Dear Panda Advocate,
Thank you for your kind retort. I agree completely with what you are saying, you misunderstand my point. No, I am not impressed by pandas, really, but that does not mean that I think they are less worthy of life. I am not so anthropocentric. They are, no doubt, wondeful in their own panda way that I do not recognize. However, after going to this panda preserve, it became quite clear to me that human beings are not the only reason that pandas are going extint. Yes, we are taking their habitat for urbanization and tea farming, and this is unfortnuate. It does become our responsibility to stop and reverse this practice. My point is that this is not the only reason pandas are having problems! Their lifestyle is such that natural selection is killing off their species. Even when a male and female find one another while the female is in estrus, they have problems figuring out what goes where. If they do, the chance of pregnancy is very low. This is NOT due to human beings and so I believe we should not be knocking them unconscious so we can extract sperm, refine it and then artificially inseminate a female panda after doing a paternity test to eliminate inbreeding! I feel that this is “messing with nature” just as much as destorying their habitat. There were nearly 100 pandas at this site, and I heard nothing of reentering them or their offspring into the wild. They are unnaturally creating more pandas just to have them around, not to restock the Chinese countryside with them. I agree that we should do our best to not destory the panda and to undo any damage done, but the practices at this place seemed creepy and unnatural. I hope you better understand where I am coming from. I appreciate and respect all animals and I think they have just as much a right to live as we do. My only apprehension is stopping a natural extinction because we think the animal is cute. How is it different from turning a blind eye to an extermination because we think the animal is a nusance?
Please reply,
Jamie
dearest jaime,
you have totally explained your point in a much clearer and understandable way. less cold sounding now that you have explained more specifically. my comment before was totally made in a friendly way and meant to dig further into what you thought. and it worked. thanks for the response. i have to agree that it does seem a bit crazy and sadistic the way they breed them, and i don’t think you are that anthropocentric. take care!
Comment by panda advocate — August 8, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Wow that was cool. I think your point here is well taken Jamie, and to keep a less fit creature alive due to its cuteness is silly. My question is: Are pandas a keystone species? That is to say, I wonder if panda’s provide some sort of irreplaceable impact on their envoirnment, as the gopher tortise does here in florida. I’m glad we can have these debates on the blog, its so invigorating!
Comment by Joe — August 10, 2007 @ 10:05 am
Joe-
I don’t know if they are a keystone species, but if they are, I would think that they wouldn’t be naturally dying off. Perhaps this self proclaimed Panda Advocate (are you, Panda Advocate, actually that, or one of my friends challenging me (in a good way, I mean) incognito?) will know.
Comment by Jamie — August 10, 2007 @ 11:03 am
I did some checking and panda’s are not a keystone species. In fact, their range and habitat is very, very limited and this was believed to be so even before modern techniques for tracking animal species. I guess that was part of the allure of the panda, its exotic and rare nature. It seems your hypothesis is gaining momentum, they seem to be an unfit species that has been “chosen” for extinction. Also, who are you, panda advocate? Send me an email incognito at Jlencioni@yahoo.com. I won’t reveal your secret identity, promise.
Comment by Joe — August 10, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
Well said Jamie, I agree that pandas have more problems than just humanity. The diet of pandas also severely limits their reproduction. Bamboo is highly deficient in nearly all life giving nutrients, which is the reason why they eat all day. This also makes the breast milk of pandas lacking in nutrition, and the maturation period baby pandas so long. Bamboo is the fastest growing plant on land, with some species growing one foot a day. I wonder if the panda, an animal which developed an exclusive diet on the nutritiously useless plant, was nature’s response to billions of acres of bamboo growing at a wild rate. The reason why this now seemingly pointless creature (not as pointless as a domesticated cat after the invention of mouse traps) is at the center of conservation efforts in China is because it is considered a “megafauna.” “Megafauna” include tigers, whales, and polar bears, and are the warmest and cuddliest animal in a given ecosystem. Environmental groups focus on them not because they are more important than their neighbors, but because they are the easiest for humanity to relate to. For example: whaling was banned in the US because environmental groups were successful in bridging the gap between citizens and whales. They marketed whales as an intelligent species capable of compassion and love, and thus ended the national image of whales as a luxury commodity. This saved many whale species from extinction, and created environmental laws which benefited other species in their habitat. This would not have been successful if environmentalists focused on the cod. If you are still reading this, thank you! This was way too long of a response.
Regards,
Alex
Comment by Alex — November 25, 2007 @ 3:10 am
PS: I’m sorry if I offended any “Cat-Advocates” by using a response about pandas as an excuse to belittle your favorite animal.
Comment by Alex — November 25, 2007 @ 3:12 am