Chris Packham's comments (1 Viewer)

[Nightranger]

I thought I would raise the subject of Chris Packham's recent comments in the press and I make no apology for starting this thread elsewhere too. I understand what Chris is saying and it does make a lot of sense to talk about an effort with hindsight vision (i.e., the WWF should have looked to buy land). However, I am concerned that Chris may inadvertently create an unnecessary division within conservation itself. It is already a little awkward that the aims of conservation vs animal welfare vs animal rights have diverged but it seems madness to look for a division within conservation itself. A friend of mine already emailed me after taking this argument to an obviously pessimistic conclusion, asking whether it was worth saving anything at all in the face of rising human populations and the inevitable encroachment/hunting that has plagued the giant panda. I have not turned anti-Chris all of a sudden but I thought it was worth raising this debate if only because this is what Chris wants to do. I am interested in what everyone thinks so it would be good to get as many comments on this subject as possible. Key points to think of:

* if you agree with Chris, what happens if it were to be a British species?
* would you be torn between species preservation and land conservation should it come to a choice of where your money went?
* does leaving a species that is heavily hunted to die out only legitimise that hunting?
* if a species is sufficiently threatened, should no action be initiated in the first place?


Let's get the debate going.

 

[melanothorax]

Nightranger
I don't think animal rights was ever in the same boat with conservation, even if it overlaps in a handful of instances. Animal rights groups are just crazy - I'd stick with animal welfare instead.

For Packham's comments though and conservation in general though, I don't think that you can disentangle the questions of species preservation vs. land conservation. The IUCN lists "size of species' range" as one of the three criteria for how threatened a species is, for instance. I think what Packham was getting at though was the idea of biodiversity "triage;" i.e. one species versus another, as opposed to land versus numbers as you put it.

And to that, I don't think there's any right answer to which species to focus on, personally. The extreme case of giving up on "hopelessly threatened" species, for instance, is not supported however. Just take a look at the recovery of the Mauritius Kestrel or the Whooping Crane, for instance. Down to just 4 and 15 individuals, they both have made astounding recoveries.

That said, I'm all in favor of the IUCN's approach - evaluating all species, to keep track (where possible) of just how rare species become before it's critical, thereby reducing the cost and effort in preserving those rare species.

 

[Jos Stratford]

Animal rights groups are just crazy

I am sure, in many eyes, conservationists are equally so. Whilst I may not agree with all the actions of animal rights groups, nor all their aims, I would not paint them with the single brush as 'just crazy'.

 

[melanothorax]

I am sure, in many eyes, conservationists are equally so. Whilst I may not agree with all the actions of animal rights groups, nor all their aims, I would paint them with the single brush as 'just crazy'.

Grossly misguided then? Completely daft? Stark raving mad?

Afterall, animal rights, also referred to as animal liberation, is the idea that the most basic interests of animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of humans.

That's simply not a sensible position.

 

[ChrisKten]

Grossly misguided then? Completely daft? Stark raving mad?

Afterall, animal rights, also referred to as animal liberation, is the idea that the most basic interests of animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of humans.

That's simply not a sensible position.

Why?

 

[melanothorax]

Why?

Sorry, but I'm just not willing to consider anyone who insists that eating meat is murder as sensible, for one.

But anyway, I apologize for side-tracking this thread. If anyone has issue with me, please take it up with me off-thread (private message).

 

[ChrisKten]

Sorry, but I'm just not willing to consider anyone who insists that eating meat is murder as sensible, for one.

But anyway, I apologize for side-tracking this thread. If anyone has issue with me, please take it up with me off-thread (private message).

Not being an Animal Rights Activist, I can't be sure, but I'm pretty sure there's more to it than "eating meat is murder".

But I can see the danger in dragging this thread way off topic, so I'll not comment further.

 

[Jos Stratford]

Grossly misguided then? Completely daft? Stark raving mad?
Sorry, but I'm just not willing to consider anyone who insists that eating meat is murder as sensible, for one.

A very simplistic summary of their views, I do believe. I do not share many of their opinions, but I think you might find this broad group that you describe as 'just crazy' and 'stark raving mad', etc, do have a far wider list of concerns. Whether you agree or not with the point, for example, there is nothing inherently crazy or stark raving mad about wishing to stop shampoos and cosmetics being tested on animals, etc, etc.

Total intolerance and a closed mind to their views is your prerogative, but as said, I would suppose there are those that view many conservationists in much the same way.

If anyone has issue with me, please take it up with me off-thread (private message).

Er, sorry, but (a) it is not an issue with you, but with the comments you posted and (b) if you make statements on-thread, then it can be discussed on-thread.

 

[abagguley]

So, Nightranger, you were concerned about a division between conservationists?

Don't worry, this thread has already shown we're all on the same wavelength

Have you got a link to any of Mr P's comments - I've not even seen them (been too busy munching on tofu & cuddling bunnies).

 

[Jos Stratford]

Don't worry, this thread has already shown we're all on the same wavelength
.

Perfect :-O

 

[Nightranger]

This is one of a number of links with an updated comment from Chris:

http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/packham-panda342.html#cr

I agree with the point about Mauritius kestrel, melanothorax. Indeed, it was the example I thought of immediately as a refutation of Chris's comments. It may seem hopeless now but I am not sure we are at the point where we can totally write off the possibilities of preserving or restoring habitats yet. Still, Chris is dead right that this is a useful debate that should be opened up now that it has been raised. After all, if people feel passionately about it then it is not easily dismissed.

 

[Nightranger]

So, Nightranger, you were concerned about a division between conservationists?

Don't worry, this thread has already shown we're all on the same wavelength

Have you got a link to any of Mr P's comments - I've not even seen them (been too busy munching on tofu & cuddling bunnies).

I think that is generally true but the comments of a friend (and RSPB member) along with how the subject may be viewed from those people who are not so actively supporting conservation is a concern. Just as an example, David Bellamy has also jumped on the comments and this is interesting because he opposes the idea of global warming and you wonder where the argument is likely to go. Richard Madeley made a comment in the Daily Express a couple of weeks ago to the extent that global warming is an unproven theory. Now I do not imagine for one moment madeley is qualified to be making this kind of claim but it makes me wonder if he would see Chris's comments through the eyes of having a different agenda. Basically, this is what I mean about how the subject could be viewed and re-interpreted. We all know Chris did not mean it that way but we also know how the media can put a spin on something like this.

Cuddling bunnies? You are not my sister are you?

 

[Nightranger]

Total intolerance and a closed mind to their views is your prerogative, but as said, I would suppose there are those that view many conservationists in much the same way.

Absolutely! I have seen examples where certain individuals (applies to conservation and animal welfare equally) would like to believe that 'never the twain shall meet'. It is often down to jealousy over funds but sometimes it is just a case of disagreeing with the majority of issues within the discipline therefore, deciding to take a side (not in the argument but on where to direct support).

 

[melanothorax]

This is one of a number of links with an updated comment from Chris:

http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/packham-panda342.html#cr

I agree with the point about Mauritius kestrel, melanothorax. Indeed, it was the example I thought of immediately as a refutation of Chris's comments. It may seem hopeless now but I am not sure we are at the point where we can totally write off the possibilities of preserving or restoring habitats yet. Still, Chris is dead right that this is a useful debate that should be opened up now that it has been raised. After all, if people feel passionately about it then it is not easily dismissed.

Exactly.

But, as a counter-point, one could argue that the time and energy spent in the US trying to find the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is a hopeless cause. Ditto with the Slender-billed Curlew in Europe (maybe). An argument could be made that that is a waste of conservation funds.

 

[ChrisKten]

These are genuine questions that I really don't know the answer to:

Does anyone really care what Chris Packham says? Does he have any influence over, well, any organisation really?

 

[Capercaillie71]

Does anyone really care what Chris Packham says? Does he have any influence over, well, any organisation really?

Isn't he a vice-president of the RSPB? Although that doesn't necessarily mean he has much influence.

Personally I can see the point of his argument and I think it has been misinterpreted by the media, but I do wonder if we stopped trying to save the panda whether it really would free up money for other projects.

Does anyone know how much money is spent on Panda conservation? Would the money still be forthcoming if it was to be spent on invertebrates or frogs?

there is nothing inherently crazy or stark raving mad about wishing to stop shampoos and cosmetics being tested on animals, etc, etc.

Isn't that to do with animal welfare (which I'm sure most conservationists are supportive of) rather than animal rights?

 

[Jos Stratford]

Isn't that to do with animal welfare (which I'm sure most conservationists are supportive of) rather than animal rights?

Quite possibly, I believe it is a blurry line, it is my view that animals in general do have the right to be treated with a certain degree of acceptible welfare ...and basically the law in most countries suggests this too - anti-cruelty laws guaranteeing it, etc. Hence I would not wish to tar all proponents of either animal rights or animal welfare with the label as crazy or stark raving mad - the majority are not extremists in any way, merely hold valid opinions, which the rest of us may or may not agree with.

 

[James Blake]

If conservationists don't agree about certain things, then I don't think they should pretend to in order to present a united front. Though I guess in any public statements I'd always like to see them giving emphasis to the things there is agreement on, to balance any necessary discussion of differences.

It seems clear that we cannot prevent every threatened species from becoming extinct - at least not without a completely improbable global shift in priorities, poitics and lifestyles - and in the light of this I think there is an urgent need to discuss which species and which biological communities to concentrate on.

Key ecological species (e.g. the Indian vultures) and particularly rich communities (e.g. the Amazon) are obviously priorities, but what about beyond this? I'm sure we all have our own ideas. Personally I'd be most distraught to lose any of the great apes - principally because they are a living link between ourselves and the rest of animal life, and have a lot to tell us about what it means to be human, and about the possible evolution of human cognition and intelligence.

James

 

[Original PaulE]

hi
going back to the original point of the thread and now having read chris packhams comments i find myself pretty torn on one hand you can see the point on spending the money on projects that have a better chance of succeeding but what sort of message does this send out to the governments and corporations in the world it's ok to destroy habitat and wildlife just make sure you do it properly to the point where it can't recover so you've got away with it
also where do you draw the line first the pandas to expensive whats next tigers after all it's very expensive to stop the poachers and the loggers etc so let's just let them get on with it as well oh and the elephant takes up a lot of land that could be used for other things lets knock them on the head as well etc etc
i can see a scenario a few years down the line where the packham equivalent ask is it really worth spending money saving the blue tit
it's a depressing thought

so overall i think the money should be spent the stand needs to be made and the pandas as good a place as any

cheers

 

[bitterntwisted]

On the thread topic, was Chris Packham not being intentionally provocative to get people thinking and talking about the issue at a more sophisticated and informed level?

On the off-topic of animal rights, I am no great sympathiser with his views, but to dismiss the philosophy of Peter Singer as 'stark raving mad' does him a gross injustice. This discussion illustrates the room for serious discussion of the animal rights argument... http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/interviews-debates/200106--.htm

Graham