So, I don't know if you heard, but a British Talk Show Presenter (and naturalist) Chris Packham suggested that people leave Pandas to die out..
His point, poorly made though it was, is that a ton of money is spent on the Panda that could be better spent saving other - more adaptable - species.
.
I don't disagree with the point that, perhaps, that money could be spent to save more species, but what he is missing is that the money wouldn't really be there without the big cuddly Panda and her sad eyes saying "Help Me."
.
This debate aired a long time ago in California. The Los Angeles and San Diego Zoos spent a shitload of money to save the California Condor from extinction. The Zoos, the Feds and the State pulled in all the birds in the late 1980 (there were less than 25) and did a captive breading program - now introducing them back into the wild. There are over 150 in the wild and another 100+ breeding again.
.
Could the money have been used to save more species, of course. But donors don't really give a crap about saving 10 extra species of field mice, or buying habit areas for 10 species of sparrow. People give money to save cuddling Pandas and iconic California Condors. And the EXTRA money that is then used for other species is more than you would raise if you just had a fund raiser for endangered pygmy New Guinea Salamanders.
.
Just as people respond more to the picture of 1 or 2 children in pain that the idea of Dafur - people respond to a big animal with emotional heft over 234 Mangrove Species that might die out. But the money from the big fund raisers is used for everything.
.
If the World Wildlife Fund let the Pandas die out - and everyone knew - then donations to the WWF would dry up quicker than you can say heartless bastard.
One of the released Condors with a 10 foot wingspan soaring over the San Gabriel Mountains.