Chris Packham: 'Giant pandas should be allowed to die out'

Giant pandas should be allowed to die out, BBC wildlife expert Chris Packham has said.
The Telegraph 22 Sep 09;

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.

He said: “Here’s a species that of its own accord has gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac. It’s not a strong species.

“Unfortunately, it’s big and cute and it’s a symbol of the World Wildlife Fund – and we pour millions of pounds into panda conservation.

“I reckon we should pull the plug. Let them go with a degree of dignity.”

The 48-year-old also claimed that tigers could become extinct with two decades.

He told the Radio Times: “Animals are invariably becoming extinct because there’s no secure habitat for them.

“Where are you going to release them? I don’t think tigers are going to last another 15 years. How can you conserve an animal that’s worth more dead than alive? You can’t.”

Giant pandas have been dying out because of the destruction of their natural habitat and are only found in about 20 patches of forest in a densely populated region of China.

There are around 1,600 in the wild with around 180 more being reared in captivity.

Fellow wildlife expert David Bellamy lent his support to Mr Packham. “I agree completely,” he said. “When I was a WWF trustee I begged them to buy big chunks of the land in which these animals live, not just go on spending millions on rearing pandas in captivity.

“You can’t release them back into the wild if there is no wild left and we shouldn’t rear animals just to put them into cages.

“Even the WWF admitted there is no longer enough land for them to live on.”

However, Dr Mark Wright, a conservation science adviser for WWF described Mr Packham’s comments as “daft” and “irresponsible”.

He said: “Pandas have adapted to where they live. They live in the mountains where there is plenty of the bamboo they want to eat.

“It’s like saying the blue whale is in an evolutional cul-de-sac because it lives in the ocean.”

Dr Wright added that pandas face extinction due to poaching and humans moving into their habitat, and that if left alone they would not be under threat.

Hands off the pandas
The Independent 23 Sep 09;

Broadcaster Chris Packham has set fur flying with a claim that the endangered bears should now be left to die out. Simon Usborne leaps to their defence

Poor Yang Yang and Kou Kou and Lun Lun. Chris Packham thinks you and all your panda friends are good-for-nothing, bamboo-munching, taxidermist-dodging benefit cheats. In an interview with Radio Times, published yesterday, the BBC nature presenter launches a viscous assault on the embattled species. He says the giant panda has "gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac". He adds: "It's not a strong species ... I reckon we should pull the plug. Let them go with a degree of dignity."

And it gets worse. Last year the birdwatcher even threatened to "eat the last panda if I could have the money we've spent on panda conservation to [spend on] more sensible things". Eat a panda? What are you saying, Chris? Why not polish off a blue whale? You've got the mouth for it.

Packham is right in one regard – the panda is under threat and often seems hopeless. Habitat loss, poaching and the bear's notorious disinterest in making baby pandas has left it clinging to life in isolated mountain ranges. There are fewer than 2,000 pandas in the wild, around 250 in captivity.

But since when was it OK to "pull the plug" on one of the world's most recognisable and best loved animals? Predictably Packham's comments have caused uproar among panda lovers and animal experts (and presumably, Chinese people). So Chris – eat this. We present five reasons why the panda is worth saving...

Pandas are symbols of conservationism

Giant pandas belong to a select breed of animals qualifying as "charismatic megafauna". They are the poster boys of the natural world – the "T-shirt" animals whose plight is elevated to get us moist-eyed and agitated. "But pandas didn't ask to be cute and cuddly," says Mark Wright, the science adviser at WWF (which has a panda for a logo). "The point is that by saving the panda you are saving the dozens of other endangered species that are unique to those habitats." So if we did pull the plug on the panda and its habitat, Wright says, we'd also kiss goodbye to the Sichuan wood owl and the Snowy-cheeked laughing thrush. And they're birds, Chris – you like birds.

They are Chinese cultural icons

There is no animal the Chinese love more, besides the mythical dragon, than the giant panda. They're called "di xiong mao", which means "big bear cat" and serve as a symbol of national pride. The animal appears on commemorative coins and Jing Jing the panda was one of Beijing's mascots, elected by Chinese voters, at last year's Olympics. The panda is seen as a manifestation of the Yin and Yang philosophy of Chinese society. Their black and white coats and placid nature are held up as examples of harmony. And they have practical value. "Panda diplomacy" has helped Beijing build bridges, most recently with Taiwan, usually by loaning animals to zoos.

They are unique

There are two kinds of animals of interest to scientists – common ones (think flies) and the rare ones that may hold valuable secrets. "Pandas are famous in evolutionary science because they developed out of their wrist a unique appendage that works as a specialist thumb for stripping bamboo," says Bill Sutherland, a professor of conservation biology at Cambridge University. All too often lessons from nature die with endangered species. The gastric-brooding frog incubated its eggs in its stomach. Scientists seeking a cure for gastric ulcers were studying the acid-proof substance that protected those eggs until the frog became extinct. "You never know why or when a species will become vital to science," says Sutherland.

They're good for humans, too

The panda's future isn't only important for the species who share its home. Pandas have become rare largely thanks to human encroachment. Vast tracts of south-east China have been deforested or given over to agriculture as China tries to fuel and feed a rapidly-growing population. Pandas are now one of the most protected species on the planet. The Wolong National Nature Reserve in Sichuan Province is one example. It is home to 150 pandas – and thousands of people. "Most of them derive a living from the panda," says Iain Valentine of Edinburgh Zoo. "They depend on pandas thriving."

They're really cute

Packham may say it's the panda's doe-eyed tranquillity and teddy-bear features that have skewed our perspective – but there's no denying the bear's cuteness. It turns out there's science behind our soppiness. The Austrian zoologist, Konrad Lorenz, argued that humans react positively to animals that resemble babies, because we have evolved instinctively to care for our offspring. So humans are genetically disposed to animals with big eyes and heads and cute little ears. If evidence of this theory were needed, visit YouTube and search for "sneezing baby panda". The clip, which has been seen 40 million times, shows a mother jumping out of her fur when her offspring interrupts teatime with an almighty sneeze. Packham either hasn't seen it or doesn't have a heart.