That's about the stupidest thing I've seen. Most people actually like pandas and tigers and would be upset if they were gone. What ticks me off is the money wasted to try to save some obscure subspecies of fish or newt or whatever that few will ever see or really care about. Lose the tiger and panda and watch how much funding dries up. Obviously dealing with a top level predator at the top of it's food chain or a very specialized herbivore will be expensive. I think it would be far more expensive in the long run for the all around conservation effort to not pay those costs.
I agree, but most people around the world view their local wildlife like most American's view our local wildlife - as pests. We have to work on changing hearts and minds if we are going to get the political will to support conservation in the future. I think both writers would agree on that.
I don't agree with giving up on anything, but I think the triage advocate is right about one thing: it doesn't do much good to conserve a species in the wild if the ecosystem itself is dwindling. I think the conservation of "flag ship" animals such as the panda works best when it's done in a way that conserves the ecosystem. It's easier to get support for a charismatic animal like a tiger or panda than it is for something abstract like an ecosystem. But without the ecosystem, we might as well put the remaining tiger's and pandas in zoos, because sadly, that is going to be all of what is left for them.
Comments 4
Reply
Reply
Giving up the fight isn't the solution. You may not win all the battles, but you will certainly lose if you quit.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment