By Kate Snow
Rock Center Correspondent
Who wouldn’t want to fly across the world and spend a week with giant pandas? They are undeniably cute. Everyone is obsessed with those black and white fuzzy faces. We celebrate when one is born at a zoo. We know their names. We’ll watch a YouTube video of them over and over again. This one, which shows a baby panda sneezing, has more than 150 million hits. I dare you not to click the link.
For this story, we traveled to Chengdu, China, a city of 14 million people. It’s the capital of the Sichuan province in southwest China. Chengdu is known for spicy Sichuan chili dishes that make your tongue go numb, but also for being the hometown of the giant panda. Back in 1987, when it became apparent that pandas were seriously endangered in the wild, the Chinese created the Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding. Starting with just six pandas from the wild, they’ve successfully bred more than 100 pandas.
Here, female pandas are monitored constantly to pinpoint the one day of the year – or the few hours -- when they’ll be able to conceive. They are typically artificially inseminated. Test tubes of panda sperm are kept in vats of liquid nitrogen. Mothers stay with their babies for a while but they’re eventually put back on the breeding program so the cycle can start again.
Sarah Bexell, an American who has worked at Chengdu for 13 years, says the lives of the staff revolve around the fertility cycle of the female pandas. “When our cubs are about to arrive, some of our staff live there 24-7,” she said. She’s also a coauthor of a new book called, “Giant Pandas: Born Survivors.”
The cubs I saw on this visit were four months old and just learning to walk. Their fur was soft as silk.
Too much for one species?
The work done at Chengdu and other breeding centers costs millions of dollars a year. Experts believe more money is probably being spent to save the giant panda than any other species in the world.
But is that a good idea?
While this may sound like heresy to panda lovers, is it possible that we’re spending too much to save the giant panda?
“I think we have to make tough choices,” British wildlife expert, Chris Packham, said. “I think that, ultimately, we have to be pragmatic as well as sentimental. You know, we can't allow our heart to rule our conservation head… And if we channel this much into just one species, then many others, which could be far better helped, many other not just species, but communities and ecosystems, could be better protected at the expense of one fluffy, cuddly bear.”
Packham is in the minority here, but a growing number of scientists agree.
Bexell and her colleagues at Chengdu’s breeding center are not among them. They firmly believe the panda is worth saving. And they worry that without the panda as a symbol for the conservation movement, people might not give any money to saving any species at all.
“Where would that money go? Maybe people would go and buy a new iPod instead. You know, instead of throwing that money towards conservation,” Bexell said.
Humans pushed giant pandas to the brink of extinction, Bexell said, and it is up to us to find a way to save them.
“I think pandas are symbolic. We all love them. We all want to share the earth with them. And if we truly cannot save space for giant pandas, what does that say about us as a species? And how could we ever have hope for any of the others if we can't save the one that we profess to love the most?”
Editor's Note: Kate Snow's full report airs Fri., Feb. 22 at 10pm/9c on NBC's Rock Center with Brian Williams.
Leave a Comment:
Why do humans over rate their importance in life? I would rather see some of our ignorant humans extinct. Where do humans get off thinking we should be the last species to walk the earth. Leave our nature alone. Most humans pride themselves as being some sort of Christians yet all we do is hurt the wildlife. Maybe it should be a lottery of humans and animals combined? Maybe then humans will protect all that walk the planet.
Are Americans worth saving I think not! Viva Mexico
Reyes...I take it you mean NORTH Americans. Tell us, just what would you thieving, criminal taco chomping bean eaters do w/o NORTH Americans to feed your azzes?? Steal across the Guatemalan Border for handouts??? Guess what, puta, there aren't any freebies in Guatemala OR in your sorry azzed country that BEGS for handouts. STFU!
Mexico is in North America. Just sayin.
Other divisions put Mexico in Middle America.
Sorry, I'm old. Is this new geography, like new math?
2+2 = 4.
Canada, U.S. and Mexico = North America.
It's actually a good question. The demise of a species is not always due to humans (even though more recently much of it is human caused). Natural selection has played a role for millions of years. Pandas are a highly specialized species living in a very unique environment, so they are sensitive to environmental changes, both natural and man-made.
The question is fair, although we will not answer it in any objective way.
Many species went extinct before man arrived on the scene. It is natural for species to disappear. If a species is unable to adapt to changes in their environment, including man, then nature says goodbye.
It is rough, but it is simply the way life goes. Eventually, the samething will probably happen to man as well.
Best quote about humans comes from the Matrix. " Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet."
We are responsible for their impending extinction, we should be responsible for fixing the problem.
I do love my panda fur coat...
The Panda burger I made from the meat was really dry though. I'm thinking it was cooked to long. But hey how many more are we gonna get to eat?
I say we let the beast pass. If nature is trying to kill this thing off then let it go. But then again i am a bamboo rights activist.
If they want to lower the expense of saving them, tell everyone they are absolutely delicious, even more delicious than ortolans, especially when pan-seared with some morels and chanterelles, with a nice veal demiglace and port wine, shallot and cream reduction pan sauce. The next thing you know, panda farms will spring up all over China. They'll be overflowing the feed lots, running wild in the streets, and joining motorcycle gangs.
Either you are joking, in which case it is not very funny or your mom certainly did raise a fool.
When you actually develop a sense of humor, let us know. I won't be holding my breath. You are NOT the final arbiter of what is and what is not humorous.
No one individual is the final arbiter of who is humorous or not-its a concensus issue. I don't pretend to be such a final arbiter and I do have a sence of humor but I know when it is appropriate and when it isn't. Also, if you understood how serious the problem of our overpopulating and destruction of the natural environment is then perhaps you wouldn't make jokes in such poor taste and with such poor timing. But that's just one guys opinion. So, M.M.D.N.R.A.F., take it or leave it.
No Judy some critics aren't worth saving. Some humans, in general, aren't worth saving. These humans aren't an endangered species by any stretch of the imagination. We are spending millions to preserve some humans that we plan to, and have been authorized to, kill anyway (convicts on death row). As for species going extinct if one species had gone extinct we would not have this discussion.
no animal should be allowed to go extinct if it is at all possible.
which animal, when it goes extinct, will be the the final straw and the beggining of humans trip to extinction?
Whales, Pandas the Great Apes?
Packham is an idiot! Panda's are NOT bears! Man is so good at destroying....SAVING something is a no-brainer!
But they rather spend Billions on helping Countries that will kill anyone that is not of their own...
Do we really need the giant panda? They are difficult to breed, decimate the bamboo supply, and probably don't taste good either- what part of the ecosystem would suffer without them?? Just wanted to stir things up, they ARE cute!
They are useful for the Chinese in foreign policy. You know you're good with China when they give you a handful of pandas.
Much of this research might prove useful to humans or other creatures in the future.
Giant Pandas themselves might nto be the most promising creatures, but this knowledge should be worthwhile.
Chris Packham has been pushing this point of view for years and while it is true that a lot of money is going to this one species it is also true that most people favor saving the giant panda over other species. Also and probably most importantly the gov't of the PRC has been quite aggresive in promoting the preservation of the species that they, the people of China, came so close to extirpating. Much of the money for the panda's breeding program comes from fees they charge for the animals they send out to foreign zoos. I believe this is a clever & successful idea.
Packham is correct that other animals are in grave danger of extinction due to our species' usurpation of the inhabitable areas of the planet. I think that other governments would be wise to follow the Chinese example & set up similar programs for the Elephant, Orangutan, all 5 species of Rhinoscerous, etc. Additionally, Mr. Packham is correct that whole ecosystems are imperiled (all naturalist and biologists agree this is the case), but I think that he should more constructively argue for more enlightened efforts by the governments involved rather than taking a zero sum point of view which he appears to be advocating. There are many loved species that are in need of more aggressive efforts to save them and if those governments which those animals are native to would set up national parks to preserve ecosystems and enlightened breeding programs like the Chinese have then many of our most precious living resources would have a chance of survival.
Who are we to say what animal should be saved? What a tragic statement! Humans are the reason so many animals are in peril, and it's not about the money we spend to save them. It's about how humans can profit from them. Until something is done to stop HUMAN overpopulation, no animal is safe. Nor any land, ocean, lake, etc. Although we have many organizations who spend money, time and effort to save various species of animals, we will never be able to save them from human greed and blatant disregard for life. Any human(s) who can massacre entire families (elephants & gorillas for example) for ivory (used for trinkets, jewlery, etc.) or trophies, etc. will never understand the devastation caused by their ruthlessness. These people have no soul nor respect for life. I pity the next generation because they will face the consequences of our apathy. The powers that could change the world refuse to because they are being "bought" by the very people who fuel the massacres. I am losing hope for our most precious resource: Earth and ALL its inhabitants...
I think Laura raises a very good point but I think she is too pessimistic. First off she asks, 'who are we to say what animal should be saved'. My answer is that, like it or not, we are top dog on the planet and no other animal can stand up to us and say,'no more. you've gone too far and we won't allow you to go further'. In such a position it our respoonsibility to limit ourselves or suffer the consequences. So, Laura we must make the choices and hopefully they will be very inclusive and not miserly.
Have more patience with our species. Human's have not been very aware of the devastating effects that we have been having on the biospere of our one and only home world. That includes many of our world leaders also. But, more and more, ordinary folks and ouur leaders are becoming aware of the deleterious effect that our habitat usuppation and externalization of economic costs are having.
We may lose a few more of our loved species but, I believe a concensus is forming and our leaders both political and economic are begining to respond to the challenge in more enlightened ways. Don't give up the fight and try to be more optimistic. Most of us are not so dumb.
man people suck!! i hope this dicks doctor tells him the same thing when he gets cancer or really sick!!!"sorry buddy,its gonna cost to much to save you"!!
Unfortunately, too many sick people are already being told that.
The concern expressed in this article, along with other concerns like global warming (in other articles), would be moot ,if we as a species would curb our own population explosion and the callous disregard/overuse/abuse for everything around us.
Right on, Debbie!! We have to stand up to those troglodytes among us.
I'm all for the animals; save them all. Homo sapien is the only species that we are spending too much on. A human population of perhaps two billion would serve the animal kingdom much better.
Freaking ludacrous [not the rapper frying young peoples' brains and helping rich white media moguls make money for his own profit--not unlike many others]. There is no reason why this pathetically dysfunctional species to which we belong cannot continue to grow food and provide utilities for itself while continuing and expanding efforts to save all endangered species. Whatever your idea of God is--that's who created this planet and it's lifeforms including us. What gives us the right to decide which species survives? "Can we all just get along?"--statement by the late Rodney King--can apply to not only humans but all creatures great and small.