Dangerous research Animal-rights extremists are increasingly making their attacks personal. A 12 march report by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology says that since 2000
On 14 Â March, the RIKEN institute in Tokyo announced the preliminary findings of an investigation into work led by Haruko Obokata that describes a method for reprogramming differentiated mouse cells into a pluripotent embryonic-like state
and determine whether that new habitat is attracting birds. The experiment could benefit the almost 400 bird species that live in the delta,
says Osvel Hinojosa Huerta, an ecologist with Pronatura Noroeste, a conservation group with offices in San luis R Â o Colorado, Mexico.
Every year, about 400,000 migratory waterbirds also pass through the region, an important stop on their flyway along The americas.
#'A normal healthy wolf would not have done what happened here.''I'm predicting quite a blowback in the comments for this article...
I don't understand why people think it's okay to kill an animal for being an animal.
If humans go into a predator's territory and a predator attacks those humans we get up in arms hunt it down
and kill it. But if a predator comes into our territory and a human kills it oh well that's too bad.
What the f---is up with that? We need to learn to leave the animals alone and deal with the fact that we are sharing this planet with them.
We act like we own the planet and are letting them exist out of the kindness of our hearts.
I wonder if you had a child who was bitten allegedly by a wolf would you okay the rabies test you cite that could be reliable
instead for the 100%reliable method of killing the animal and checking it? Would you advocate in the heat of the moment using a live animal trap
or some other less reliable method of capture or just go along with the rusty but trusty leg hold trap?(
knowing the animal will be killed anyway. Would you stand in the way of a gunshot to its midsection in favor of wrapping a baggie around its head?
While your child lie traumatized and perhaps infected with the always fatal rabies disease would you opine about the population of wolves DNR practices of wolf management and the ethical treatment of animals?
I didn't think so. We know that wolf attacks are extremely rare yet you comment that It's really more surprising that nobody has ever been attacked before now.
Please explain your logic. Where is your research that suggests it's surprising wolves don't attack more often?
Black bears are much more prevalent in Minnesota yet bear attacks are also extremely rare. The dearth of evidence (low incidence of attack) seems to suggest that wolves foxes coyotes
and bears are all pretty good at avoiding human beings. Then again I'm not as expertly trained on the subject as you are.@
@streakygopher...wolves don't pass on rabies. The killed wolf was sent to the University of Minnesota for testing both DNA testing to see
if it was the same wolf that attacked the teen camper and rabies testing. Wolves are not reservoirs of rabies meaning they can't pass it on
but they do sometimes catch it from other animals like foxes.)Mt guess is the testing for rabies is to try to gain an understanding of why the wolf behaved in such a way
if it is even the same animal. There was no reason to kill the first wolf they ran across.
Wolves are endangered. Pure politics took it off the list. Negative cheers. As a veterinarian and advocate for increased protection for wolves in Minnesota I was glad to see an article that decries the state of wolf conservation and management here.
However the author states that wolves cannot pass on rabies. I'm not sure what exactly he's referring to but
I have not seen any evidence that a wolf cannot get infected with rabies via a bite
and subsequently infect another animal by biting it. While they are not reservoirs in the same way that bats skunks
or raccoons are in areas around the country they can certainly present a hazard to human (and other mammalian) health if infected.
If I knew a person had been bitten by a wolf I would absolutely recommend that they take steps to get treatment for potential rabies infection.
Streakygopher: Well you even said allegedly when talking about the wolf that was shot. As there was no DNA evidence to ascertain
if it was even a wolf or some other animal that bit this boy. What if the wolf they shot was not the one that allegedly bit the kid shall they kill all of the wolves in say a 20 mile radius
and them proceed to DNA test every one of them to see if they were the villain?
It makes more sense to start rabies shots rather than wait for something that may never happen.
It may not have even been a wolf at all that bit the kid. Besides rabies shots are not
what they used to be decades ago with a series of very painful shots. So it makes more sense to start the shots as a precaution. 5 shots in a 14 day time span.
For those who have spread and believed the lies about wolves attacking people since time began they are just lies or falsehoods.
There has NEVER been a legitimate report of a HEALTHY wolf ever attacking a human.
And if you say what about that woman in Alaska who was jogging? It has been suggested she first was attacked
and killed by a bear and not killed by a wolf however wolves as many other animals are scavengers
and will eat the kill that any other species left when they were done with it.
Not meaning to sound harsh but that is just facts. wolves are usually very shy and avoid human.
So before these DNR officers go and kill every wolf they see lets hope they wait for the DNA tests so they will have a better idea just
what they are looking for and to see if they killed an innocent wolf. Yep we're pretty bloodthirsty in minnie.
Don't pay any attention to the reports that coyote attacks are steadily increasing (pets and even small children.
And ignore the fact that minnie's efforts have contributed mightily to the reestablishment of the wolf population.
The attack was unusual--wolves pretty much leave humans alone--especially single wolves. So there's a pretty good chance that there was a problem with the animal.
Authorities killed the one that was hanging around to see if there was a danger from rabies.
Maybe they thought that human suffering was of some import. Can a wolf pass on rabies or not?
A definitive answer please. Thanks cheers. To Dan No-wits The wolf was trapped and killed for human safety precautions.
Unprovoked attacks on humans by large predators like this is a major safety concern. Trapping is needed necessary and highly effective.
Did you know that New york has animal control agencies? Yep. They are paid professionals who go
and TRAP vermin pests and nuisance animals. Everything from bats to raccoons (which carry rabies.
Oh but those traps are okay right -because one wouldn't want those animals attacking city folk on the streets.
Not only is this young man (Noah Graham) tremendously lucky others are too for the swift actions of wildlife officials.
Really who would wait around for the wolf to attack again? The next victim could've been a 5 year old girl who obviously wouldn't have fared as well.
Perhaps those who value wolves over human life would take that chance but most logical sane people wouldn't. Your first sentence below the title of this biased article reads A wolf--maybe--has bitten a teenaged camper in Minnesota in
what could be the first wolf attack ever recorded in the lower 48 states. MAYBE?
The attack IS CONFIRMED by the Minnesota DNR. Historically there are records of fatal and non fatal attacks on humans by wolves in North america.
However due to present day standards for verifying attacks those that happened one hundred plus years ago don't count by today's standards.
History repeats itself. Why is the lower 48 states so important? Do our U s. citizens in the upper 1 state not count nor our friendly Canadian neighbors to the north eh?
In 2007 Kenton Carnegie was killed by wolves in Saskatchewan and sadly was documented the first case in North america of a healthy wolf killing a human.
www. cbc. ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2007/11/01/wolf-verdict. html) Tragically Candice Berner was killed by wolves in Alaska in 2010.
ADF&G performed necropsies and collected samples for disease testing and DNA analyses...Investigators found no evidence in any of the wolves of contributing factors to the attack such as rabies disease defense of food or habituation to human food.
www. adfg. alaska. gov/index. cfm? adfg=pressreleases. pr12062011) Your closing paragraph states: Yes this wolf attacked a person but...
BUT WHAT? are allowed we no longer to go camping or sleep under the stars on the ground in the middle of a popular National Forest campground in a place known to be trafficked highly by humans as well as wildlife?
Its time to stop making excuses for wolves. Wolves are not reservoirs of rabies...YES THEY ARE!
Where do you get your information? Perhaps No-Wits you could tone down the keyboard thumping
and attempt some actual research from unbiased legitimate sources. CHECK YOUR FACTS! I mean come on you write for a magazine called Popular Science-you should at least appear intelligent.
An animal has no malice and no regrets...they just are. People is the problem.
Yet we expect the solutions to be found elsewhere. http://www. rainydaymagazine. com We Entertain
When It Rainslol its obvious to all this Dan Not-A-Clue has never been in Minnesota Never been around the wolf problem
and generally is a raving NAZI wolf cultist! The location Dan Know Nothing was several hundred miles west of the prime habitat and major location of the Minnesota Timber wolf.
Secondly Dan of No-Facts falsely represents this federal camp ground as a primitive wilderness experience.
Wrong Dan this camp ground is huge and is located on a major Walleye fishery. The camp ground itself could be likened to a large town or small city in population size through the summer camp months!
And finally Dan of LITTLE THINKING the wolf was taken out quickly by federal trappers as evidently this area has been experiencing trouble with this wolf in the past.
The Wolf population in northern Minnesota is out of control and this violent vile vermin have started killing the Moose to extinction
and the White tail deer are soon following. Dan of NO-POSSIBLE-THOUGHT! Check out your facts start writing the truth
and forget your Walt Disney fairy tale lies. This type of attacks has happened in increasing frequency in the northern sector of Minnesota
because wolves have killed its prey base! I realize DAN of NO SENSE loves L. David Mech;
but residents that live in the problem can disprove his lies on a daily basis and this article is a worthless lie filled rag!
Popular Science best remove it to save face! I can't believe Popsci continues to let this guy write on this subject.
and anyone who has a different view on how wolves are managed is a wildlife hating maniac.
Dan please stop writing articles about wolves on Popsci this really isn't the forum for your personal unreasonable and unscientific rants.
This is not the first time a wolf has attacked a person. The fact is not many people would report it.
I could hear animals walking all through the snow. I didn't think anything of it everyone whose been out deep in the woods knows there's every type of animal all around you.
About fifteen minutes later I seen a pair of yellow eyes movin maybe just ten yards off from me.
The secondnight the wolves came back. I did the same thing as the night before tried to scare them off.
The next day I found a rabbit in a snare I set the day before (don't worry hippies it snapped its neck
I look up and in the candle light I see the little scrawny wolf standing at the entrance.
I dragged his body out of the cave and in a rage deboweled him in front of the other six wolves before cutting off his tail.
just as the wolves bolted out of the trees. I don't know how but my car started after sitting four days in minus 20 degees or colder weather and
I had to stich myself up with a sewing needle and fishing line. Those things nearly killed
and walk with a limp today so don't even try to tell me that wolves are so cute and cuddly.
All the wolves you've ever seen were either in a zoo or a sanctuary or domesticated PETS.
So unless you've seen a wolf out in the wild in its habitat you don't know a thing about them.
I hate wolves more than anything. I respect them immensely but I hate them nonetheless. There seems to be a lot of emotional reasoning in these comments.
Wolves are no where near endangered hence the USFWS's scientifically backed and logical reasoning for delisting them!
People need to quit with the whole oh the poor wolves are endangered and the sky is falling bovine feces.
Opal Wolf-For those who have spread and believed the lies about wolves attacking people
since time began they are just lies or falsehoods. There has NEVER been a legitimate report of a HEALTHY wolf ever attacking a human.
Well here's your report Opal Wolf when I was young (I was in grade 6)
I was attacked almost and killed by a pack of timber wolves. They were running at
me and came within 15 feet of me before I managed to escape therefore please don't say that wolves would never attack a human.
While it's a rare thing if a winter has been very tough and food scarce they are preditors
Instead you only manage to perpetuate the tiresome stereotype that out-of-touch urbanites with no real contact with wolves are the only ones who care deeply about wolf conservation.
As a wildlife biologist working to ensure wolves remain on the landscape I find it disheartening
While I believe that we may ultimately want the same things for wolves I feel like you havenã¢Â#Â#t really thought about how to achieve those things.
and irrational sides of the wolf debate would consider actual science and use some reason when debating
Both sides need to recognize that wolves are just animals like deer fish rats dogs cats
I have seen wolves begging for food in campgrounds and chasing people on bicycles. I have sat also with a rancher
and watched as a pack of wolves calmly traveled through the middle of his heard without the slightest bit of trouble.
and eating an elk calf in a manner that also turned my stomach as it would of any other compassionate person.
Wolves are just wolves. They live and they die and make their mark on the world like everything else.
By attempting to fit wolves into the false and arbitrary constructs of our own personal philosophies we strip them of their most enduring quality;
They are just animals so drop the emotion and look at this story objectively. Consider that if a dog had attacked a kid in a similar manner it would face a similar fate.
The same would be true if it were a bear a lion a tiger or the last snow leopard.
Human safety has always been and always will be one of societyã¢Â#Â#s most pressing concerns as it pertains to our interaction with wild predators (at least for those of us that live among them).
No amount of slanted blogging and hand wringing will ever change that. This kid was doing nothing âÂ# wrongã¢Â#Â#in wolf country
and seems to have been involved in a completely unprovoked attack. Trapping and killing this wolf was an obvious necessity.
If you knew anything at all about wolf biology or trapping the fact that they caught this wolf in the same campground within 3 days of the attack would provide ample evidence to proceed
and kill this individual wolf for rabies and DNA testing. If it is the wrong wolf then that honestly is too bad
but an abundance of caution is needed when human lives are at risk. What would you propose they do?
Chain it up for a week while the lab tried to extract the wolfã¢Â#Â#s DNA from his wounds?
Since your obviously not familiar with the real world limitations of such testing you might not know that most wounds like this are cleaned thoroughly
If you meant to imply that they might be able pull the kids DNA from a drugged wolf then you might be on a âÂ# more correctã¢Â#Â#line of thought
and swabbed just the right spots on the wolfã¢Â#Â#s teeth and claws.
Thatã¢Â#Â#s a tough but possible task with a dead animal in the lab even tougher to pull off in the 30-45 minutes an animal would be under anesthesia at a trap site.
Your description and general interpretation of wolf trapping was actually quite funny. Itã¢Â#Â#s almost like you didn't know that âÂ#Âoecatch
and releaseã¢Â# wolf trapping using leg hold traps has likely been the single most important tool for wolf researchers and conservationists for over 50 years.
and GPS collars responsible for all of the research extolling the benefits of wolves got on those animals?
How do you think the Mexican wolves that were reintroduced into Arizona and New mexico got into the trucks they were brought in on?
so I will let you know that they used traps the only kind that work for wolves leg hold traps.
There are an estimated 2200 wolves in Minnesota right now that is more than all of the wolves in Montana Idaho Wyoming Oregon and Washington combined.
Squeeze those into the northern 2/3s of the state and you have one of the most robust populations of wolves in North america.
The loss of this 1 wolf to that population is so biologically insignificant that I have a hard time understanding what you mean
when you write âÂ#Âoewhen the animal in question is as at risk as the gray wolfã¢Â# âÂ#Â
. I can only assume that you are alluding to the wolfã¢Â#Â#s status as Federally Endangered in some parts of the US.
You might not remember that wolves have been listed federally de in the Great lakes and Rocky mountain Regions for a few years now.
Wolf recovery in the lower 48 is probably the greatest success story in the history of the endangered species act yet many people refuse to recognize success for what it is.
and push to keep wolves on the endangered species list then they must admit that the act is simply a place where threatened species go to die out
but the last thing that wolf conservation needs is misinformed one more extremist publicly spouting off on something they obviously know very little about.
If you honestly care about wolf conservation and want to talk about wolves in a meaningful way then step out of your bubble
and go out in the field with a biologist. Talk to them about what they do
@Firedup Yes I can acknowledge that the grey wolf population as a whole is in decent standing
but there are certain subspecies in the lower 48 (for example the Mexican Grey Wolf) that are threatened more than ever.
I would recommend contacting some agencies such as wolf centers that are dedicated to the subspecies'reintroduction into their natural habitat.
I believe the International Wolf Center is a great resource for things like this as well as the California Wolf Center.
In addition to the above post-bigtexcaly-you might want to know that there were no wolves in Colorado
These comments are just another example of anti-wolf hatred that goes back for generations.
We nearly made the wolf extinct in the lower 48 because of misinformation and hatred. Wolves have made barely a comeback (in the lower 48)
and the killing them off out of a misguided fear has begun already. The dropping them off the endangered list (in the lower 48)
Some people will not be happy until every wolf is killed because there is such a danger as
I see the human carnage by wolves everyday in the news . But of course the liberal press covers up that too.
Why couldn't the trapped wolf have been trapped humanely and euthanized? Honestly when our natural resources have to be protected from agencies that purport to protect our natural resources we are in deep trouble.@
when it comes to wolves in general but more specifically to their recovery ecology history population status and more.
and against wolves but I'd like to add there are many (like me) who are demanding wolves be managed responsibly (like all other species) to be able to defend ourselves
and livelihoods legally if need be and to not be chastised by out-of-state urbanites who wouldn't know a wolf from a coyote!
Pro-wolf'management'that which adheres to science consistent with today's circumstances not one hundred plus years ago should be promoted versus the pro-wolf/anti-wolf stances.
Social perspective on wildlife management policies must be taken into consideration but my question is how can we responsibly manage wildlife
if wolf biologists and wildlife officials construct a documentary aired on PBS Animal Planet Discovery
and the like telling the TRUTH about wolves conservation and current issues pertaining to wolves. The majority of wolf advocates do not live even remotely close to wild wolves
or know the struggles many rural folks are facing today with everything from livestock/pet depredations loss of hunter opportunity to human safety.
They only see the hype on TV and read articles like this or receive Defenders of Wildlife
or Sierra Club mailings asking for money to protect the beautiful endangered wolves. Wolf admirers believe the blatant lies from activist groups who scream that hunting wolves will drive them into extinction.
Has an animal rights/environmentalist group ever disclosed factual wolf management policies and hunting regulations to those they seek monetary support from?
Probably not. But they zero in on trapping and completely misconstrue information making it out to be a horrid tool of wildlife management
while failing to recognize their hypocrisy. I like your word choice and usage of'magic'when explaining the use of trapping in wolf management.)
On the other hand offensive photos of trapping and/or trappers go viral and there isn't much one can do to persuade the ill-informed otherwise once they've seen a graphic photo used to perpetuate those misconceptions...
and then killing the closest wolf seems like a knee-jerk reaction especially seeing that a wolf having bit the boy is in question.
The trapping of wolves in known wolf territory is apt to trap a wolf and doesn't seem too unusual.
This may be the wolf in question seeing how it was not healthy and was in the area
so killing the wolf serves no purpose except for some misguided vengeance or revenge. We humans are not a part of the natural state of the wilderness any longer.
When we visit an encounter that goes bad should not be blamed on the animal as they are just behaving normally.
Killing of the animal should be the last resort and only if the correct animal can be identified.
Hopefully this boy will fully recover and continue to enjoy the outdoors.@@drchuck1-You wouldn't see anything outlandish with Dan's article
You say so killing the wolf serves no purpose except for some misguided vengeance or revenge.
#How To Argue With Someone Who Says'Pandas Deserve To Die'Why argue with someone like that?
Pandas deserve to live as much as humans do. Animals were here first. Our job is protect them
and the environment they live in. We are doing a horrible job and idiots that argue for their death are the more useless ones that should go.
I feel sorry for the person stating that panda's should be allowed to die. Not because I think he is wrong
Too many people see animals and humans as two different entities. If we decide not to talk religion we are breed nothing more than a of animals that have developed into a fairly dominant species here on earth.
It has been and will continue to be natural for species to die and/or evolve into new forms.
or killing off animals that are considered pests. Pests are just animals that have been given a natural ability to survive where we dont really want them.
The whole discussion is not just if Panda's should be allowed to live on with human assistance
-but if in essence that nature stops here and we decide we are a unnatural being
I am fine with people wanting to keep cute cuddly fluffy animals -but please be honest
Panda's Reasons for dying: 1. Pandas used to hunt small rodents 8 million years ago then they decided that was started bad
and eating only bamboo which is far less nutritious (they also stopped running and now only can walk
and these species have grown never as major types of bamboo. 3. Pandas are black and white in a green forest. 4. Female Pandas ovulate once per year
this is an animal that's vital to the ecosystem...What? The Earth wouldn't even blink
but they aren't the real reasons we should let the Panda go. Note: I'm not saying we should kill the pandas just that they should be left to be on their own.
IF they go extinct so be it. If they survive awesome. Statement: Pandas have a really ridiculous diet.
Can you believe they only eat non-nutritious bamboo? Paraphrased Response: It's ok to eat something poor
There's also tons of food for the panda to eat! My Response: Sure it's ok to include something poor in your diet.
The panda is still capable of eating fish eggs and a number of other foods but it can not get them in the quantities needed to survive.)
Also the panda doesn't eat any old bamboo. It is notoriously picky. It does have a relatively wide range of actual species it can eat
This means that a panda must live in an area of 2 or more bamboo species or its food will disappear
The pandas current diet has trapped fundamentally the panda. This has proven disastrous for countless species
This would allow the panda to be more energetic travel further and to different environments allowing the species to thrive.
But the panda is a bear! Bears aren't even evolved to eat bamboo! Paraphrased Response:
What you're really saying is it's bad for animals to eat something different than
what we consider normal but there's nothing wrong with that. My Response: See above response and conclusion.
The issue wasn't necessarily that the panda eats something different it's what specifically it has chosen
Pandas are so lazy! They just sleep all the time. Why should we care about a sleepy lazy bear?
Paraphrased Response: I'm just going to joke around cause some animals are lazier than others.
My Response: Most of those other animals can afford to be lazier at least for now.
You will also note though that many of them are quite active when they do move around.
Consider the various cats. They love to lie around and sleep. Once they get up and move though they are extremely active and fast.
Meanwhile the panda isn't just a bit lazy. Its entire metabolism is vastly lower than normal due to its poor diet.
The pandas are further unable to adapt to any changes because it just isn't capable of really moving to a superior location.
This is somehow the panda's fault! Paraphrased Response: It happens. Some species have lower birthrates than others.
I do not believe this is an issue for the panda by itself in the wild.
Too many pandas too soon would mean a huge population crash as they fight for food.
but it is not one of the reasons the panda should be left to die out on its own.
Pandas don't even like to have sex! They're like bad at it and we have to show them panda porn and stuff.
Paraphrased Response: This is a problem in captivity! Some species including humans just don't do well there.
We're spending so much money on these dumb bears! We should be spending it elsewhere!
Also the panda helps bring awareness and bring in money! My Response: It's true that
if we stopped funding the pandas that money wouldn't necessarily go to a different species
As you yourself mentioned pandas cost a zoo more money than they take in. Apparently they aren't a good enough attraction considering their cost.
A panda costs on average 5 times more than an elephant. Imagine what a zoo could do just
if it didn't have to pay for the panda. Just because you lose a sort of spokesperson animal doesn't mean everyone will completely stop coming ignore all conservation efforts and stop giving out money.
They would quickly take up other animals as the front line and even the panda itself could continue to be a just cause.
It would be a lot easier to argue for earlier intervention if the panda went extinct.
Consider how powerful this would be: We had the ability to save the panda if only we had tried a bit sooner before it was too late!
There are dozens of species that are going in the same direction as the Giant panda but they haven't fallen off the cliff yet.
If we act now we could stop yet another species going the way of the dodo.
Conclusion: Just because the money might not go exactly where and how we want doesn't mean it is not being wasted now.
Statement: But Chris Packham said...Paraphrased Response: You shouldn't listen to one person and use that as your sole argument.
My Response: You also shouldn't immediately ignore him. No one argues that the pandas habitat isn't hurting really bad.
The question is is enough still around? This is a rather tricky question and part of it comes down to another question.
As mentioned previously the panda currently has limited a very habitat it can not survive outside of it
and the panda won't survive. Conclusion: Its habitat is damaged severely and limited. If the panda doesn't adapt to new habitats in the area
and allow it to spread it's in a dead end. There's no chance for it to truly continue.
Pandas are just a figurehead; they get way too much money just because they're cute.
They should have the same chance to live as any other animal! My Response: I agree.
If the Panda is the reason for that national park what happens to the park when the panda is gone?
Or what happens if it begins to thrive outside of there? Conclusion: We need to work harder to find more fundamental reasons to save various forests and parks around the world.
and nature then they immediately contradict themselves by putting animals in captivity and controlling their breeding in hopes of keeping them alive and/or returning them to sustainable numbers.
what man does to survive is not natural so these animals and such are given special protections
but I firmly believe that conservationists need to allow the animal to die. Conservation goes against nature.
Let the pandas die out instead of living these lonely lives in captivity. Let all the dwindling species die out.
) Are pandas good for anything? Are they eatable? as Marvin replied I didn't know that a single mom can make $4482 in a few weeks on the internet. did you read this web page...
But the pandas are nice. Wow this is the first time I've ever heard anyone talk about the need to let a particular species die out.
This is a stupid article the claims made against Pandas look like a 4 year old would said them.
Plus no one says Pandas deserve to die (stupidest claim ever?.I agree with all of what zechio said.
The problem with the whole Panda thing is that WAY too much money goes into saving them with poor results.
Pandas do get a lot of money but they're still highly endangered and have a very clear risk of going extinct in the near future despite all that money.
They deserve to live as much as any animal; it's not fair to hurt their chance of survival just
It's not like pandas are funded over and roaming the streets of American suburbspandas are funded too over
If Pandas were butt-ugly no one would care about them that's the truth. People only care about cute animals
and they could care less if an ugly animal went extincted. The Chinese Giant salamander is a perfect example.
The Chinese Giant salamander is LITERALLY being eaten to extinction. It is considered a luxury food and sell for 1000's of US dollars despite BEING ENDANGERED CRITICALLY.
And VERY little money goes to saving them because they are guessed you it ugly. People simply don't care about animals
if they don't make them go Aww!.I'm not saying Pandas deserve to die no animal deserves to die.
But the Panda is not the only endangered animal but most people act like it is.
Millions of dollars goes into Panda breeding programs were most of that money could go into protecting their habitats.
After all if the Pandas's habitat is destroyed completely all that effort in breeding programs would be for nothing.
That's was what Chris Packham is talking about. He's being realistic all that money could go into saving their habitats instead of pouring it into pointless breeding programs.
Smokeymcrib did you even READ the article? This is a stupid article the claims made against Pandas look like a 4 year old would said them.
Plus no one says Pandas deserve to die (stupidest claim ever?.Surprise Surprise the ignorant people who make ignorant claims that an animal deserves to go extinct make ignorant arguments.
Many many people say pandas deserve to die for the most ignorant of reasons. If you were engaged in Giant panda Conservation
or any type of controversial animal conservation you'd know about this. I agree with all of
what zechio said. The problem with the whole Panda thing is that WAY too much money goes into saving them with poor results.
Because like Nosowitz said it's apparently the panda's fault that we don't know how they mate naturally in the wild
even though trial and error has gotten us closer to breeding them with success. ex. Panda cubs would die alot in captivity.
We soon found out that switching cubs from human care to mother care raises the success chances to 95-99%.
%So if a problem is hard or if there's some difficultieswe should stop spending money to solve said problem
(if it gets too expensive to ignorant people who have 0 idea as to how the money is being spent in the first place)?
Pandas are funded too over so stop acting like they aren't . And they only get all the money
If Pandas were butt-ugly no one would care about them that's the truth. People only care about cute animals
and they could care less if an ugly animal went extincted. Do you realize that certain animals depending on their recovery program need more money than other animals?
Do you realize how expensive it is to care for and breed animals especially one like the Giant panda?
Many people thought bees were ugly and useless. We're now finding out that bees are important to the health of millions of plants
and that mass killing them via pesticides isn't good. Sharks are considered ugly by many people yet many are against finning them.
Elephants are considered ugly by many people yet many are against killing them for their tusks.
The Chinese Giant salamander is a perfect example. The Chinese Giant salamander is LITERALLY being eaten to extinction.
It is considered a luxury food and sell for 1000's of US dollars despite BEING ENDANGERED CRITICALLY.
People simply don't care about animals if they don't make them go Aww!.Or maybe it's
because NOBODY is aware of the Giant salamander's plight? And even if we did cut off all or some funding from Giant pandas
what makes you think that money is going to automatically go to saving the salamander? You are suggesting that saving an animal should be some picky-choosy game
of which ones are worthless/wasting too much money which is a slap in the face to science based animal conservation everywhere.
I'm not saying Pandas deserve to die no animal deserves to die. But the Panda is not the only endangered animal
but most people act like it is. Millions of dollars goes into Panda breeding programs were most of that money could go into protecting their habitats.
After all if the Pandas's habitat is destroyed completely all that effort in breeding programs would be for nothing.
That's was what Chris Packham is talking about. He's being realistic all that money could go into saving their habitats instead of pouring it into pointless breeding programs.
Nobody is insisting the Giant panda is the only animal that is endangered. Pandas are iconic but they're not stopping anyone for donating time and money to save other animals.
This black and white (heh) thinking is ridiculous. So you didn't read the article nor do you have any idea as to
what you're talking about. Miles upon miles of panda habitat is already set aside for them
(and even more is being planned). The issue is that the areas are fragmented so it's hard for pandas to travel from one area to another to mate.
Hundreds of pandas are being bred so that we have a fallback plan just in case something happens to the wild panda population.
The 2008 earthquake is a good example of this as it risked killing off multiple pandas by destroying bamboo forests denning sites killing the pandas directly etc.
And it DID kill off multiple pandas (including captive ones) but gladly yet it didn't dent the wild population too hard.
The article ALREADY explained what Packham's position was on pandas and you're misquoting it.
How are you and other people expecting us to buy the habitat WITHOUT ensuring that we can get a stable population going in the first place anyways?
If we buy the habitat will more pandas suddenly appear out of nowhere? What the f**k I wish god strike him dead!
Whatever stoprequiredlogin no need to get all butthurt for my mistake. And cute animals do get more attention then ugly animals.
Maybe that's why nobody knows aboyt the Giant Chinese Salamander.@@stoprequiredlogin Or maybe it's
because NOBODY is aware of the Giant salamander's plight? And even if we did cut off all or some funding from Giant pandas
what makes you think that money is going to automatically go to saving the salamander? You are suggesting that saving an animal should be some picky-choosy game
of which ones are worthless/wasting too much money which is a slap in the face to science based animal conservation everywhere.
Ok so I skimmed through the article and shouldn't have done that but you are completely misquoting what
I'm saying. I'm not saying that saving an animal is some pick and chose game
I'm saying it's unfair that some animals get more attention that others so stop getting butthurt.
Last comment for stoprequiredlogin (wish this site had edit comment or comment deletion options--)I wasn't trying to refute the article in truth.
The point of my comment was that ugly animals get less attention by people than cute animals
and that is unfair and wrong (and than you go and twist my words) plus I have heard never of anyone calling sharks and elephants.*
*plus I have heard never of anyone calling sharks and elephants ugly stupid typos@Smokeymcrib My mistake then also you may not have heard of sharks/elephants being called ugly but
I know a particular friend who does think they're ugly. Simply google searching Elephants are ugly/why are elephants so ugly?
brings up some not so nice results etc. The issue is that the word ugly is subjective.
The Panda's appeal helps it earn money but that money also goes to other animals in their habitat.
The issue is that the ugly animals do not have as much public outcry for their plights like the giant panda.
You cannot expect people to help out an animal they know nothing about. If you truly want to save the ugly animals then start spreading the word r
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011