The deal with panda hate

So I noticed that in a lot of biology circles, the giant panda has become a much maligned animal. Personally, I think this movement is not worth it but I wanted a second opinion. Also, I'm on mobile so pardon the lack of links.

 

I think they are maligned by some mostly because of their overwhelming popularity, which results in large amounts of money being donated to their conservation; some say that this is done at the expense of many other endangered species that are not as well-known or supported.

 

The way I see it is that pandas are a gateway to people caring about endangered species and ecosystems. In a media-saturated world with a zillion distractions, it is useful to have megafauna mascots to represent the wild world.

Of course the real power-centers of the ecological world are microbes, insects, and other microfauna and plants and fungi. It's incumbent upon people who study these organisms to help find ways to make people care about them. This is HARD to do. I've spent the last several years trying to figure out how to do it (specifically to sell plant stories to kid's magazines) without much success.

It's easy to complain that pandas get too much attention, but the real issue is finding creative ways to focus people's attention on nature beyond pandas.

 

Several people have voiced their dislike about the excessive focus on giant pandas.
Why I Hate Pandas and You Should Too

Others have pointed to the aspect that the protection of native Giant panda habitats does also benefit other local species, such as gorals, takins etc. as well as the microbes, insects etc. mentioned above.

 

I wonder what Joe public would think if they went extinct? I think it could be along the lines of

If they couldn't save the panda with all our WWF donations why donate to anything.

 

So what do I tell all the people on tumblr? Close friends of mine are pretty much calling pandas "useless." I can't bring it in me to say that about a species.

Here's the post I think caused much of tumblr to get angry at these animals
did you seriously just say we should let pandas go extinct to save other animals or am i misinterpreting because that is a very questionable judgement

 

Tell all the people on Tumblr to figure out how to make plants, insects, fungi, and bacteria as exciting and interesting to the general public as pandas are.

 

I think people on Tumblr only know how to vilify and baw. Pandas are only the tip of the iceberg

 

The Zoological Society of London studied research papers published between 1900 and 2010 for each carnivore species. Dr Zoe Brooks said, "Of the 20 most studied species, most are larger species with large geographic ranges, like black bear and brown bear. Marine mammals account for 13% of carnivores, but were the focus of 37% of published research. The authors suggest that research effort may lean towards carnivores that regularly come into contact with humans, but many species with no published papers live in areas with low funding for research. Fondness for the cute and cuddly may sway us towards saving some species from extinction and not others.

This research suggests that bias towards some species, such as giant pandas and big cats, has negative implications for others, such as many small cats. Unfortunately, this has led to many animals becoming rare in zoos. For example meerkats are not threatened, but occur in many zoos, while endangered mongooses are far less common in zoos.

 

Personally I say we donate more money for ecologically important animals like snakes, frogs, clams, fish, etc. instead of wasting millions on giant pandas

 

If I can ask an honest question should I feel bad for adoring charismatic megafauna? Sometimes I feel like an idiot for not giving other, lesser known species attention.

 

Nahh, it's your opinion and I'm pretty sure a lot of people here do as well (I do but not pandas)

 

I feel that the Chinese government doesn't really want to as much save pandas as much milk them like heifers. The reason I don't want to say "let pandas go" is because I see so many dedicated biologists that care not only for the black & white superstars but for all the species they share the bamboo forests with.

Edit: I think this link explains that focusing on movie-star species may actually be good, at least for apex predators
Whales and animal welfare

 

Not at all. I am far more interested in the megafauna at any zoo I visit than I am in seeing almost any kind of bird, reptile or amphibian (exceptions would be Andean condors, Komodo dragons and Corroborree frogs). Everyone is different and has their own preferences and while I don't necessarily believe non megafauna are less important in the eco-system they inhabit, they are of less interest to me when viewing exhibit. Megafauna are the drawcards of any zoos, the majority of visitors visit to see these animals and it's these people who contribute to all manner of conservation funds simply by paying their admission fee at the entrance gate. Whether they learn anything while they are at the zoo or not or gain a wider appreciation for conservation is another matter but the fact is zoos rely on these people in terms of visitation.

I think part of the appeal, aside from the characterisation of these animals in books and toys etc and the fact that they're 'big' is the fact they can be identified and given a name. This fosters a connection between the public and this animal. Individual skinks, lovebirds and fish are rarely given names and therefore limit this connection or humanisation.

 

For me, this is the crux of the issue: is focusing on charismatic megafauna of detriment to other species, or does it lift them up as well? If a large area of land is set aside for the protection of one species, that also protects every other species that lives there, without the need for people to know what they are. I would say that this encompasses a lot of conservation measures focused on "megafauna".

For example, orangutans are the poster child for the clearing of rainforest for palm oil plantations, and gorillas are the poster child for recycling cell phones that use minerals mined in Africa. Those conservation efforts don't just help apes, they help the entire ecosystems they live in.

 

That's why I think the big cats and elephants should get as much money as possible. When they're protected against habitat loss and poaching, you end up protecting many other species w/o trying.

 

I would like to add that while you can say the charismatic species provide conservation protection for lesser known and important species, not all lesser known and important species live in areas with megafauna or charismatic species to protect them, such as frogs in Costa Rica. These species are finding some neglect, such as the recent example of vaquita, who had little conservation action done for them until close to (or beyond) the point of no return. Yes the flagship species provide protection to lesser known species, but there needs to be some degree to which others get conservation efforts as well, since if we campaign too much for charismatic conservation, there will be several species that get left out. I agree that charismatic species are very important to protecting others, just voicing another side to this debate.

 

For those looking for evidence to justify some of these claims: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...iant_panda/links/56508c1c08aeafc2aab72349.pdf

 

I don't mind pandas, in fact I am rather fond of them. I do agree though that they get a bit too much attention, and I often refer to them as "the most overrated animal in the zoo-trade"