'Giant pandas should be allowed to die out'

[Still Waters]

Giant pandas should be allowed to die out, BBC wildlife expert Chris Packham has said.

The television presenter said that the species was not strong enough to survive on its own and that the millions spent preserving them could be better spent elsewhere.

Mr Packham, who hosts BBC2’s Springwatch, also argued that breeding the animals in captivity for later release was pointless because there is not enough habitat left to sustain them.

Read more...

[DrunkDwarf]

I have to agree, let them die out. Its a harsh world, and all species have to adapt to survive. If we keep pandering to these creatures excessively specific requirements to survive, all we do is reinforce their weakness... they have to be left to struggle, to adapt or die. Survival of the fittest.

This doesn't go for all species who are currently threatened by extinction, only those threatened by their own inability to survive on their own, Pandas aren't being hunted down by humans excessively like some species, they've simply been woefully unable to adapt to a changing environment.

Edited September 22, 2009 by DrunkDwarf

[stevewinn]

If the pandas plight is because of mankind then we have a duty to assist them in whatever way we can, but if the pandas predicament is down to itself then, its a case of let nature take its course.

[Funky Poacher]

If the pandas plight is because of mankind then we have a duty to assist them in whatever way we can, but if the pandas predicament is down to itself then, its a case of let nature take its course.

Exactly... and to what extent of an impact can we assume that we've had on these creatures?

And, may I ask, what about the lame, mentally and phsyically, when it comes to humanity? We should let animals die out that couldn't make it on their own, but turn a blind eye to people?

[clockworkgirl21]

I think if pandas are meant to die out, they'll eventually die out even if people struggle to breed them. We're just prolonging their existence by a little bit.

And we're talking about an entire species, not a few mentally or physically handicapped pandas.

Edited September 22, 2009 by clockworkgirl21

[village_idiot]

Okay, this BBC dude is a complete jackass. It's mans fault the panda's dying out in the first place. 'Let it die out'!? How about 'help it survive' to amend the total mistake we as humans have made...? Again, what a jackass....

[little_dreamer]

The pandas are very popular at zoos. Maybe the zoos can finance their survival.

[clockworkgirl21]

Pandas are refusing to breed.

How is that mans' fault?

[Pinx]

Yes they're cute, but they're not very bright. I mean don't they have to force them to breed or something?

[The Silver Thong]

Pandas are refusing to breed.

How is that mans' fault?

They are not refusing to breed, more or less they just don't breed well in captivity. There natural environment has been decimated not due to the Panda. Man is directly the cause of the Pandas plight. We have a duty to try and save them as this is not natural selection.

[The Silver Thong]

^^^

Is your life/world going to come to an end or hit a bump in the road because Pandas may no longer exist?

Seriously, I'm all for preserving and helping animals from becoming extinct if humans had anything to do with it, ...but in the long run, like previously stated, it's survival of the fittest.

And you are bloody clueless and frankly a bit of a moron. Will my life end if we exterminate the Panda.. NO of course not but plain ignorance such as you have showen will leed to many othe species becoming extinct. In our p***s ant little time on this planet how many species have man killed, far to many and people like you don't care. I would be far more in favor of reducing the human population.

Survival of the fittest, LOL you don't even know what that means....

[Cetacea]

And you are bloody clueless and frankly a bit of a moron. Will my life end if we exterminate the Panda.. NO of course not but plain ignorance such as you have showen will leed to many othe species becoming extinct. In our p***s ant little time on this planet how many species have man killed, far to many and people like you don't care. I would be far more in favor of reducing the human population.

very true.

I do see the point of the article though, a lot of money is being used on a small amount of species, some of which are looking at a rather bleak future despite conservation efforts, in the UK there are similar talks being held about the red squirrel currently. It is true that the money could be used to better effect with other species maybe but both in the case of the red squirrel and the giant Panda, they are being driven to extinction by our doing which I find gives us a moral obligation to do something about it. The question is, is that not the case with other less charistmatic species that could profit far more and stand a better chance of survival from the money being invested in them It's a tricky situation.

[randym23]

i think we should keep the panda let religion die out and give all our money to more effective charitable causes......

[Cetacea]

Sentient life is above non-sentient life. If keeping the panda's alive costs millions upon millions of dollars that could be better spent elsewhere then we need to stop with this program. We're in a recession, this is the last thing we need.

Panda's are not sentient are they?

It's always sad to see people who fail to see that we are not separate from the rest of the eco-system..... Once we've wrecked the planet and killed every species we consider inferior to us out of negligence, let's see how important business and banking are then....

[Purplos]

Breeding them for release is silly if there is not enough land to release them too. Maintaining the species as a captive curiosity is a fine idea, I think. Eventually, the only animals besides scavengers we will have will be in zoos. And the kiddies on field trips can listen to the tour guide...

"These are giant pandas. They used to live in Asia, but man destroyed their habitat."

"These are pumas. They used to live in North American, but man destroyed their habitat."

"These are banded wallabies. They used to live in Australia, but man destroyed their habitat."

Etc. etc. etc.

[xYlvax]

They are not refusing to breed, more or less they just don't breed well in captivity. There natural environment has been decimated not due to the Panda. Man is directly the cause of the Pandas plight. We have a duty to try and save them as this is not natural selection.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Thanks

[Starship Trooper]

Pandas are a fascinating animal but if they are costing millions to protect maybe they do need to die out so we can put our money towards more problems that pretain to us...but I also feel like they need protection due to our actions and im sure we could find money somewhere to try to help them survive.

[The Silver Thong]

Nice comeback. How old are we? 11? 12?

Cut that out or I'll get my dad to beat up your dad LOL

I say we cut some aid to some corrupt counties that horde the aid and let the people die to help save the Panda. I'm sick of seeing western aid go to warlords.

[DrunkDwarf]

Exactly... and to what extent of an impact can we assume that we've had on these creatures?

And, may I ask, what about the lame, mentally and phsyically, when it comes to humanity? We should let animals die out that couldn't make it on their own, but turn a blind eye to people?

We should look after our own race with more priority, looking after the weak and unfortunate. After that, we need to prevent intentional harm to the other creatures on the planet, but accidents happen. The harm done to Pandas was accidental, they were not hunted, nor maliciously messed with, humans simply did irrepairable damage to the Pandas natural habitat without realizing, an important lesson learned, that we can but try to prevent in future. We've tried to repair the damage, but its far too late, but it simply cannot be done, the Panda has excessively stringent requirements to survive, and we cannot help.

All we are currently doing is flailing against a wall, we cannot recreate their original habitat, to expand the area in which they currently live, the Pandas have refused all attempts. Pandas are unable to function in captivity, unable to adapt, its a losing battle against the Pandas seemingly inherent desire to not be helped.

All we can do now, is be more careful in future, to not bring about the same doom on another species. The pandas living in the wild might not die out, aslong as we dont do any more damage to them, they could be fine, but they will probably never exist in large numbers due to how they are.

i think we should keep the panda let religion die out and give all our money to more effective charitable causes......

Religion will continue to exist for as long as Humans exist.

Edited September 24, 2009 by DrunkDwarf

[Raptor]

Ether way, it's not our place to speak on behalf of nature.

We have the facts and we have the means to act on them, so no matter what we do we're speaking on behalf of nature. We can choose to continue saving the species or we can choose to sit back and condemn them to extinction, either way we're the ones making the call.

I don't know what should be done now, it sounds as though the struggle will be expensive and perhaps unlikely to succeed anyway, so maybe the money should be spent somewhere else. What I do know is that as a species we have a duty to ensure we don't find ourselves having to make such decisions in the first place.

[HAJiME]

I've jokingly said for years pandas deserve to go extinct. It's not just that they are very picky eaters, their breeding habits are nothing short of ridiculous. And when they finally do manage to mate and give birth, they are terrible parents.

People often say we should help conserve wildlife because we put them in the mess to begin with. But you could argue that as just another species on this planet, any animal who cannot compete with us for resources should be allowed to die out. Some species have adapted to benefit from our existence. Take rats as an example.

But evolution doesn't predict itself. So negative by-products cannot be foreseen by evolution itself. But evolution has created our powerful brains and we CAN make predictions, which is why things like conservation are important.

The points brought up by Packham are solid and I'm not sure where I stand. I think the most important thing is education, to prevent sad stories like this occurring in future generations. He mentioned for example that millions is spent on rearing Pandas, and none goes to buying land to keep them safe in the wild. This, to me, looks like the WWF falling into the trap of breeding for the amusement of humans. A lot of zoos and wildlife charities blatantly lie about species conservation, such as with the White Tiger Fraud.