Pandas

I have not seen the specific article to which you refer but if it is the same as has been reported elsewhere - i.e. that, in his opinion, the panda should be allowed to die out - and if, indeed, that is exactly what he said and he has not been mis-interpreted / mis-quoted in any way then I think that young man would be well-advised, in future, to get his brain in gear before opening..... (you know the rest!)

Chris Packham has gone down in my estimation, he was on the Radio this morning saying exactly that.  He thinks that Panda's should be allowed to go with dignity , likewise Tigers as there is so much money being spent on keeping them alive but in an environment that is man made, a listerner stated that was not the case in China Pandas are living a normal life.  

I have a lot of time for him actually and I'm really in a quandry as to what to think.

Its unbelievable to think of any species becoming extinct  but  I often ask when enough is enough and could the money be better spent elsewhere.  Its a really terrible state of affairs to be faced with such dilemmas knowing that man is probably responsible for such happenings.  As a member of WWF I have asked the question before,  Why, if after x amount of years there appears NOT to be any progress being made, do you still keep going throwing money in.The answer appears to be because in protecting the environment for the Panda it is  also conserving and protecting  hosts of other species  within the same environs and  to suddenly stop puttting money would be detrimental  to many bird species animals and insects and humans living therein.

So is it the Panda or the environment thats the priority?

He hasn't gone down in my estimation as such,  I just want to better understand where he's coming from.

Cartimandua, like you  I won't be writing him off.

I listened to him on Breakfast news this morning after all the media hype yesterday and  I have to say good on him for having the courage, in his position,  to raise such an issue.

I note that whilst he apologised today for upsetting people he stood by his thoughts and convictions and was happy to have raised the debate,  And like you said, he now has people talking and thinking about the issue

Tricky one. Pandas have been sent up an evolutionary dead-end and would not be around much longer without human intervention. There are more pressing priorities for expensive conservation efforts (tropical rain forests etc).

But Pandas are hugely charismatic and doubtless convert many people to the cause of conservation. It is hard to see people getting excited about some obscure tree dwelling frogs.....

Hi to All,

Unknown said:

Tricky one. Pandas have been sent up an evolutionary dead-end and would not be around much longer without human intervention. There are more pressing priorities for expensive conservation efforts (tropical rain forests etc).

But Pandas are hugely charismatic and doubtless convert many people to the cause of conservation. It is hard to see people getting excited about some obscure tree dwelling frogs.....

John B has a good point in what he said but I think what should not be missed  is that humans are often the culprits for a lot of our wildlifes demise and its usually involves money eg hunting for ivory or cutting down the forests that are the natural habitat of so much of the widlife. If this was stopped then we would not have to spend so much on the conservation and use the money in more usefull ways.

Graham

Hi Soosin

I have to say I was a little disappointed with Chris.  It is although his level of thinking was not really the way he presents himself at all.  It was not what he said about the decline of the Panda's.  It was the way he said it which I found quite disturbing.  Wonder what David Attenbrough would have though of it all.

I think David would have been a lot more subtle in his approach to the same issue without upsetting people by saying the wrong things while becoming involved with the media.  We all know that the media can pull things out of prospective at the best of times.  This only adds insult to injury of any person if they are unlucky to end up in the limelight..  The media are not the best people to become involved with at any time that is if you say the wrongs things about important issues. {frown}

Having seen Chris on Springwatch/AutumnWatch,  I have taken a likeing to him in his approach to the issues of wildlife as an interested party.  His enthusatic way he talks about his subject goes without saying.  Is there another side of him that we do not know about.  That we will find out in the future.

I only hope that the issue about the Pandas it is not going to cause Chris to lose followers, and people dismiss him in the future.  We will have to wait and see.

Regards

Kathy and Dave

Soosin said:

With little more than 1k wild pandas alive and  living in the mountain areas in China, what are your thoughts on Chris Packhams comments in this weeks Radio Times.

Hi there

Looks like Chris has aplogised to the news for his forthright remarks about the issues of the Pandas.  So hopefully that is him out of the dog house now

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/a178753/wildlife-expert-sorry-for-panda-remarks.html

Regards

Kathy and Dave

 I did cringe when I heard about it and thought he'd shot himself in the foot.  But the guy's a realist ,and reading more on hm and his views generally,  just makes me warm to him even more. I've always been a fan since my daughter was small and watched his TV shows,

   I dont think people should be instantly upset  and get carried away on media hype, just look deeper into the issue and decide from there.