Posted on 09/18/2011 5:20:00 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Edited on 09/18/2011 5:49:51 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Pandas. Zoos want them, other bears want to be them (maybe?). But are they really worth all the trouble? Let's fight about it: Point: Pandas Are Awesome!
Counterpoint: Pandas Are Terrible!
I just want to get this straight right off the bat: I really don't hate pandas.* I just love nature. And nature has made it clear in no uncertain terms that pandas need to die. Now.
I’m with you, sport!
Evolution at work.
Feed them some red meat and see what happens!
Oddly enough, you can ask the same questions of a continent. Why are we pouring billions down the African rat hole? A whole continent that can't feed themselves, find it's own water, and spends all of it's spare time breeding and killing each other.
As long as pandas keep bringing in paying customers by the bus load, zoos will keep breeding them.
Economics at work.
I’m not sure this was the place for all the f bombs.
I'm not a panda guy; I'm a birder. In birding circles for the last few decades, that same question has been asked about the California condor. A lot -- and I mean a lot of money (both private and taxpayer-funded) -- has gone into saving this one species. And for what? Despite all this money, it's still evident that the California condor will NEVER survive on its own. The only reason this species is still with us is due to the extraordinary efforts of humans to keep the population viable. Is it worth it?
I bet you'd be surprised to hear that many prominent birders don't believe so. Yes, no one wants to see this magnificent bird disappear forever, but all the time and money that goes into keeping it alive is not helping other birds that are endangered or threatened such as the red-cockaded woodpecker, Kirtland's warbler, Cerulean warbler, or black-capped vireo, to name just a few.
The thought is that all the money and manpower spent on ONE species could be better spent conserving several other species. This probably applies to the panda as well.
I'll be honest: it's a tough call to make.
We could domesticate them and butcher them for food. Bamboo is a fast growing grass so keeping the cute little future ribs,steaks,chops sausage and burgers fed won't be a problem.
Forget Kung Fu give me Bar b Cue Panda.
and I bet the pelt would make nice seat covers too.
If they are not viable, let them fade away. You know, that progressive evolution, survival of the fittest, etc.
I say we sell them. The free market will figure out how to get them to breed tons if they are allowed to make money off them.
They are kin to the raccoon. Funny thing is, there’s no shortage of raccoons, even with all the ones we kill with cars. I wouldn’t waste my time trying to save them
“If they are not viable, let them fade away. You know, that progressive evolution, survival of the fittest, etc.”
They are viable. It’s just that the government doesn’t want to make them viable because they’ll say, “oh, how can you put a pricetag on Mother Nature? It must be kept pristine and pure and uncorrupted by those evil humans.”
Panda fights. I’d pay good money to see Pandas fight each other.
Though it may take awhile to see which one wins.
People care about cute animals. China will never be forgiven if they let pandas go extinct, because they’re cute. Same with koalas. They used to be hunted for their fur, and were almost extinct. But because they look like teddy bears, people cared about them and tried to save them. Now killing a koala is almost as serious a crime as killing a person in Australia. We humans, we like our cute critters!
That's the same reaction I had when I was handed the bill.
Lol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.