BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="deborah4" data-source="post: 1597288" data-attributes="member: 29880">Ok Ian, you asked for it and I'm feeling particularly verbose right now! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />*If it were a 'British species', especially a large fluffy one, no doubt there'd be a lot of angry people from Tonbridge Wells writing to Chris Packham.*Species preservation and land conservation are inextricably linked.  Until that's properly understood, many 'conservation' efforts will be doing no more than re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.  A dual funding approach is needed, conserve species in captive breeding programmes if necessary/re-introduce if necessary, but only as a package response which includes restoration of depleted habitat/food resources, socio/economic support for local communities/countries that rely on export production such as logging, adaption to global market economies that allows Countries to offset export loss against priority conservation and habitat preservation etc etc.  Otherwise we end up in concrete jungles with local zoos (actually before that happened, we'd probably be dead from carbon monoxide poisoning or starvation so there'd be nobody left to look at the animals anyway)*The only thing that would  'legitimise' illegal poaching (which it is in the case of most endangered species) is a change in the law to allow that to happen.Thank goodness the Chinese Government isn't prepared to write off the Giant Panda so glibly (were CP's comments glib? Misquoted? Misunderstood?)  <a href="http://www.cnto.org/panda.asp" target="_blank">http://www.cnto.org/panda.asp</a><a href="http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2009/04/20/2003441504" target="_blank">http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2009/04/20/2003441504</a><a href="http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/giant_panda/" target="_blank">http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/giant_panda/</a>The decline of the Giant Panda is only part of a wider oil spill - the global conservation 'communities' with the public's support, have a duty to continue to try and clear up the messy footprints we leave behind IMO but we will only do that effectively in the long term if those 'communities' can come to  an agreed understanding about what it is they are trying to save.  Since habitat depletion is a global issue as are the uses of it's natural resources within the global economy, it needs a global response regardless of the fluffiness/not fluffiness of the species involved that are threatened with extinction.  In fact, the habitat that is required for the Giant Panda (which has been so severely depleted by State operated forestry enterprise) is also home to other not so fluffy endangered species, underlying the importance of acquisition/preservation of habitat as a fundamental and crucial concern to valid conservation efforts.At present most of the 'work' to keep the GP from falling over the precipice  is being done by the Chinese Government themselves in partnership with the WWF and with moderate success too.  This not only includes the 'popularised' breeding programmes but also creation of reserves, wildlife corridors and halting of timber clearing in areas of Qinling one of the most important strongholds of wild GPs - (studies on the latter have shown populations are now stable and surviving even in areas that were previously over logged).  One of the 'saving graces' with regard to timber clearance is that, from what I can make out, they are largely State operated rather than multinational, therefore perhaps offering more control to the Chinese Gvt with regard to managing them in a more sustainable way - in fact the State Forestry Commision is making a significant contribution to the National Plan to save the Panda in China <a href="http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2009/04/20/2003441504" target="_blank">http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2009/04/20/2003441504</a> .) (And before anyone cites over human population as the cause of all our environmental ills, I think we all know China has made more than an effort in that regard despite the controversies surrounding the manner in which it's impleted etc)<a href="http://www.wwfchina.org/english/sub_loca.php?loca=27&sub=90" target="_blank">http://www.wwfchina.org/english/sub_loca.php?loca=27&sub=90</a> IMO Chris Packham understands probably quite fully the necessity of habitat preservation but is 'guilty' of prioritising one species as a justification for withdrawing efforts to save a particular habitat.  His comments I think rather undermine the efforts that have been made to date by both the Chinese Government and the WWF and more importantly fails to recognise that the habitat of Giant Pandas is not some kind of mono cultured 'Giant Panda habitat' but a specific type of shrinking wildlife habitat in which they depend along with a diversity of other endangered species.   His comments, if also correctly quoted, raise serious issues on how we perceive 'conservation' and I think inadvertently highlights the risks of focusing on a single species within the context of conservation efforts.  However, the WWF too perhaps in a different way (and the RSPB to some extent) have also had a tendency to focus on 'flagship' species with regard to funding spent on re-introductions for example, of species that are not global threatened but are perhaps locally threatened or extant - is that OK I wonder, given the global nature of 'habitat' and 'species'?).Both the WWF and the RSPB as 'conservation' organisations I think also recognise fully the importance of avoiding a 'species-in-a-vacuum' response to conservation and this is clear in mission statements as well as capital investments made by the RSPB etc - but lack it seems, as with many other conservation organisations, the desire/motivation for saving habitat for habitat's sake rather saving it for a particular species that occupies it.  Funding and those that direct it for conservation really need to come to an agreement on this very important distinction if we are to make true progress in preventing any one single species from extinction in the wild regardless of how visible or sexy it is or not.  Conservation funding also needs to make good economic sense and that means it is to be both economically and environmentally sustainable in the long term - habitat protection/acquisition is central to that.  I do actually think the Qinling Panda focal Project launched by the WWF in partnership with the Chinese Gvt is actually responding rather well to the dual funding approach I mentioned in response to point two of Ian's post.    Meanwhile and more generally, breeding programmes, single specie focused funding efforts play a vital role in conservation and preventing the deck chairs from sliding completely off the deck in the short term,  provided we don't loose sight of (as Captain Kirk used to say!) the Primary Directive which is habitat habitat habitat ...</blockquote>

Verification