‘Pull the Plug’ on Pandas?

Photo by Flickr user Stephan via Creative Commons.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


BBC wildlife expert Chris Packham has said it’s time to “pull the plug” on pandas. Packham, who hosts a BBC program on wildlife, says the giant panda has “gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac. It’s not a strong species.” Packham went on to explain that pandas receive far too much conservation funding because they’re cute and cuddly, and that captive breeding programs are useless because there isn’t enough wild habitat to sustain them.

I’ll agree with Packham that there likely isn’t enough habitat to sustain giant pandas, partly because that habitat is shrinking all the time due to China’s recent economic ramp-up. But China isn’t just thinking of conservation when it breeds pandas: Nearly 200 pandas have been rented out to zoos around the world at $1 million a year… each. And if those pandas have cubs abroad, those cubs also belong to China and must be paid for ($600,000 each). 

Additionally, as this Economist piece points out, pandas are an important diplomatic tool. As Communist China rebrands itself as a modern, industrialized nation, pandas are a “national symbol, a powerful instrument of foreign policy, and a potent brand.” Pandas also bring  tourism to Chinese provinces, and the big bears are logos for many Chinese companies, including the Panda cigarette brand that was so popular and hard-to-find it created a black market.

With so much invested in the panda, and with the panda’s incredible popularity, it’s not surprising that it gets a lion’s share of conservation funding. Pandas need more help than other species because they’re terrible at having sex (researchers even tried giving them Viagra) and their specialized habitat makes them less likely to survive global warming than generalist species like coyotes. But even if there isn’t enough habitat to support additional giant pandas, that’s not enough reason to “let them go” extinct in the wild. Pandas live in wildlife sanctuaries, and if the pandas go, so would their habitat, leaving the hundreds of species that co-exist with them suddenly unprotected. Yes, it is vaguely annoying that pandas get so much attention while frogs and worms and other equally important animals go unheralded. But let the giant panda go extinct? Not while China has anything to do with it.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate