Let pandas die out, says naturalist

**jizzybloke** · 23-09-2009, 03:30 AM

Conservationists should "pull the plug" on giant pandas and let them die out, according to BBC presenter and naturalist Chris Packham.
"Here's a species that, of its own accord, has gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac," Packham told Radio Times magazine.
The 48-year-old believes that money spent on conserving the panda would be better invested in other animals as the species is not strong enough to survive alone.
"It's not a strong species. Unfortunately it's big and cute and it's a symbol of the WWF (Worldwide Fund for Nature) -- 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 are confined to forest areas high in the mountains of southwestern China and have to consume large quantities of bamboo to survive.
They number around 1,600 according to the WWF (WWF UK - for a living planet), and are threatened by agriculture, logging and China's increasing human population.
But Packham's views are not widely shared.
"It is a daft thing for Chris to say, and an irresponsible one," Dr Mark Wright, a conservation science advisor for WWF, was reported as saying by British media.
"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," Wright added.
Packham, who is president of Britain's Bat Conservation Trust and vice-president of the Wildlife Trusts, also saw a grim outlook for endangered tigers.
"I don't think tigers are going to last another 15 years," he said. "How can you conserve an animal that is worth more dead than alive? You can't."

**dirtydog** · 23-09-2009, 03:57 AM

He isn't going to win the Mr Popular 2009 contest

**Don Juan** · 23-09-2009, 04:30 AM

He's a cock.

I know him. He was adopted by a rich man. That's why he's got a voice. He's nothing.

**dirtydog** · 23-09-2009, 04:34 AM

^Nasty northerner is he

**Don Juan** · 23-09-2009, 04:39 AM

Fucking Jock!

Enough said.

**the dogcatcher** · 23-09-2009, 04:42 AM

No, I think he has a point. Can we perhaps apply this doctrine to a few African countries ie the expensive ones.

**Don Juan** · 23-09-2009, 04:45 AM

Balls, DC.

Pandas are lovely creatures. They must be preserved.

The Africans can go fuck themselves.

**the dogcatcher** · 23-09-2009, 04:58 AM

We got plenty of Africans and not many Pandas.

**Don Juan** · 23-09-2009, 05:01 AM

A shame.

**blackgang** · 23-09-2009, 06:14 AM

Yea, Thats what I say too, Let the Panda Die out..He's not really worth keeping alive.

**Humbert** · 23-09-2009, 06:29 AM

The fact that pandas even exist anymore is a result of sentimentality and emotionalism. They are at an evolutionary dead end as a species.

**the dogcatcher** · 23-09-2009, 07:03 AM

Well if you consider that the natural way of thing is that human beings evolve and then destroy other creatures environments then yes, it's chips for the Pandas. Not much use anyway, other than perhaps to help fund zoos. The only animal alive in Chiang Mai zoo is the panda.

**blackgang** · 23-09-2009, 07:23 AM

ea, and he be gone too, but the Thai afraid to eat that one cause the chinks come over and kick their ass if they do.

**kingwilly** · 23-09-2009, 07:39 AM

Its called giving up, innit? Start with pandas, they are too hard, tigers also, too hard, next rhinos, then elephants, then where, where does it stop?

Mangopeeler, you might write in a jibber jabber style but it does not disguise the fact that the post above is racist claptrap

Dan · 23-09-2009, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Its called giving up, innit? Start with pandas, they are too hard, tigers also, too hard, next rhinos, then elephants, then where, where does it stop?

As your post illustrates, roughly where they stop being cute or exciting. What about the mass extinction of amphibians currently well under way? Fuck that, frogs are gross.

**Marmite the Dog** · 23-09-2009, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Mangopeeler, you might write in a jibber jabber style but it does not disguise the fact that the post above is racist claptrap

It also means that every post he makes is going into MKP.

**chassamui** · 23-09-2009, 07:49 AM

You might not like Packhams background, but he has a valid point. Dr Wright of the WWF does not get any points for his comparison of the blue whale, because it has considerably more ocean to play in, than the Panda has bamboo forests.
China has a pretty poor record on conservation, and detruction of habitat in particular.
Species extinction is caused by human intervention and the subsequent failure of species to adapt.
It is impossible to have unrestrained human population growth and the retention of vulnerable species.

**the dogcatcher** · 23-09-2009, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by chassamui

You might not like Packhams background, but he has a valid point. Dr Wright of the WWF does not get any points for his comparison of the blue whale, because it has considerably more ocean to play in, than the Panda has bamboo forests.
China has a pretty poor record on conservation, and detruction of habitat in particular.
Species extinction is caused by human intervention and the subsequent failure of species to adapt.
It is impossible to have unrestrained human population growth and the retention of vulnerable species.

That is the natural way of things. Even humans developing tools and then from that BMWs is the same.

**beazalbob69** · 23-09-2009, 09:39 AM

Animals will continue to die out as long as the people in the developing countries where these animals live want to live like us westerners.

Let me see I have a choice a. Feed my family by clearcutting all of the jungle or b. save some poor animal that I care nothing about.

How can we as westerners tell people in other countries that they have to preserve their enviorments when we have already destroyed most of ours? I guess we are a bunch of hypocrites.

**Humbert** · 23-09-2009, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by chassamui

Species extinction is caused by human intervention and the subsequent failure of species to adapt.

Countless species have died out without human intervention. Evolution is roulette.

**The Fresh Prince** · 23-09-2009, 09:43 AM

But they are so cute.

**mordred** · 23-09-2009, 09:54 AM

"Let Naturalists die out."

Panda

**chassamui** · 23-09-2009, 10:05 AM

Countless species have died out without human intervention. Evolution is roulette.

This is incorrect. Since the arrival of man on the scene, his main motive has been his own survival. By clearing land for agriculture, domesticating livestock, changing the landscape to suit huimans at the expense of wildlife, hunting etc, all man ever does is undermine the species which support life on this planet.
A little late in the day, some humans are now trying to provide connected habitats for wildlife, preserve what remains of critical landscapes and reintroduce predator species.

**AntRobertson** · 23-09-2009, 10:08 AM

evolutionary cul-de-sac

What have chilly scrotums got to do with this??

Dan · 23-09-2009, 10:11 AM

^^ This is true. Conservation makes sense from a purely economic point of view. It's estimated that 75% of the wealth in the world economy is attributable to services provided free by nature, yet we don't really have any idea how these services work. The networks of interaction are so complex that, even if we knew which organisms were participating (and we've yet even to name most of them), understanding their interplay would be beyond us. Allowing this mass extinction to continue is suicidally stupid.

Thread: Let pandas die out, says naturalist

Thread Tools

Display

Hybrid View

Let pandas die out, says naturalist

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions