China and Their Giant Pandas

This question would be mostly moot if Tibetan sovereignty was ever restored.
"The Giant Panda is confined to portions of six mountain ranges in Tibet and China, including the Qinling, Min, Qionglai, Daxiangling, Xiaoxiangling, and Liang Mountains. These mountain ranges are found in the Amdo and Kham regions of Tibet (the Gansu and Sichuan provinces of China) and the Chinese province of Shaanxi. The highest concentration of Giant pandas occurs in eastern Tibet (in Sichuan Province).
Slightly over half of the Giant Panda’s population occurs in 33 nature reserves in Tibet and China. Five of these reserves are in Shaanxi Province, two are in Gansu, and the rest are in Sichuan. The largest of the reserves in which the Panda is found is the 2137.5 square-kilometre (825 square mile) Baishuijiang Reserve in Gansu Province. The largest Giant Panda breeding center is located within the Wolong Nature Reserve in Lungu (Wenchuan) County of the Ngaba (Aba) Prefecture, Sichuan Province."

Quoted from The Endangered Mammals of Tibet (Copyright  March 2005, Environment and Development Desk, DIIR, CTA)
ISBN 81-86627-44-8

Ken
 
Last edited:
I think it would be nice if the existing system could be revised in a way that allows more zoos the opportunity to display and breed Giant Pandas with a less radical financial investment. They are popular animals with only so much habitat left, after all, and more conservation can only help. These policies will only realistically change if China chooses to change them, and I don't think they will see as such for a while to come. No matter how we feel about China, nobody is going to start an incident over zoo animals.

I have hope that China will loosen some of their restrictions in the future though.
 
blospz said:
I thought I heard from the panda zookeeper at the Smithsonian that a zoo in Mexico is the only zoo that owns its pandas. They are the only ones that are from the time when China gave their pandas as gifts to countries. I think their off spring count as well. Is this accurate or did I mishear this information?
Click to expand...

@blospz : I know its been four years now (sorry nobody answered you!) but in case you were still curious, the Chapultepec Zoo in Mexico City does possess the only giant pandas not owned by the Chinese government. However, it is only the two female offspring of the original pair that they own; neither of them have produced offspring, and are both post-reproductive. When they pass (and they will likely do so in the near future), Chapultepec will have to get more and those will be owned by China.
 
I assume that the price they pay is ultimately profitable in terms of visitors they attract. (When I was a kid and we went to DC, the pandas were one of the things we had to see at the National Zoo. They were a tremendous disappointment and I was much more excited by the meerkats, this being back when The Lion King was still new.)

Nonetheless, I don't like the terms under which China loans its pandas, and I wish that the AZA and EAZA would jointly oppose any new loans of pandas until the terms were revised. I figure that's a pipe dream because pandas are a big draw for the few zoos that have them.

That said, China's position is rational and I'm not annoyed at China, only at the zoos (and their organizations) which capitulate to them. As other people have noted, they have a monopoly on a resource and want to profit from it.

I'm much more annoyed at the government of New Zealand, which professes to be interested in conservation. As far as I can tell New Zealand zoos can only have non-endangered species, and non-New Zealand zoos generally can't have any, not even common species such as bellbirds, riflemen, and tui, or the locally-invasive weka. I know that the first two are likely only neat to bird enthusiasts, but tui could become quite popular if more zoos had them.

Moreover with endangered species, it's all well-and-good that New Zealand devotes tremendous resources to creating predator-free sanctuaries, but as the cat who killed 100 short-tailed bats in a month and the disease that wiped out the last heath hen show: it only takes one predator or disease to wreak havoc in a small population. Having worldwide captive populations of species that would breed in captivity would be a good backup, and make me feel a lot more secure about the fate of animals like the stitchbird and the kokako.
 
@Zygodactyl : the price tag for giant pandas is not profitable, for any zoo that keeps them. All of the American zoos that keep them actually lose quite a bit of money. Sure, the zoo might get an attendance bump when they arrive and when cubs are born, but overall it doesn't change attendance or revenue enough to offset the enormous costs (which go far beyond the loans that they pay to China; bamboo, for example, is expensive to grow and transport). The real reason for keeping them is about prestige, and perhaps showcasing their commitment to conservation.

I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. On the one hand, I disagree with the way China conducts its panda conservation, and I hate that these zoos are desperate to cater to this ridiculous system. On the other hand, I think that saving species and wildlife should come before the politics. If it helps the pandas and their ecosystem (and it does seem to), then that's really what matters.
 
Well if it's not profitable then I definitely don't support keeping them. I think that China would attempt to preserve pandas and their ecosystem even if no foreign zoos were willing to pay the exorbitant costs for pandas.

And there are a lot of lesser-known species getting no attention in poor countries. For example, the tooth-billed pigeon--one of the closest relatives of the dodo--is at serious risk of going the way of its more famous relative. Samoa could use conservation money a lot more than China, as could a good many countries with interesting species.
 
I shudder to think how much good could be done for other species with money instead being thrown to giant pandas; unfortunately, the appeal of giant pandas is too great.

I also abhor the fact that China is deliberately making a profit off conservation work, when (like you said) there are many countries who actually need financial assistance in conserving their habitats and wildlife.
 
I brought up the tooth-billed pigeon because it's an animal I think could actually become reasonably popular if it were better known. I'd suggest using either the genus name--Didunculus--or some coinage like diduncule. But it's a dodo relative that looks a lot like the dodo.

Unfortunately, it seems that zoos tend to follow what's popular without any effort to draw attention to less-known species that visitors might still find interesting. Probably the closest I've seen was San Diego advertising the kagu, but they just used pictures of its head, IIRC, and I remember asking myself "why don't they use pictures of the mating dance? That's what might interest visitors!" The signage for the kagu enclosure was also so unobtrusive I walked right past it the first time, and I was looking for it.
 
Zygodactyl said:
I'm much more annoyed at the government of New Zealand, which professes to be interested in conservation. As far as I can tell New Zealand zoos can only have non-endangered species, and non-New Zealand zoos generally can't have any, not even common species such as bellbirds, riflemen, and tui, or the locally-invasive weka. I know that the first two are likely only neat to bird enthusiasts, but tui could become quite popular if more zoos had them.

Moreover with endangered species, it's all well-and-good that New Zealand devotes tremendous resources to creating predator-free sanctuaries, but as the cat who killed 100 short-tailed bats in a month and the disease that wiped out the last heath hen show: it only takes one predator or disease to wreak havoc in a small population. Having worldwide captive populations of species that would breed in captivity would be a good backup, and make me feel a lot more secure about the fate of animals like the stitchbird and the kokako.
Click to expand...
you really have no idea what you are talking about. "New Zealand... professes to be interested in conservation"?? NZ's Department of Conservation is world-renowned for the work they do, and their expertise is called upon by many other island nations when dealing with their own natives or in eradicating introduced pest species.

For most of NZ's species, conservation in the wild is far more useful and cost-effective than establishing zoo populations. There are some exceptions where captive-breeding is the best option or as a combination, but on the whole the only purpose for keeping the natives in zoos is for advocacy. Why would NZ zoos and/or government use their resources to establish captive populations of common natives like bellbirds or tuis just so that overseas zoos can display them? That's like saying American zoos should use their resources to establish populations of Carolina wrens and blue jays so that there are plenty to send to zoos overseas.
 
I know that New Zealand is a world pioneer in conservation, particularly with the offshore islands.

However in the lot of cases the offshore islands are still ex situ management by another name. Locally eradicating the endangered weka for the benefit of the critically endangered kakapo. While I agree that the offshore islands for the kakapo are the best solution, I think it's disingenuous to suggest that when you remove a species from its native range, remove the predators (including native ones), and heavily monitor its breeding that the species exists in the "wild." Other species may be different--like how the stitchbird was relegated to one offshore island, where it was native.

I'm also terrified of what might happen if diseases get through New Zealand's defenses to reach these heavily-managed sanctuaries. (Credit where credit is due, New Zealand is trying to increase the numbers of these sanctuaries, but they're still few in number.) You can screen people for foreign organisms and try to keep out predators, but diseases wiped out the heath hen in its carefully managed offshore sanctuary. They're threatening to wipe out the Tasmanian devil from its carefully managed sanctuary, but fortunately the animals were popular enough with zoos that the wild populations can be replaced or supplemented with captive-bred animals once the disease which is threatening them is contained.

I think you're conflating two things I said, though in fairness I said them in the same sentence. One thing I said is that for species like bellbirds, tui, and rifelmen, which are not endangered, it would be nice of the NZ government allowed them to be exported. (While I wasn't arguing that zoos should breed these animals for foreign zoos, I will note that 1. the tui and bellbird already are kept in some NZ zoos, and 2. that I'm a strong proponent of keeping native animals in zoos anyways, though native animals city dwellers are unlikely to have seen. So Carolina wrens yes, bluejays no.)

The other thing I said is that I really wish NZ had more of their endangered species in breeding programs in zoos. As the Tasmanian devil and Bali mynah showed, zoos can be a vital reservoir of genetic diversity to species critically endangered in the wild. It wouldn't work for the kakapo of course, but the kokako, takahe, and stitchbird would seem to be a different story based on the success Mt. Bruce has had with breeding those birds.
 
Which diseases would wipe out the endangered species as we are talking about some very different taxons with different diseases being relevant? And disease introduction is an interesting one. You have 2 lines of "defense" here. One preventing diseases to enter New Zealand and secondly one of preventing diseases getting established in the offshore islands. If the first one fails animals might actually be safer on the islands than in zoos on the mainland islands as it will be a lot more difficult to deal with a larger human population and preventing contact with potentially infected wild animals. Of shore islands that are difficult to reach are than the better option. The same counts for diseases already present in New Zealand. The only time a zoo is more beneficial is when dealing with a disease that is already established in a population. Because of being in close human care it is easier to deal with those in a zoo situation, but we are dealing with a hypothetical situation here. The disease of the Tasmanian devil is not relevant for New Zealand as we have no equivalent of TDFTD in birds and is a very specific threat that needs a tailor made solution. Also in the case of Asian songbirds (not just the Bali Starling) a big threat is the songbird trade in South East Asia and therefore ex-situ populations are warranted as the prevention of poaching is difficult to deal with in Indonesia at the moment. This is not the case with New Zealand birds. In the end you just look for a reason to ask New Zealand to send more native species abroad while there is no other reason for it than your personal pleasure.
 
DDCorvus gets it dead right with his last sentence.

New Zealand doesn't have any need for the native species to be established in overseas zoos.
 
There is only one conservation reason to send New Zealand's species abroad and even that is for fund-raising reasons, but except for the Kakapo I cannot imagine any being particularly suitable for raising a lot of income and the Kakapo's ecology makes it quite unsuitable for that role.
 
DDcorvus said:
There is only one conservation reason to send New Zealand's species abroad and even that is for fund-raising reasons, but except for the Kakapo I cannot imagine any being particularly suitable for raising a lot of income and the Kakapo's ecology makes it quite unsuitable for that role.
Click to expand...

Keas and kiwis make very good representatives for New Zealand's wildlife. That being said, there are already captive populations of those outside NZ. Also tuataras, which are also outside NZ but I don't know the status of their foreign population.

I agree that New Zealand's efforts with conserving wild species have been laudable and effective, at least to my knowledge of the species I've looked at. Zoos are just one method of conservation, and they do not always have to be utilized as part of the solution. If species can be protected solely with in situ, there is nothing wrong with that, although one could argue that keeping assurance colonies in captivity would be a smart move. However, these wouldn't need to be located outside of NZ.

Also, I'm not sure that New Zealand's offshore island strategy can be so strictly defined as ex situ. The animals are in a natural state and breed freely without human interference, which is not quite the same as captive management. However, for the reasons that you mentioned, I don't think it can be considered strictly in situ either; I think it is more of a hybrid method, with aspects of both.
 
Last edited:
Coelacanth18 said:
Keas and kiwis make very good representatives for New Zealand's wildlife. That being said, there are already captive populations of those outside NZ.
Click to expand...

If you don't have the monopoly on the ownership on a species like with Kea it is difficult to push for a loan fee. And Kiwis are amazing but not for the general public as it is a nocturnal brown bird that is more not visible than it is. So again its ecology makes it not a very suitable fundraising bird.
 
@DDcorvus : Can kiwis not be kept in a way where they are active and visible to the public? Also they are often used as education animals, and people receive exposure to them in that way. I don't think they are the easiest animal to display, for sure, but I disagree that they do not have fundraising potential.
 
Coelacanth18 said:
I agree that New Zealand's efforts with conserving wild species have been laudable and effective, at least to my knowledge of the species I've looked at. Zoos are just one method of conservation, and they do not always have to be utilized as part of the solution. If species can be protected solely with in situ, there is nothing wrong with that, although one could argue that keeping assurance colonies in captivity would be a smart move. However, these wouldn't need to be located outside of NZ.

Also, I'm not sure that New Zealand's offshore island strategy can be so strictly defined as ex situ. The animals are in a natural state and breed freely without human interference, which is not quite the same as captive management. However, for the reasons that you mentioned, I don't think it can be considered strictly in situ either; I think it is more of a hybrid method, with aspects of both.
Click to expand...
island populations of native species in NZ are not ex-situ (either Zygodactylus doesn't really know what it means or he is trying to be clever). With rare exceptions - e.g. takahe on North Island islands like Titiritiri or Kapiti - the islands are still part of the species' natural (exisiting or former) ranges. They are reintroductions, albeit many species' populations are managed nationally (e.g. individuals moved between or to new islands to maintain numbers and genetic diversity)..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top