I know Berlin have an aged male panda, but he was an out and out diplomatic gift, not as is with the current trend a $1million per annum "diplomatic" gift.
Edinburgh Zoo Pandamonium to hit Edinburgh! #2
- Thread starter Lesley4444
- Start date
I know Berlin have an aged male panda, but he was an out and out diplomatic gift, not as is with the current trend a $1million per annum "diplomatic" gift.
IMHO, Zoo Vienna's panda exhibit is one of the best. Lots of climbing structures outside and also in the house! Outside lots of trees, bushes, climbing structures, 2 ponds, pandas can hide whenever they want ...
Gentle Giant
Well-Known Member
From the above article, "Zoo-keepers are praying the bamboo-munching marsupials – no, they are not actually bears – will approve of their £250,000 new home, as they can be rather fussy."
I know there's been some debate over the years as to whether they're bears, but marsupials?!?
Agreed. Scientists have debated for more than a century whether giant pandas belong to the bear family, the raccoon family, or a separate family of their own. This is because the giant panda and its cousin, the lesser or red panda (ailurus fulgens), share many characteristics with both bears and raccoons. Recent DNA analysis indicates that giant pandas are most definetly of the bear species although different enough to be put into its own sub family. The red pandas are more closely related to raccoons. Accordingly, giant pandas are categorised in the bear family (Ursidae) while red pandas are categorised in the raccoon family (Procyonidae).
The giant panda is considered to be a bear (family Ursidae) but in its own sub-family Ailuropodinae.
However, the red panda is no longer considered to be closely related to racoons and is placed in a separate monotypic family Ailuridae.
(Reference: Handbook of the Mammals of the World (Volume 1 Carnivores), 2009).
IanRRobinson
Well-Known Member
Until the moment arrives at some date in the future when it all changes again...
Yes, of course; my earlier post stated what I understand to be the current generally accepted view of panda classification.
However, the taxonomy of both red and giant pandas has long been a contentious subject and there is no guarantee that ideas will not change again.
(The recent taxonomic revisions detailed in the ungulate volume of Handbook of Mammals of the World illustrate how quickly views on taxonomy can change.)
bigcat speciali
Well-Known Member
(taken from Yahoo, and I have to agree with Chris Packham on this)..
They’re the first giant pandas to live in the UK for 17 years, but housing Sweetie and Sunshine comes at a whopping cost.
China has been leasing pandas to other countries as ‘gifts’ for years but this generosity comes at a price, with the burden of paying for the continuous conservation of the animals shifted from China to their new homes.
Edinburgh Zoo has apparently already forked out £250,000 on a nifty enclosure for new furry residents – originally named Tian Tian and Yang Guang. Their new abode includes a pool, a cave and has been specially kitted out with bullet-proof glass.
[Related story: Giant pandas flown into UK]
But the costs don’t end there, with reports that the pandas will cost a total of £640,000 a year and over the next 10 years (the period they are on loan to the UK), with the total bill to the Scottish zoo put at almost £8 million.
Food won’t come cheap either - pandas eat for up to 14 hours a day, consuming up to 38 kg of food each, according to the WWF. Which means this pair will get through a stunning £70,000 in bamboo a year. And if the female and male pandas have a baby it could add another few hundred thousand pounds to the overall bill.
All this cost has led to a debate among experts.
Last month, a survey of 600 scientists recommended that we should give up upon trying to save the species because they are too expensive and the money should be spent on animals with a better survival chance.
David Thomas, writing in ‘The Independent’ said that from a conservation perspective, pandas are “the world’s most useless creatures”.
“That these ‘WAGs of the animal kingdom’ have become a symbol of global wildlife preservation only illustrates the way in which conservation so often appeals to the kitten-cuddling nitwits who pretend to love animals,” he wrote.
English TV naturalist, Chris Packham, said back in 2009 that: “The panda is possibly one of the grossest wastes of conservation money in the last half century.”
But with the arrival of the new furry attractions, reports suggest the zoo could make money as online footage from four "pandacams" hidden in their enclosures is expected to attract visitors from around the world.
On Monday, the Scottish ‘Daily Record’ reported that the pandas had already triggered a surge in ticket sales, causing Edinburgh zoo's computers to crash last week.
They’re the first giant pandas to live in the UK for 17 years, but housing Sweetie and Sunshine comes at a whopping cost.
China has been leasing pandas to other countries as ‘gifts’ for years but this generosity comes at a price, with the burden of paying for the continuous conservation of the animals shifted from China to their new homes.
Edinburgh Zoo has apparently already forked out £250,000 on a nifty enclosure for new furry residents – originally named Tian Tian and Yang Guang. Their new abode includes a pool, a cave and has been specially kitted out with bullet-proof glass.
[Related story: Giant pandas flown into UK]
But the costs don’t end there, with reports that the pandas will cost a total of £640,000 a year and over the next 10 years (the period they are on loan to the UK), with the total bill to the Scottish zoo put at almost £8 million.
Food won’t come cheap either - pandas eat for up to 14 hours a day, consuming up to 38 kg of food each, according to the WWF. Which means this pair will get through a stunning £70,000 in bamboo a year. And if the female and male pandas have a baby it could add another few hundred thousand pounds to the overall bill.
All this cost has led to a debate among experts.
Last month, a survey of 600 scientists recommended that we should give up upon trying to save the species because they are too expensive and the money should be spent on animals with a better survival chance.
David Thomas, writing in ‘The Independent’ said that from a conservation perspective, pandas are “the world’s most useless creatures”.
“That these ‘WAGs of the animal kingdom’ have become a symbol of global wildlife preservation only illustrates the way in which conservation so often appeals to the kitten-cuddling nitwits who pretend to love animals,” he wrote.
English TV naturalist, Chris Packham, said back in 2009 that: “The panda is possibly one of the grossest wastes of conservation money in the last half century.”
But with the arrival of the new furry attractions, reports suggest the zoo could make money as online footage from four "pandacams" hidden in their enclosures is expected to attract visitors from around the world.
On Monday, the Scottish ‘Daily Record’ reported that the pandas had already triggered a surge in ticket sales, causing Edinburgh zoo's computers to crash last week.
the panda is the poster boy of the zoo and animal world and money which is raised by their undoubted charisma would not be as easily raised for the upkeep of wolves or rodents. so if the panda dies out the pr value would die with them. the panda appeal is similar to the mona lisa, it is its rarity and difficulty to breed along with the cuddly factor that brings the visitors and money. if edinburgh market this asset well they should easily make the whole venture pay off and if they suceed in producing offspring then the sky is the limit. the only aspect that could be seen as a gamble is the possibility that either panda could fall ill or die as that would be disastrous.
Nobody can truly predict the visitor numbers for the next 10 years, they may remain high and keep the zoo in profit for the full 10 years, they may drop after the initial high so that they break even/make a loss on the deal.
I think Edinburgh's best bet is a speculate to accumulate approach. Use the first of the money to upgrade all exhibits that have come into criticism, and then use the further profits to expand as much as possible - basically use the pandas to fund a continuous ten year push forward. I would say it would be good to bring in something new every 6-12 months in high PR projects so that when people have seen the pandas, they may see posters/banners that will encourage their want to return to see the development finished.
I think that a lot of people will not come back just on the basis of seeing the pandas again (especially from further afield) - further development and upgrades may entice return visits after the initial first visit that the panda brings.
Hoping that makes sense
I think Edinburgh's best bet is a speculate to accumulate approach. Use the first of the money to upgrade all exhibits that have come into criticism, and then use the further profits to expand as much as possible - basically use the pandas to fund a continuous ten year push forward. I would say it would be good to bring in something new every 6-12 months in high PR projects so that when people have seen the pandas, they may see posters/banners that will encourage their want to return to see the development finished.
I think that a lot of people will not come back just on the basis of seeing the pandas again (especially from further afield) - further development and upgrades may entice return visits after the initial first visit that the panda brings.
Hoping that makes sense
Mr T
Well-Known Member
The pandas will bring in money, and if the gamble pays off and the zoo make a profit this money can be invested in other conservation projects. Zoos do this all the time with other animals such as elephants, tigers, they bring in the punters. The average zoo goer will be ignorant to the plight of many endangered animals and will never have heard of them. New, exotic and 'friendly, cute, popular' animals will bring in money. This money can be redistributed into other conservation efforts for species the public have maybe never heard of or don't even care about
bigcat speciali
Well-Known Member
First of all, the zoo (Edinburgh) would have to make such a huge profit within the first year that to afford the loss of all the years after that.And Secondly; The Panda in which Chris Packham mentioned and which I agree with, is an over expensive piece of conservation hype which should be better spent on better conservation issues. Imagine the amount of good you good do or even achieve with the money spent on this over-rated hype? Once you have seen a Panda, so what? China breed them like tiger cubs (test-tube dummies), by the bucket loads, and then where do they go? Not zoos, as they did back in the cold war days as way of piece offering and bridge building...now it is us (the World) who goes knocking on China's door, and for what?????
to a large extent i actually agree with you, re the above and the chris packham theory etc. but was just pointing out that the panda does create a media fuss all of its own and brings "new" custom and visitors to any zoo that exhibits them. there is little doubt that the media attention will bring a lot of extra visitors to edinburgh and they would hope that when most or some of these people see what a good zoo it is they will return and continue to support the zoo and spend.
edinburgh's attendence figures are quite low for a capitol city which always surprised me as they have such an interesting collection, so they had to try something and i hope they succeed and go on to prosper.
bigcat speciali
Well-Known Member
It does indeed create much fuss, new custom etc however, does it bring the right sort of message, right areas of concern and as the money is indeed huge amounts, does this not create a matter of debate in itself?
I for one (and being an ex-employee of the zoo) can not see the good, nor the value of any kind with this Panda nonsense...better if the zoo spent and help spend its resources on better worthwhile conservation projects instead of lap-dancing to the Chinese!
Pootle
Well-Known Member
I for one have to totally agree with that.
Whilst it is indisputably pleasant to have these two pandas here and a great opportunity for so many children and adults to see them not on TV or the net, the costs, conservation consequences and in my mind the whole ‘two faced issues with China and animals’ make me think we (UK) are doing the wrong thing accepting these Pandas.
However I can also see political reasons, China and its booming economy and we (UK) don’t want to have a cold shoulder from them now at all as they grow as a nation.
If an animal is to become extinct as part of a natural process then I for one say let it happen, apparently this was the case with the giant Panda I believe when bamboo in the wild had to be supplemented by humans to prevent starvation (I have no time to research this , but am sure I have read a paper about this). Bearing this in mind and the enormous growing cost of keeping this species going, then sometimes you just have to draw the line. The money saved from this should and could be used to educate and implement very strict laws within China about the use of animal products in medicine (Tigers and Rhinos to name just two face extinction because of this). Money saved could also help cut downs on the illegal trading of live animals in China and generally be a benefit to animal and mankind.
Despite my thoughts and beliefs I do hope these two pandas have an enjoyable life in Edinburgh, but mostly I hope the zoo and its conservation projects don’t suffer at the costs of loaning pandas from China
I have to agree the other way slightly. If the cost works out then it won't be a bad thing. Every zoo needs a commercial animal in my opinion, sure money is better going to strange, endangered insects or fish that nobody's heard of or cares about, but who is going to fund that conservation if that is all zoos are allowed to keep?
The only problem with pandas, in my opinion, is the high cost involved - if Edinburgh can make it work so that they stay in profit, then in my mind there isn't a problem the animals being there.
edit: post is arguing the case for zoos keeping characteristic ABC animals for purposes other than conservation, but the pandas high initial cost makes that a different ball game, so will have to agree the money could be spent better.
It says that the money for pandas goes into the conservation of pandas in China, and by that logic it would extend to preservation of the Sichuan forests and by extention of that, it would conserve native species that the panda shares habitat with and the public wouldn't know/care about - if that is the case then does the cost become justified?
The only problem with pandas, in my opinion, is the high cost involved - if Edinburgh can make it work so that they stay in profit, then in my mind there isn't a problem the animals being there.
edit: post is arguing the case for zoos keeping characteristic ABC animals for purposes other than conservation, but the pandas high initial cost makes that a different ball game, so will have to agree the money could be spent better.
It says that the money for pandas goes into the conservation of pandas in China, and by that logic it would extend to preservation of the Sichuan forests and by extention of that, it would conserve native species that the panda shares habitat with and the public wouldn't know/care about - if that is the case then does the cost become justified?
Last edited:
bigcat speciali
Well-Known Member
The monies should be spent as you mention, within the forests and surrounds of Sichuan for Panda's however. The China warhorse and gross-expansions of concrete (being the largest consumer of lime, concrete and other materials), would the semi-Communist and now Capitilist China be seen spending money on something that seems not of much value when they have all those needs in military and expansion?
The bare fact of tiger and bear farms, zoos that have behind the scene killing rooms and breeding for the medicine market. Then we have the vast expanse of building growth, outstripping the rest of the world, and of course the military and space treasure eating machines?
I do believe that "pandering" to the Chinese will have it's costs and sad to say, we (Scotland and the UK) have been sucked in like the rest. This will not build hope for future issues and generations, just merely show how we got sucked into the myth and hype of the Panda debacle!