It's not often you find an environmentalist talking down-to-earth good sense, so when one does it seems only fair to acknowledge the fact.
So three cheers for BBC wildlife expert Chis Packham who has said publicly that pandas are a useless species and should be allowed to die out. Needless to say, his views haven't met with universal approval from the tree-huggers of the world.
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. He 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.”
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.
The panda - useless, boring and suicidal
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. Other wildlife enthusiasts went further, calling Packham "the Pol Pot of wildlife preservation".
Dr.Wright's comments are, typically, emotive and not entirely accurate. It's true enough that pandas have adapted to where they live - but that statement doesn't go far enough. They have over-adapted to the extent that because of their exclusive diet they aren't capable of adapting to anything else. It's no accident that the most successful species are almost always those that have broad dietary requirements and can adapt to new situations and food sources - rats, for instance, grizzly bears, and sharks. And of course the prime example is ourselves.
Let's face it, the panda is a useless creature. It may look cuddly and unusual, but you'd be a fool to try and actually cuddle one because of their uncertain tempers. It's almost as if they have a death-wish: they are shy and reclusive, so dim they can't even manage to breed properly most of the time, and serve no useful purpose whatever except possibly to help control the fast-growing bamboo plantations. However, the Chinese are clever and industrious little buggers and I think they can manage to keep on top of the bamboo by themselves.
It's not clear that pandas fill a functional niche in the ecology of the region either. I suppose there may be some species of small pond-life that eats nothing but panda poo, but if so ... well, who gives a toss?
And if anyone is tempted to relapse squidgily into the "ooh, ah, sweet ickle panda-wanda" mentality, let me remind them that there are loads and loads of ooh ah sweet ickle Chinese baby-wabies who need to grow up to jobs, and schools, and houses. Sentiment is lovely if you have the time and space for it, but sometimes rational pragmatism has to take precedence.
Which is more important, one of nature's least successful by-blows, a miserable creature that has retreated and retreated from the world and all it has to offer until it can hardly stomach its own existence? Or real people, people who have the power to shape the world, people who can laugh and dance and write symphonies or poetry, people who can study the stars or master brain surgery?
For more penetrating comment on wild-life issues, click here.
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2009 The GOS