Some good (if familiar) points were made about panda loaning being both an economic and political exercise. What a pity that they were followed by this: When you reduce 1.3 billion people down to one stereotype it's amazing how quickly you can end up sounding incredibly foolish. Yes, the majority of people in China do not care so much about conservation, but you are totally ignoring the work of a small but passionate minority who are dedicated to changing this. Is there really a moral high ground to be gained because 'we' eat some animals and 'they' eat others? What a ridiculous thing to write on this forum of all places. Who among us has not seen countless signs explaining the dangers of the trade in these animal products at many of the zoos we visit (including, I would point out, at good Chinese zoos)? The only reason to place such signs at the Giant Panda enclosure, rather than, say, the Rhino House, would be to make the kind of political point that would hardly build the cooperation needed to deal with what is after all a global issue as well as a specifically Chinese problem. I have highlighted the part in bold as being particularly farcical; I leave it for readers to rebut themselves as a trivial exercise.
No, I do not have that, because when I "write the Chinese", it's not about the people or individual people or groups, but more generally, but mainly about the political attitude and the unfortunately not very positive attitude towards animals, as it is unfortunately widespread in China and reveals itself too well on zoo visits.I have no ethical problem that animals are eaten and also wild animals - if NOT threatened, in this respect commercially used in reasonable proportion, for my part, also cetaceans. This has never eradicated any animal species. Well, there's something about China with the turtles. Not only that, because of this "delicacy" and the tremendous consumption of these animals in China, the first Asian species are definitely eroded, countless other species are in acute danger, some exist only in captivity and this is undoubtedly a burden China. Now, China also imports turtles from other countries and continents to meet their needs. And China is one of the largest-if not the largest-market for pangolin products, including meat. And if that does not stop soon, the animals will be off the window in a few years. So forgive me, if I'm of the opinion that I have a problem with which animals are eaten in China - just as I reject the consumption of meat from the Factory farming, but that has animal welfare relevant reasons and no species protection reasons. And unfortunately, the consumption of rhino powder, all tiger and lion products and bile from bears in China is commonplace. Yes, that will certainly be criticized by people in China, but that should be a small minority, because too many people benefit from the business of wildlife products.Well, the signs I mentioned will of course never exist, because that would cut the panda holders into their own flesh. But it would be nice to explain to the public and visitors to the zoo how the country of China preserves biodiversity, if it is not about the cute panda bears - and with which the Chinese state earns a lot of money . Keeping Pandas in Zoos outside of China It's similar to system catering. You open a McDonalds or Subway restaurant, use their products and brand names, and pay the parent company high stakes in the business. So does China with its "Gold Bears". Not only does the few offspring out there have to return to the parent company after 2-3 years, no, even if the agreed lease term, as now in San Diego, has expired, even 25-year-old, breeding panda has to be sent on along way home, just so San Diego can (or has to) rent a young, expensive pair of pandas in 1-2 years, and the ruble can continue to roll for China. If China were really interested in helping the Panda out of their country, they would transfer the animals for FREE to the European and American breeding programs, instead of bringing back the offspring, or later, the older ones. This is not active conservation, and I think it is extremely deplorable and more than critical that many zoos are involved. Do not get me wrong, I'm find of panda's great animals and I also like to seethem , but with this background, I'll always see the zookeeping of pandas critically - just as many zoo directors do, like Mr. Ruebel in Zurich-one of the few really good zoodirectors with a clear opinion.But there are many more who oppose this business with the pandas. Well, I would think it better and more believable if San Diego Zoo had the guts to give up the pandas, and would rather use the exhibitfor sunbear or sloth bear. As long as China earns so much money from living pandas, they will not die out. Unless some guy claims on the internet that the bones of giant pandas have cured him of cancer-then China's love for the pandas will also stop very quickly..
I have no doubt that this IS a deal-breaker for some zoos, particularly the Bronx Zoo, who invest heavily into conservation of these species in their native lands..
It was said way above that certain institutions go along with this arrangement for its scientific study, and that needs to be stressed. San Diego and NZP--and I'm sure others--have done a tremendous amount of work studying these bears that has helped the species back from the brink of extinction. And the US government signed off on the arrangement with the explicit condition that all monies paid must go directly, prove-ably, into panda conservation. It's easy to become crass about this subject, but let's not forget that a highly-endangered animal now stands a much better chance of survival.
I said was that Bronx has fallen outside the Top 5 in the USA. I still think they're in the next 5, and I do disagree with SootyMangabey that Bronx has fallen below Cincinnati and Lincoln Park.
Others have responded to the question of whether zoos that lack pandas uniformly want them - that’s a hard no. I also don’t believe the panda prestige is what it once was, back when they were primarily in foreign zoos as diplomatic tools rather than cash cows (err, cash pandas?). There really are quite a lot of them about now. Five zoos in North America, eight - soon to be ten I believe - in Europe, at least five in Asia and Adelaide in Australia. The reason for the sprawl? Effectively, because there’s no barrier beyond having the cash. Something isn’t really ‘prestigious’ if you can simply buy them. Zoo animals are not Lamborghinis, and no self-respecting zoo will see them as such.
...and that one of the reasons they have fallen out of the top 5 in your estimations is that they dared to not want giant panda
I wouldn't want to downplay what I'm sure is significant research, but I don't think foreign zoos can really take much credit for the salvation of the panda (which, as you probably know, is now no longer classed as Endangered at all). The dominant factor was simply that the Chinese government got serious about protecting them. Reserves were set up, hunting bans were strictly enforced, and people were even moved off their patrimony to create more habitat. Additionally of course a captive breeding program has become very successful, but I am not sure how much, if any, reintroduction is/has taken place.
(Responding to Funky Gibbon above) Absolutely 100% true. I was merely trying to cut through all the noise and get the focus back on the animal, which WAS endangered. There's no doubt that rental fees helped China to breed, preserve habitat space, etc, to the point that they are not now endangered. There is re-release into the wild, but step one is to a quasi-wild area that is monitored by humans and perhaps is kept free of predators. Bears wear collars and can be brought back in if, say, the collar shows no movement in a day, which could be injury or health problems. Only bears who live successfully in this quasi-wild area for a set period of time like two years eventually are moved into more remote, truly wild areas. This was happening before the earthquake destroyed one of the camps, which is now some time ago, so I can only guess that more and more have been released since. I know that having the skills to survive is an obvious requirement, but I suspect they also release only bears who are well-represented in their domestic gene pool.
As someone who's local zoo was home to Pandas for 5 years, I can say that they didn't really improve the "prestige" of my local zoo that much. For the first couple months or so, yes the Pandas improved visitor numbers quite a bit but after that short spurt visitor numbers didn't really change as much as I was expecting they would I like Pandas, I really do, but I'd be hard-pressed to find many people who find them interesting to view, and with the astronomical costs of displaying Pandas I really don't think it's in most zoos best interests (places Like San Diego, Berlin or Omaha non-withstanding) to display Pandas.
FWIW, I've been lucky enough to see the large collection of pandas on display at Beijing Zoo (back around '05 or '06 I think it was), and to be honest, as fancy as the panda displays at Adelaide Zoo are, I found them all very ho-hum because it was rare that you actually got to see them do anything and adult pandas are generally pretty boring anyway - unless they are eating! I'd be curious to see what effect pandas have had on the long term visitor numbers at the zoo - especially given the financial difficulties Adelaide Zoo has had in recent years.
It's interesting you say this about the zoo's CHINA exhibit, as judging from photos posted on zoochat, this exhibit looks pretty terrible, at least for a couple of its species. And I'm not sure if I'd want a zoo exhibit complex to look like the Epcot Center, which is imo pretty tacky.
How do you reconcile deferring to zoo officials' knowledge when it comes to keeping pandas (ex. San Diego) but showing skepticism about zoo officials' knowledge when it comes to not keeping pandas (ex. Bronx)? Additionally, the decisions of some zoo officials to keep pandas does not necessitate that pandas are a positive investment financially, reputation-wise, or conservation-wise. Intuitively it might make sense that it does, but there are infinite examples of times when the decisions of people in management are not in line with what the data suggests should be done. Interesting that you added elephants to your argument, considering that there are multiple examples of zoos that phased out elephants and faced zero detriment to their visitor numbers or revenue. In any case, many zoos that phase out elephants or avoid pandas do so because they are *already* struggling with falling attendance and revenue, so comparing their success after the fact to those that do continue to keep them (who were likely doing better to begin with) might not be a fair assessment.
Perhaps I made this post a bit hastily. If anyone is thinking I'm down on the Bronx Zoo, I'm not. I strongly believe it's one of the Top 10 zoos in America, and I've always loved my visits there. I am, however, a bit disappointed that Bronx has continued to close important exhibits (World of Darkness, Skyfari), while not adding any new exhibits in the past 10 years. But this is not to bash Bronx, as I fully understand things are a lot more expensive in New York than they are in, say, Omaha. Sadly, this is largely due to local politics with higher taxes and more expensive labor costs in the East. If I meant anything by the post of mine you noted it is that Bronx just doesn't seem to have any (or many) of those "bonus animals" I've sometimes talked about. What I'm referring to are popular animals not found at many other zoos -- the kind of animals they could put on promotional billboards. San Diego has koalas, Tasmanian devils, and (until recently) giant pandas. Columbus has koalas and manatees. While Omaha also doesn't have such animals, they at least can point to some amazing, world-famous exhibits, such as the Lied Jungle, Kingdoms of the Night, Desert Dome, Scott Aquarium, and many more! Bronx does have okapis and Komodo dragons, but I'd say the most attractive thing they could put on a billboard would be their Wild Asia monorail -- but sadly there's talk they could be shutting it down too. But again, don't get me wrong. I still strongly believe Bronx is among the Top 10 zoos in the USA.
Especially as the Australian taxpayer picked up the US$10 million fee to the Chinese. I wonder what else the zoo could have used to attract visitors if it had access to that money.
To be fair to Adelaide Zoo, the pandas were a frolic of fancy by Alexander Downer after a single, off-hand conversation. I'm quite sure they didn't expect him to just go ahead and arrange a lease arrangement on their behalf.
Yes agreed but I guess the point is that even without paying the $10m Adelaide seem unable to make pandas pay.
