Saving The Panda is Not Cost Effective

'Panda's are not cost effective. They are a doomed species, and trying to prolong their existence is a waste of time and money'

Although this is not a direct quote, it is unlikely to matter to environmentalists and China watchers alike. Many of whom were left reeling this week at the release of a highly controversial interview by a Western celebrity conservationist who suggested that efforts to save the Panda were not sufficiently cost effective, and that they should thusly be abandoned so that the money can be spent elsewhere.

Let them Die

In an interview published in the British magazine "Radio Times", Western celebrity environmentalist Christopher Packham launched a bitter attack on efforts to save the giant Panda.

Urging conservationists to 'give up' on efforts to preserve the species, Packham said that the Panda was too expensive to continue to support, that efforts to save the Panda would ultimately be futile, and that money currently being used for Panda conservation should be redirected to more 'cost effective' programs. A move which Packham accepted would result in the total extinction of the Panda within a generation. but which they still refused to back away from.

To add to the controversy, Packham, a nature photographer who rose to prominence in Europe as a childrens' entertainer with the BBC during the 1980s, stated the belief that the Panda was a doomed species that was created created as a 'mistake' of so-called 'Darwinian Evolution', and that it was doomed to extinction due to its reliance on a niche food supply.

Packham also panned efforts to breed the Panda in captivity, describing re-population programs aimed at returning them to the wild as being "nonsense" due to habitat depletion.

Cute Sells?

Describing the Panda as a "T-shirt animal", Packham stated the belief that the primary reason that people were prepared to spend such large sums of money on the Panda was that it had a feel good image, and because it had become a symbol of conservation, rather than because saving the Panda was actually a worthwhile cause.

Rebuke?

Naturally, Packham's outburst quickly attracted critics of its own, including criticism from number of well known Western environmentalists and Conservationists, as well as angry China watches.

Describing them having taken up "as an irresponsible position" Dr. Mark Wright - senior science adviser to the World Wide Fund for Nature - directly contradicted Packham's assertion that the Panda was a mistake of nature, stating that Packham's description of the Panda as being 'a dead end' because of its bamboo diet had no basis in fact, and that the primary reason for the Pandas endangered status was because if Human actions.

Panda Hater?

According to the Western media Packham has previously made a number of similarly controversial statements regarding the Panda. Source describe him as saying that people should allow the Panda to become extinct and get over it so that the money can be spent elsewhere.

According to the British based Sky network, Packham was once stated that he would have the last Panda on Earth slaughtered for food, which he would personally consume, if it meant that funds already spent on saving the Panda could be magically released for other conservation programs that he considered to be more worthwhile.

Sky - the British sister station to the often fetted FOX network - failed to provide an original source.

Ulterior Motives?

Although the mainstream western media has so far declined to assign any official motives to Packham's remarks, some observers note that Packham is affiliated with a number of environmental causes and groups whom compete with the pro Panda conservation groups for funding and publicity. Causes which stand to benefit financially if the Panda were to become extinct.

Of particular note is the fact that Packam is the current vice-president of the RSPB: A UK based NGO dedicated to preserving bird species and habitat.

In an average year the fees paid by private and state zoos to loan Panda from the Mainland are only slightly lower than the RSPB's total annual income. Panda's are also up to five times more expensive to keep than elephants, and Panda's attract significant private and state donations, research grants, and other incomes streams, above and beyond zoo fees. All of which is money not going to the RSPB, or to other bird related organizations.

To date, there is no evidence that Packham has acted to harm any Pandas, or to hasten their extinction in any other way.

China watchers note that Packham's personal blog contains controversial statements, similar to this recent outbursts, in which they call for quasi-capitalist principles to be applied to environmentalism so that money can be directed to where it will produce the most significant return, rather than based on the individual need of the cause or program, and for an end to 'single cause' conservation projects in favor of wider plans to protect regional environments and habitats.

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit