A Case for Pandas

A Case for Pandas

By Daniel A. Di Censo

It seems unwise to comment further on Chris Packham’s ridiculous claim that conservation groups should cease their efforts to save the giant panda from extinction. Most intelligent readers are sure to see the nonsense in his argument but I fear that, simply by writing about it, I am bringing more attention to it than it merits. As a result, I may be unwittingly elevating it to the level of serious discussion. But there are many opportunistic people who, without evaluating the scientific soundness of an argument, may quickly seize it as proof to further develop in the last strongholds of wild pandas.

Packham’s argument goes not only against pandas but against the very notion of conservation. He argues that too much money is being spent on preserving the panda that could be put to better use on species with a better chance of survival. Packham said that same money should be applied instead to the preservation of the rain forest, an ecosystem with a richer variety of flora and fauna.

“Here’s a species that, of its own accord, has gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac,” said the BBC presenter and president of Britain’s Bat Conservation Trust.

What Packham is essentially stating is that if a species is too difficult to save, it simply isn’t worth trying. Among the many problems with this philosophy is the question of where to draw the line.

Most plant and animal species have adapted to a specific habitat and the panda is certainly not the only species dependant on the protection of a particular ecosystem. The dodo bird, for instance, was found exclusively in the island of Mauritius. Thylacines were confined to Tasmania after they were wiped out of mainland Australia 1,000 years earlier and the warrah’s sole domicile was the Falkland Islands. Those species disappeared fast and so might gorillas for depending on the tropical forests of central Africa. The very rain forests that Packham rightfully defends as places worth conserving are homes to thousands of species that cannot live anywhere else in the world. A species’ dependency on a specific habitat, then, is hardly a reason to deem it too hard to save and certainly no reason to say it isn’t worth it.

Packham’s other big fallacy is his implication that the panda’s demise was largely of its own accord. Yes, pandas have a limited diet of bamboo and are slow to reproduce. So what? Should we now also “pull the plug” on koalas that feed almost exclusively on eucalyptus leaves and produce slowly (and are only found in Australia, by the way)? What about elephants and rhinos that give birth to only one offspring?

The fact remains that if humans had not toyed with their habitat, pandas would not be in the peril they are now. Although strictly protected by Chinese law, the panda was for many years an appealing target to poachers for its beautiful fur coloration. As usual, the West was quick to hop on the trail of extermination with Kermit and Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. leading the way as the first Westerners to shoot a panda in 1936.

The greatest threat to pandas, however, is the constant deforestation of their habitat. This is especially important to note in light of Packham’s claim of their lack of interest in intercourse. This lack of interest seems to occur primarily with captive pandas. Like it does to so many other species, captivity robs pandas of their natural instincts causing them to behave unnaturally. In the wild, pandas reproduce at a better rate, which makes a case for protecting them in their natural habitat all the stronger. But deforestation persists, as Packham undoubtedly knows. Many Chinese restaurants, for instance, still offer chopsticks made of bamboo. By the 1980s, loggers and developers had devastated the panda’s habitat. The destruction of China’s bamboo forests spells doom not only for pandas but for the variety of wildlife they shelter.

Pandas could hardly be blamed for their demise. As usual, human interference is the problem. Nor is the outlook as grim as Packham indicates. In 2006, Prof. Michael Bruford of Cardiff University in the United Kingdom co-authored a DNA tracking system that brought the estimated number of wild pandas up to 2-3,000 from the suspected 1,600.

This is good news for pandas and people because contrary to what Packham believes, that the panda is a mere “T-shirt animal”, pandas played a vital role in cementing China’s trade with the West, when China began exporting its pandas to zoos in Europe and America in what came to be known as the “Panda Diplomacy”. Furthermore, wild pandas are a good source of tourist revenue for China. Many Chinese outfitters now offer panda tracking tours into the giant bear’s native habitat in the mountains of Sichuan, Gansu and Shaanxi.

But, as Mark Wright of the World Wildlife Fund’s UK branch (an organization that has used the panda as its symbol since its creation in 1961) said, while this survey is “potentially exciting and promising news, it also reinforces the fact that giant panda numbers are still dangerously low. It looks like we are moving in the right direction but we must continue with our efforts to conserve this species and the threats to its habitat if it is going to survive in the long-term.”

Chris Packham’s silly dictum isn’t helping the situation at all and it is dangerous if anyone is stupid enough to take it seriously. It is, as Mark Wright described it, “a daft thing for Chris to say and an irresponsible one.”

This is obviously true to anyone with even a basic understanding of science, but let us not underestimate the number and power of “daft” and “irresponsible” people in this world.

I was born in Dorchester, MA on January 8, 1983 and though I was raised and live in Boston, my passion for traveling and world cultures has brought me to many different parts of the world. All my life, writing has been my primary sustainment. Writing, of course, and my love for reading, cinema, and travel.

Article Source: ArticlesBase.com - A Case for Pandas

Read More     No Comments