Chris Packham, what do you think?

[Mr and Mrs luvpie]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090922/tu ... 6b408.html

So I can see his point, but perhaps it's been put a little harshly. Had to laugh when he was interviewed on TV this morning with his comment about, don't get me wrong, they (the pandas) are great little fund raisers, can't knock them for that, but...

As Mrluvpie put it, how much help can you give an animal that has no interest whatsoever in keeping itself going, sex or bamboo, there can't be many living things that pick the bamboo every time, can there?

[Helsbells]

Hmmm I dont agree with his opion and think it is very sad. It seems he is saying that because their habitat is dying out we shouldnt bother with them. But I think we should be trying to preserve habitats. There are many habitats that are disappearing which contain species that only live there and no where else in the world so should we let them all die out?? That seems crazy to me.
We need these habitats to survive as much as them at the end of the day.

[Thomzo]

I haven't read the whole article but I did catch some of it on the TV. I think the point is that species die out all the time, even before man came along. I think what he is saying is that the panda would probably have died out anyway as their ability to reproduce is so limited and their food supply is so fickle - it dies off completely every few years.

Well done to him for raising the issue though. It's certainly got people thinking and arguing about species extinction again.

Zoe

[MKG]

He said it awkwardly, certainly - but he has a point about other species NOT getting the support that pandas do. Who's going to donate to saving the Fen Raft Spider (which makes me shiver) when there are cute cuddlies like pandas around?

Mike

[Green Aura]

He wasn't suggesting pulling the plug on pandas - just spreading some of the resources more equitably. If he hadn't said it in such a contentious way it probably would have gone unnoticed.