Study: Saving Pandas Led To the Downfall of Other Animals (upi.com) 33
UPI reports:
Efforts to save the giant panda from extinction have come at the expense of other large mammals, a new study released Monday by the science journal Nature Ecology and Evolution said...
Since the giant panda reserves were set up in China during the 1960s, leopards have disappeared from 81% of reserves, snow leopards from 38%, wolves from 77% and Asian wild dogs from 95%.
Researchers found with the dwindling numbers of leopards and wolves, deer and livestock have mostly roamed free without a threat from natural predators, causing damage to natural habitats for surrounding wildlife, including the pandas.
Since the giant panda reserves were set up in China during the 1960s, leopards have disappeared from 81% of reserves, snow leopards from 38%, wolves from 77% and Asian wild dogs from 95%.
Researchers found with the dwindling numbers of leopards and wolves, deer and livestock have mostly roamed free without a threat from natural predators, causing damage to natural habitats for surrounding wildlife, including the pandas.
Look what I did mom! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There go those nasty unintended consequences again...
Except there were no unintended consequences.
Two things happened:
A. Reserves were set up for pandas.
B. Other species declined, both in and out of these reserves.
TFA presents no evidence whatsoever that "A" caused "B".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
They Protected "Giant Pandas", a major predator, and soon found there were far fewer animals that are one-rung down the food chain from the Giant Pandas.
Sure, could be coincidence, but it seems to me that once we start monkeying around with the the food chain, things like this are about to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Major predator? I'm assuming error rather than trolling, but an animal whose diet is 99% bamboo and whose inability to digest that diet effectively limits its ability to expend energy is by no means a major predator.
Re: (Score:3)
Pandas suck up money that might otherwise go to save other specifies. Pandas evolved into a cul-de-sac. They are doomed without the direct intervention of humans. Their demise is not really the fault of humans. They simply over specialized. Millions of dollars are basically wasted keeping them going because they are cute. The money would be better spent trying to save animals that have a fighting chance of recovery.
Re: (Score:2)
Any animal that cannot survive in its natural habitat (barring invasive species causing problems, including humans) on its own should not be protected.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't underestimate deer. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not the Snow Leopards! (Score:5, Insightful)
The rest is non cute so whatever but not the Snow Leopards!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The rest is non cute so whatever but not the Snow Leopards!
Did you watch Kung Fu Panda?
Tai Lung is a snow leopard. Snow leopards are evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Survival of the cutest.
outside the reserves (Score:3, Interesting)
Panda Poachers are Rare (Score:1)
Re:Pandas are Rare (Score:2)
Pandas are poached precisely because of their rarity. The panda's hide [wordpress.com] is highly prized.
Fortunately, there doesn't seem to be an edible part of the animal considered an aphrodisiac, otherwise they'd be that much closer to extinction.
Re:outside the reserves (Score:4, Insightful)
Shhh the important point is that conservation is a laughable joke. Carry on building those shopping malls!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:outside the reserves (Score:5, Informative)
"Potential factors in the declines of these species include habituate loss by commercial logging, direct poaching of both the carnivores and their ungulate prey, and possible infection and spread of contagious diseases via domestic animals. Regardless of the causes of the declines, these carnivore populations have evidently disappeared from many of their historical ranges."
The headline is nonsense, and too many posters here on Slashdot accepted it as true.
Re:There are more than two arthropods (Score:2)
Thank you, the summary blurb was confusing. I came to ask "why are the wolves and leopards declining if the deer they feed on are not?" Because that didn't make much sense to me. If they aren't a threat to the pandas then they wouldn't be getting pushed out.
But logging should affect both predator and prey. Disease and poaching however could selectively target one side.
Re: (Score:2)
That explains how dachshunds went extinct.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature (Score:1)
Sorry, but more often than not, do-gooders, particularly those who don't live where the perceived problem is, end up making more problems or exacerbating problems when they try to fix something.
There's a documented case of some do-gooders banning dogs on an island in Southeast Asia because they weren't indigenous. Turns out that the dogs kept the monitor lizard population in check. Oops. After that lizard attacks on humans skyrocketed.
Re: (Score:3)
Pandas up, big predators down (Score:2)
It is surprising that all that land protected helped the pandas, but not the other guys. We might not know why yet, but something went wrong in China.