Imagine the money that could've been used for other species, that has been used for the upkeep of the giant pandas :/
OTOH Disney did take efforts to model Baloo upon a sloth bear and he does look like a cartoon of one. Snout, claws. Disney as you know made wildlife documentaries. So there was some attempt at accuracy.
I think most of what you are saying here about panda appeal is incorrect. Pandas are rare (there are only a couple thousand of them - surely the most endangered bear species), they are unusual to look at (there are no other black and white large terrestrial carnivores), and they are behaviorally unusual in that their diet is mostly a grass - not true of other bears. They are also cuddly-looking and playful so there is a popular perception of them as giant living teddy bears. It is true that pandas had more of a mystique in the 20th century when they started showing up in western zoos. China was a closed and mysterious place. Since they have opened up to the world beginning in the 1970s pandas have spread throughout the zoo world, but they remain intensely loved and charismatic animals. While it is true that their unique superstar status as zoo draws probably has considerably faded, they will always be superstar zoo animals and a premiere conservation mascot for China.
I agree with your statement. Giant Pandas are enormously popular, with long lines at exhibits all around the globe. I've seen the species at San Diego, National, Atlanta and Memphis (the 4 American zoos that have them) and the line-ups are staggering. Also, Polar Bears are clearly the second most popular bear species, far surpassing any others in fame except for their Chinese cousins. I suppose that their white colour, swimming ability and iconic status all contribute to Polar Bears being superstar zoo animals.
It's a combination of appearance/image (it's not just that they're cute, they're iconic, regularly used as a symbol of conservation) and rarity. Most people visiting San Diego and going to the zoo won't be able to see a panda at their local zoo, so they're gonna make damn sure they see one while they have the chance. Anyway, as for the topic... It's hard for me to say since I don't know much about zoo visitation in Europe. How much money do they make from pandas anyway?
In the Australsian region, Giant Pandas are a rarity. Taronga, Melbourne and Auckland Zoo each hosted a pair of Giant Panda in 1988-1989 for three months each. The pandas were initially scheduled to visit just Australia for their bi-centenary celebrations but Auckland Zoo negotiated to be included in the line up to give New Zealanders a once in a lifetime chance to see these animals. During their three month stay, hundreds of thousands of people visited and do doubt the cost of hosting them was more than recouped as it replicated the visitation host zoos expereince when they aquire pandas for the first time. Auckland and Wellington Zoo have recently both declined the chance to acquire a pair of Giant Panda, citing financial reasons. The only zoo in our region to hold Giant Pandas is currently Adelaide Zoo, who have expereinced debt associated with the pandas acquisition and upkeep. Interest has faded and unless they produce a cub soon (they have not bred since their arrival), I predict they will not be renewing their ten year loan. Personally I admire any zoo willing to take the chance and exhibit the species, even if they only do it once. Irregardless of their conservation status and where money could have been allocated instead, they are giving people the chance to see a species they almost certaintly would not have otherwide seen. Giant Pandas are surely considered the flagship species of any zoo, ahead of elephants and gorillas and have huge pulling power in my opinion. The majority of visitors visit from an entertainment perspective (as oppose to an educational or conservation perspective) after all and like it or not, it's these people that bring in the money.
As I explained there are lots of rare animals; lots of bichromatic animals, and lots of grass eaters. True it is an odd combination in a bear, but none of these things in themselves are unique. Magpies and zebras are not so popular however. If the appeal of a panda is based on herbivory - most people don't realise bamboo is grass - then it is a mistake to exaggerate this as weirdness to the public. Do you remember the cliche that no one could tell a pandas diet from its skeleton? Though pandas actually are chalicothere-like, more so than other bears, bears as a whole are diagnosable as predominantly herbivores from their skeletons and soft tissues ie. vastly expanded gut like that of elephants and perissidactyls, gorillas, ground sloths, moas and herbivorous dinosaurs. Pandas are not so wierd on that count. Polar and sloth bears are the wierd ones, like duikers are to bovids, having begun reverting to faunivory. I agree, but it's odd the traditional Chinese and Tibetan never had such interest, specifically, in pandas though bears were in a category with monkeys and yeti type creatures between man and beasts. (In folk zoology it is normal for traditional peoples merge bears with primates ie. in Indonesia and Peru.) Remarkably given the supposedly universal appeal of pandas, they were not among the animals Chinese attributed great symbolic value to. Their bodies had medicinal value, and so on. But pandas were not "special" among man-like creatures. Sure you can find they had images of pandas as charming butter thieves in people's houses and so on, but the same notions surrounded monkeys. Given popular confusion between bears and primates the stories probably jumped to pandas from originally referring to monkeys or legendary wildman (themselves seen as closer to bears than to monkeys) in the first place.
Why ask a question you already know the answer to? And why is it such a big thing to you? Are you -pandaphobic?
Another point worth noting is aside from the appeal of Baby Giant Pandas and the increase in revenue from admissions and souvenir sales their births generate, there is the prestige that comes from breeding an animal that is notoriously challenging to breed. Success in breeding these animals no doubt validates the world class reputation established by zoos like the Smithsonian National Zoo and the San Diego Zoo. Breeding Giant Panda has also promoted smaller zoos like the Atlanta Zoo to the world stage.
I have an interest in why people believe things. I first read the standard explanation of panda popularity from Desmond Morris. The reasons are being given here, since most people have heard them before. I would like to see people justify the various explanations, such as "pandas are black and white"; the only passable argument so far is that the most popular bears are oddest coloured, specifically white, and are thus a kind of novelty. Ergo there is 1) the novelty and 2) pigmentation. It's still a bit unconvincing: are cockatoos more popular than macaws or African greys? Are magpies more beloved than jays (in European folklore the opposite is true)? Et cetera. This is what I meant. By definition all bears resemble teddy bears: teddies imitate N Am bears. Pandas are not particularly teddyoid. It might be that sitting upright in popular images makes pandas seem more anthropomorphic than most bears? Zoo animal popularity favours upright sitting/standing animals - penguins, parrots, monkeys.
First, giant panda is rare even in ancient China. Believe it or not, the Chinese character "tapir" was used to refer giant panda initially, because ancient Chinese couldn't distinguish panda from Malayan tapir, due to the extreme rarity of both species. Later giant panda had its own name "white bear" and was seen as a extreme precious and even divine animal because of its extreme rarity. Second, if it is not the worldwide love of giant panda, dozens of species, including golden cat and dhole, will lose their last stronghold in China inland. Because panda can earn huge money, the government cares about them, thus the panda reserves in Sichuan, Shannxi and Gansu are the best managed and protected ones in China, which harbour hundreds of otherwise no-one-care species.
Malayan tapirs are good counterpoint to the idea bichromatic animals are popular. Many people familiar with pandas will not find Malayan tapir similarly appealing. It isn't colouration. Another counterpoint is the palm nut vulture/fish eagle; it's lighter coloured than most large accipitrids, and another "vegetarian carnivore".
Maybe, but I think pandas are fluffy and cuddly. Most bears look a little sleeker and usually have more of a sense of power and even menace to them. Polars and Grizzlys make me think they can and will rip my head off. Pandas not so much. I think this is definitely part of it. Pandas are also quite human in the way they manipulate bamboo, as if they have hands.
Yes panda hands do make them look human: it's part of the appeal, but it is not unique to pandas: raccoons, koalas, squirrels, primates. Even parrot feet. They are all popular enough but lots of grasping animals are unpopular; rats and mice being most obvious. With grasping it isn't especially clear cut, at face value. Some people find murids adorable, and others don't. Like most explanations of panda popularity, the grasping and sitting isn't enough. For what it's worth I have heard people like red pandas because they are "human".
For what it's worth, I find it, and you, decidedly unfunny. Racism - something about which to be "playful"? You really are a very foolish young thing. And I find your posting in general to be offensive, impolite, and ignorant.
