Should We Let Pandas 'Die Out With Dignity?'

Pandas are practically the international poster child of wildlife conservation -- hello, the World Wildlife Fund even uses the iconic animal in their logo. The adorable black-and-white bears are cute, charismatic and, thanks to poaching and habitat loss, at very real risk of extinction.

Now the giant panda has become the center of a debate incited by BBC wildlife broadcaster Chris Packham. Packham is known for his nature photography and natural history books and is the host of the BBC wildlife program "Springwatch." It's his job to educate the public about nature and the environment, so it was surprising when the broadcaster didn't mince words when discussing pandas in a recent radio interview, reports the London Times.

"Here is a species that, of its own accord, has gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac. It's not a strong species...I reckon we should pull the plug. Let them go, with a degree of dignity," Packham said on air, according to the Times.

That's just batty, says Colby Loucks, the deputy director of the conservation science program at the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). True, saving pandas presents a unique challenge, since the bears focus 99 percent of their diet on bamboo. "But I don't think [pandas] went down that 'evolutionary cul-de-sac' of their own accord," Loucks told Paw Nation.

Historically, Loucks explained, bamboo forests covered a much larger area in Asia than they do today. "Humans co-opted almost all of that area for themselves," he said. After humans cut down huge amounts of bamboo forests, the pandas were left stranded in a relatively small pocket of bamboo forests in China. But that's our fault, not theirs."


According to the Daily Mail, in his controversial radio spot, Packham said the money spent on pandas would be better spent on other animals. Again, Loucks disagrees. Preserving bamboo forests provides jobs in fishing, agriculture and forestry -- "a huge part of the economy for China," he told Paw Nation. Plus, people like to look at pandas. When people trek into the forest to see pandas in the wild, it generates money for the region through eco-tourism. "Pandas are important economically," he says.

Of course, there's more to the bear than big bucks. It's important to protect all species, including us, Loucks told Paw Nation. "There's a web of life in which species great and small, from pandas to bats, interact together, and we can't just let them wink out. We don't know what consequences it might imply for other species, including us," he said.

Hopefully for pandas, Packham's argument is beside the point. Loucks told Paw Nation that the situation has improved for the big bears, just in the last decade. China has set aside new panda preserves, more than doubling the area that's protected. The last survey of panda numbers found a minimum of 1,600 animals -- a number that's still gravely low, but higher than previous surveys over the last 30 years, Loucks said.

"I think the panda is a success story for China and for conservation," Loucks added. "I think pandas are here for the long run." We certainly hope he's right.

Source

Tags: Chris Packham, ChrisPackham, extinction, Packham, panda, WWF