I honestly don't think it is at all clear that their insistence to continue to keep pandas at all. It seems to me that they have made some questionable decisions in terms of the direction of the collection in recent years but I don't see what this has to do with the pandas.
Are you more likely to visit a zoo with giant pandas?
- Thread starter Shirokuma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- giant panda pandas
I honestly don't think it is at all clear that their insistence to continue to keep pandas at all. It seems to me that they have made some questionable decisions in terms of the direction of the collection in recent years but I don't see what this has to do with the pandas.
It is because the cost of the pandas has eaten up a whole lot of their money.
Well they have managed to finance a new giraffe enclosure and tiger tracks since they have had pandas. I don't have time to go through all the Edinburgh Zoo threads to see what else has gone on but I think the loss of interesting species and failure to use areas which have been closed is due to lack of vision and imagination rather than pandas eating up their money.
Short answer to this thread: yes.
I think there are definitely animals that are more interesting than Giant Pandas. I also think there are better ways zoos can spend their money, than on Giant Pandas. Yes, they draw in a lot of visitors, bringing in a lot of money, but Giant Pandas are given way too much hype. Zoos spend tons of money on them and breed them for conservation, although, there are more endangered animals that they could choose, for instance, anything that's endangered, critically endangered, or extinct in the wild. This doesn't mean that I don't think there should be Giant Pandas in zoos, it just means people freak out about them too much. It's silly to give them this much attention when Sun Bears and Sloth Bears have the same conservation status and are arguably just as cute. (Just go watch Keematee climb a tree at the Philadelphia Zoo).
I think there are definitely animals that are more interesting than Giant Pandas. I also think there are better ways zoos can spend their money, than on Giant Pandas. Yes, they draw in a lot of visitors, bringing in a lot of money, but Giant Pandas are given way too much hype. Zoos spend tons of money on them and breed them for conservation, although, there are more endangered animals that they could choose, for instance, anything that's endangered, critically endangered, or extinct in the wild. This doesn't mean that I don't think there should be Giant Pandas in zoos, it just means people freak out about them too much. It's silly to give them this much attention when Sun Bears and Sloth Bears have the same conservation status and are arguably just as cute. (Just go watch Keematee climb a tree at the Philadelphia Zoo).
I am sure pandas attract more visitors hence more income in the case of Edinburgh though as a uk resident it’s remote in the sence that’s are younger children are desperate to se them for the first time so in pricing up a visit it was cheaper on flights to go to European zoos, Madrid etc than Edinburgh so am not sure in there case
Not all the financial reports for the timespan in question are still online, but for several years now the zoo has seen negative financial growth, with higher expenditure than income, and visitor numbers only saw a marked increase for the first year or two of the loan. The topic of how financially-sound the choice to add Giant Panda to a collection was discussed at quite some length in the following thread (link starts with the beginning of the discussion rather than the start of the thread:
ZooChat Cup Group E: Denver vs Pairi Daiza
I shall quote something I said in the thread:
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Proof if any that obtaining giant pandas is not a recipe for success and can be a colossal waste of time and money that is better spent on ex-situ or in-situ work with other mammal species (such as the scottish wildcat).
In my opinion , the Chinese are doing well with their ex-situ panda program so what on earth is the point in wasting huge sums of money in bringing this species to zoos around the world ?
I don't think there is any sound logic in it at all (and apparently not even in financial turnover from increased visitor numbers either) and it seems to be more of a very silly choice based on emotion and popular culture rather than anything else.
Last edited:
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Well, it's not the Chinese wasting money, is it? They gain money
Yes, I'm sure the Chinese do very well out of it indeed and I bet they laugh all the way to the bank.
It is the British / Scottish, Americans , Germans , French, Japanese and Mexicans (I'm not sure which other countries hold pandas but I'm sure there are more) who evidently waste their money on this kind of farce. The joke is on the rest of the world in this case.
The irony of course is that this money spent on bringing this ursine A list celebrity half way round the world could have been far better spent on urgent ex-situ programs for native and endemic species.
Aren't the pandas in Mexico not actually owned by China?Yes, I'm sure the Chinese do very well out of it indeed and I bet they laugh all the way to the bank.
It is the British / Scottish, Americans , Germans , French, Japanese and Mexicans (I'm not sure which other countries hold pandas but I'm sure there are more) who evidently waste their money on this kind of farce. The joke is on the rest of the world in this case.
The irony of course is that this money spent on bringing this ursine A list celebrity half way round the world could have been far better spent on urgent ex-situ programs for native and endemic species.
I'm pretty sure the Mexican animal(s) is/are actually the last pandas not owned by China, so in their case their owning of the species doesn't cost them a dime to China.
~Thylo
~Thylo
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Correct, they are not owned by China as they were both born at Chapultepec and are thus owned by the Mexican government.
However, a considerable amount of money was spent in recent years on a totally futile attempt to artificially inseminate the elderly pandas with sperm from male pandas (from China) in order to produce offspring (of course this failed and was doomed from the outset to fail , so it was money that might as well have been put down the drain).
Moreover, the money spent on the annual upkeep of these animals is vastly more (absurdly so in my opinion) than that spent on native / endemic species which is the point I was trying to make in my previous comment on this thread.
A couple of years back there was rumours of an offer from China of pandas being sent here to Rio, Brazil. I'm very thankful that this didn't end up happening because if it had then the same ridiculous waste of money and time (that is better spent on native biodiversity IMO) would have occurred here.
I actually have no doubt that the Rio zoo would be far worse in this regard than Chapultepec, probably one hundred times worse actually.
Last edited:
I'll confess, one main reason why I wanted to visit Ueno is just so I can see a panda for the first time in my life along with tarsiers. However I wouldn't go to a zoo to see pandas my self.
Seeing all this talk about financial burdens makes me wonder how Ähtäri Zoo is faring right now...
Seeing all this talk about financial burdens makes me wonder how Ähtäri Zoo is faring right now...
Thinking about it, I supposed I would go to a zoo at least partly to see a panda if I had not seen one before
~Thylo
~Thylo
In the 1980s China was loaning out golden monkeys. San Diego Zoo does a robust koala loan business.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
I've seen pandas so perhaps this is totally irrelevant for me to say this but I would be way more interested in seeing a tarsier as I have never seen one , have an interest in primates and those little beasts are incredible and totally fascinate me.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Yes, I get what you are saying here. In theory this model could be applied to the endemic and endangered species from many countries that are not readily established in captivity outside of their range countries, right?
For example, the Dominican Republic could loan out solenodons, Madagascar the indri, Argentina the pink fairy armadillo , Brazil the Northern or Southern muriqui etc.
But this would presuppose a lot of conditions , to name but a few that I can think of :
1. These animals would actually survive in captive conditions which is not a given in the case of species such as the indri which are notoriously difficult to keep alive.
2. The "charisma" factor and there being a demand / interest from the visiting public of zoos to see these animals which there simply isn't for species such as the solenodon (even though they are endemic / endangered , living fossils and utterly fascinating animals) which do not tick the aesthetic "cute" / "fluffy" boxes or even the "general interest" box.
3. That zoo directors / curators actually wanted these animals within their collections as a matter of prestige or interest. Historically, back in the early 20th century and 19th century this would have been the norm for most European and American zoos, however, currently this interest seems to currently only really apply broadly speaking to ABC megafauna at the moment (because this is apparently what they think visitors want to see). Therefore species like the pink fairy armadillo without these defining characteristics like large size and familiarity are not exactly sought after by most zoo curators because there would be nothing to tangibly gain by an institution having this species (I know the species doesn't survive well in captivity anyway but I'm just using it here as an example).
4. That the government of the country in question allows for the animal to be exported to a foreign country / zoo. In Brazil there are steep bureaucratic obstacles and continual institutional intransigence when it comes to this issue of exporting native / endemic species. In the case of the muriqui this is the reason why you cannot find the species in zoos that are located outside of the country.
Last edited:
China already does it snub nosed monkeys. Even if the zoo doesn't pay for them their stay is temporary. The two examples I know are Nagoya's Higashiyama and Yokohama's Zoorasia. After their time was up the animals left and had their empty enclosures filled with Siamangs and Proboscis monkeys.
Speaking of the latter, I can imagine, as people learn more about their diet, Indonesia or Malaysia loaning proboscis monkeys. According to Polish researchers proboscis monkeys are as charismatic as pandas and koalas to the Polish when they are shown in a meme. format. The Society for Conservation Biology
It's funny how public perception works sometimes, though it's encouraging to know that even a more obscure primate can generate interest and revenue if it's presented correctly. Or, well, looks funny, haha. Lots of other animals can compete with pandas in the cute/funny department in my opinion, here's hoping that some zoos try to harness that in the future.