This is a bit " off topic" i suppose, but today In the news, an English scientist says he feels its about time to just let the Giant Panda of China to die out.

Conservationists stand on both sides of this issue.

Some argue they are a dying breed because we humans have taken their habitat and so its our job to fix the problem.

On the other hand, scientists claim that the Giant Panda is an evolutionary deadend, that while being cute and cuddly and affectionate ,and fun to watch, they are not very bright, are not bred in captivity successfully very often, and it is just too expensive to keep up with trying to save an animal which just does not know or is not willing to adapt to different situations and thrive.

This is not Really a hunting question, but keeping game management and conservation techniques that we as hunters practice in mind, what do you think?

Think of the buffalo , if federations and associations had not stepped in to enlist protection procedures, they would have been taken to extinction due to over hunting many years ago.

Hunters and their associations have tried to work hand in hand with scientists, biologists, ecologists and others to make sure that the species which we hunt are kept in a natural wild environment, kept healthy, and that their numbers are kept under control. Many animals begin to thrive and grow in numbers only after a conservation and game management move in to help.

Pandas are not currently affected by over hunting, but by loss of habitat, and that they as a species can not adapt to new situations. Should the pandas be allowed to become extinct? Have conservationists done enough to try and help the species survive? What is " enough"?

As a hunter, non-hunter, or anti-hunter, conservationist , Id like to hear your thoughts on this issue. Is there "just a time" for a species to " die out " ?

Now that is an interesting question. I had not considered that all the species I can think of have adapted to, and many thrived from, mans encroachment on the natual habitat. That the Panda has not, does raise the point of "why not?"

Why not? Because the panda is perfectly adapted to living in bamboo forests, and when the forests are cut down the panda has nowhere to go. Its not a matter of the animal not choosing to adapt to what man has done to its world, but it physically can't live apart from the bamboo for a diet.
We wiped out many species before we realized what we were doing; today we manage to live just fine without the Passenger Pigeon, the Carolina Parrakeet and the Great Auk, to mention only 3 species that once were plentiful in the USA, but is it really OK that we killed them all off?
Maybe there is a time for any given species to die out, after all species have been coming and going since the world began, but who are we to decide that, or to carry out the elimination?
Somehow I think that the world would be a poorer place without Giant Pandas, Snow Leopards, Whooping Cranes, Right Whales or any of the other species that are teetering on the brink.
And I rejoice that we were able to save the buffalo, the Peregrine Falcons and the Bald Eagles before they went over the edge!

I guess it's a question of whether there's any chance of us repairing the habitat. Let's assume that for whatever reason there is zero chance of getting bamboo forests to grow properly for them, because the Chinese population is so huge and people live there. Let's assume giant pandas really need a bamboo forest in a certain part of China to be able to live.

Should we artificially keep a species going as a "zoo animal forever" if there is no chance at all for them to ever live naturally again?

That's a hard question for me. We would in essence be keeping them alive only for our own entertainment. The animals could never live free and happy.

I agree with you, Lisa , it does seem that we would keeping the pandas around for our own entertainment.

This all has come to discussion, because of the events which have unfolded since the 8.0 magnitude earthquake in the Sichuan Province , in May of this year, which destroyed the facility built in 1980.

While China was having success at finally breeding in captivity,having 142 pandas born in captivity, the country had been making great strides to protect the animal and it's natural environment. Including plans to build a 230 million dollar facility to replace the SW Sichuan Province facility which was destroyed in this years 8.0 magnitude earthquake. However,the earthquake in that region has put serious doubt on these efforts .

The earthquake which not only killed over 80,000 people, destroyed hundreds of acres of habitat and lowered panda numbers from the thousands to hundreds, was nothing that we could have stopped.

This has done a few things,it destroyed the much of the food source to begin with, it has cut pandas off from the food sources that survived , and isolating groups of the animals, which could lead to disease and in-breeding, placing the animals on a downward spiral to extinction. Scientists are now asking questions about IF they can save the animals in time, not how or why they should.

So using the panda's situation, I was wondering how people felt. Is there just a " time" when a species should be allowed to become extinct? Could there be a more cosmic reason for their extinction? And when do we decide that enough is enough?

thank you for your interest

I just went digging on the web to try to find any updates on this situation and I can't seem to find any. there were a flurry of reports back when the earthquake happened and then pretty much nothing. Are the pandas in better shape now? Or is it getting worse?

If I remember right, part of the problem is a lack of viable genetic stock to rebuild the population, even if there were bamboo forests. I tend to be a little skeptical when biologists begin to say that the population has dropped so low that they can't ever rebuild. I think the models being use for that estimate aren't very accurate.
I am left wondering if this is a species we are trying to keep alive for our own guilt and the pandas cute fuzziness, when our resources would be better put to use saving other creatures. Let it be another lesson learned about the niche specialists throughout the living world.
On the other hand, if we can save them, what an amazing and inspiring story that would be! I think that would really help people to believe that we can make a difference for endangered species.
I guess I would have to have a lot more information - probably more than what is being reported in most news articles, to make up my mind.