wild population.

Artificial insemination and the use of frozen sperm are significant

factors in progress toward this objective, as it allows the use of

genetic stock from bears that have died or that are far away: it is much

easier to transport frozen semen than a panda. However, political and

cultural factors remain a significant barrier to the optimal use of

genetic material for captive panda breeding, despite the best efforts of

certain Chinese scientists.

 

 

 

With the tremendous success of the birth and survival rates of panda

cubs in recent years and the consequent growth of the captive population

(though genetically still imbalanced), the question now is, What for?

An increasingly popular answer is so that pandas may be introduced into

the wild to support the dwindling wild population. Any of us who have

worked even tangentially with wildlife reintroduction are all too aware

of the complexity, intensive planning and research, high financial costs

and potential risks to the animals themselves of such an undertaking.

But even with all that aside, the most critical factor in wildlife

reintroduction is the commitment from the government and a country's

general population to restore and then to truly protect the habitat of

the species in question. With China's principle focus still on economic

development, the large rural human populations that need help in

finding alternative means of livelihoods that do not infringe on

wildlif!

e habitats, and the distressing development of very badly managed

'ecotourism' into panda and other wildlife habitats, we are a very long

way from deserving the indulgence of thinking about giant panda

reintroduction.

 

 

 

 

 

Kati Loeffler, DVM, PhD

 

Former research veterinarian with the Smithsonian's National Zoological

Park working at Chengdu Panda Base.

 

, INDIA

 

URL:

 

 

-----------------

BROWSER: Microsoft Internet Explorer

 

VERSION: 4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)

 

BROWSER USER AGENT: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;

SV1)

 

BROWSER CODE NAME: Mozilla

 

IP ADDRESS: 122.161.27.95

 

UK IP ADDRESS: (none)

 

WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER VERSION: wmp:9.0.0.3250

 

 

REAL PLAYER VERSION: r:no,

 

MEDIA SELECTOR: null

 

SERVER LOCATION:

 

EDITION: null

 

FLASH PLAYER VERSION: 10.0.32

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal

views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.

If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.

Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance

on it and notify the sender immediately.

Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.

Further communication will signify your consent to this.

 

Should pandas be left to face extinction?

 

This week, TV naturalist Chris Packham said pandas might not be worth

saving. Mark Wright from the World Wide Fund for Nature is one of the many

who disagree

 

- Comments

(109)<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/23/panda-extinction-chris-p\

ackham?commentpage=1>

- Buzz

up!<http://uk.buzz./buzz?publisherurn=the_guardian665 & targetUrl=http://\

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/23/panda-extinction-chris-packham & summar\

y=%3Cp%3EChris+Packham+says+we+should+let+nature+take+its+course%3C%2Fp%3E & headl\

ine=Should+pandas+be+left+to+face+extinction?+%7CEnvironment+%7CThe+Guardian>

- Digg it

(6)<http://digg.com/pets_animals/Should_pandas_be_left_to_face_extinction>

 

 

- Interviews by *Leo

Benedictus*<http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/leobenedictus>

- The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian>, Wednesday 23

September 2009

- Article

history<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/23/panda-extinction-chris\

-packham#history-byline>

 

[image: Panda and cub]

 

A panda and her cub: is this charismatic species worth the effort needed to

save it? Photograph: Keren Su/Getty Images

*Yes, says Chris Packham*

 

I don't want the panda to die out. I want species to stay alive – that's why

I get up in the morning. I don't even kill mosquitoes or flies. So if pandas

can survive, that would be great. But let's face it:

conservation<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/conservation>,

both nationally and globally, has a limited amount of resources, and I think

we're going to have to make some hard, pragmatic choices.

 

The truth is, pandas are extraordinarily expensive to keep going. We spend

millions and millions of pounds on pretty much this one species, and a few

others, when we know that the best thing we could do would be to look after

the world's biodiversity

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/biodiversity>hotspots with greater

care. Without habitat, you've got nothing. So maybe if

we took all the cash we spend on pandas and just bought rainforest with it,

we might be doing a better job.

 

Of course, it's easier to raise money for something fluffy. Charismatic

megafauna like the panda do appeal to people's emotional side, and attract a

lot of public attention. They are emblematic of what I would call

single-species conservation: ie a focus on one animal. This approach began

in the 1970s with Save the Tiger, Save the Panda, Save the Whale, and so on,

and it is now out of date. I think pandas have had a valuable role in

raising the profile of conservation, but perhaps " had " is the right word.

 

Panda conservationists may stand up and say, " It's a flagship species. We're

also conserving Chinese forest, where there is a whole plethora of other

things. " And when that works, I'm not against it. But we have to accept that

some species are stronger than others. The panda is a species of bear that

has gone herbivorous and eats a type of food that isn't all that nutritious,

and that dies out sporadically. It is susceptible to various diseases, and,

up until recently, it has been almost impossible to breed in captivity.

They've also got a very restricted range, which is ever decreasing, due to

encroachment on their habitat by the Chinese population. Perhaps the panda

was already destined to run out of time.

 

Extinction is very much a part of life on earth. And we are going to have to

get used to it in the next few years because climate change is going to

result in all sorts of disappearances. The last large mammal extinction was

another animal in China <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/china> – the

Yangtze river dolphin, which looked like a worn-out piece of pink soap with

piggy eyes and was never going to make it on to anyone's T-shirt. If that

had appeared beautiful to us, then I doubt very much that it would be

extinct. But it vanished, because it was pig-ugly and swam around in a river

where no one saw it. And now, sadly, it has gone for ever.

 

I'm not trying to play God; I'm playing God's accountant. I'm saying we

won't be able to save it all, so let's do the best we can. And at the moment

I don't think our strategies are best placed to do that. We should be

focusing our conservation endeavours on biodiversity hotspots, spreading our

net more widely and looking at good-quality habitat maintenance to preserve

as much of the life as we possibly can, using hard science to make educated

decisions as to which species are essential to a community's maintenance. It

may well be that we can lose the cherries from the cake. But you don't want

to lose the substance. Save the Rainforest, or Save the Kalahari: that would

be better.

 

Chris Packham is a naturalist and presenter of Autumnwatch

*No, says Mark Wright*

 

You are reading this because it is about giant pandas. We could have this

argument about the frogs of the rainforest, and the issues would be

identical, but the ability to get people's attention would be far lower. So

in that sense, yes you could argue that conservationists capitalise on the

panda's appeal.

 

And, to be fair, I can understand where Chris is coming from. Everywhere you

look on this planet there are issues to be addressed and we have finite

resources. So we do make really horrible choices. But nowadays, almost

exclusively, when people work in conservation they focus on saving habitats.

 

Chris has talked about pandas being an evolutionary cul-de-sac, and it's

certainly unusual for a carnivore to take up herbivory. But there are many,

many other species that live in a narrowly defined habitat. When he says

that if you leave them be, they will die out, that's simply not true. If we

don't destroy their habitat they will just chunter along in the same way

that they have for the thousands of years.

 

And besides, in terms of its biodiversity and the threats it faces, I think

that the part of China where pandas live should be on the preservation list

anyway. The giant panda shares its habitat with the red panda, golden

monkeys, and various birds that are found nowhere else in the world.

 

The giant panda's numbers are increasing in the wild, so I don't see them

dying out, and I haven't heard anything to suggest that other biodiversity

isn't thriving equally.

 

It is true, though, that there some some cases where preserving an animal is

not the best use of resources. If you asked 100 conservationists – even at

WWF – you would probably get 90 different answers, but look at what happened

with the northern white rhino in Africa, which we're pretty sure has died

out. We lament its loss. But at the same time it had got to the stage where

the likelihood of success was at a critically low level. If you were doing a

battlefield triage system – the rhino would probably have had to be a

casualty.

 

Otherwise, charismatic megafauna can be extremely useful. Smaller creatures

often don't need a big habitat to live in, so in conservation terms it's

better to go for something further up the food chain, because then by

definition you are protecting a much larger area, which in turn

encompasses the smaller animals <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/animals>.

 

And of course they are an extraordinarily good vehicle for the messages we

want to put out on habitat conservation. Look at Borneo, where you instantly

think of the orang-utans. In the southern oceans, you think of the blue

whale. Then there are polar bears in the north. There are things you pull

out from the picture because people can relate to them. And it does make a

difference.

 

Dr Mark Wright is chief scientist at the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/23/panda-extinction-chris-packham

 

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal

views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.

If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.

Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance

on it and notify the sender immediately.

Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.

Further communication will signify your consent to this.