Giant Pandas No Longer Endangered But Still Vulnerable, Says China (bbc.com) 32
Long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo quotes the BBC:
Giant pandas are no longer classified as endangered but are still vulnerable, Chinese officials say. The classification was downgraded as their number in the wild has reached 1,800.
Experts say that the country managed to save its iconic animal through its long-term conservation efforts, including the expansion of habitats. China considers pandas a national treasure, but have also loaned them to other countries as diplomatic tools. The latest classification upgrade "reflects their improved living conditions and China's efforts in keeping their habitats integrated", said Cui Shuhong, head of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment's Department of Nature and Ecology Conservation at a news conference. The new classification comes years after the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) had already removed the animal from its endangered species list and re-labelled it as "vulnerable" in 2016.
Experts say that the country managed to save its iconic animal through its long-term conservation efforts, including the expansion of habitats. China considers pandas a national treasure, but have also loaned them to other countries as diplomatic tools. The latest classification upgrade "reflects their improved living conditions and China's efforts in keeping their habitats integrated", said Cui Shuhong, head of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment's Department of Nature and Ecology Conservation at a news conference. The new classification comes years after the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) had already removed the animal from its endangered species list and re-labelled it as "vulnerable" in 2016.
Thats nice to know (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately these creatures are an envolutionary dead end. Their slow route to extinction wasn't down to man - for once - but their own lack of willingness to breed. Its a shame an equivalent amount of money isn't being put into saving less photogenic but far more important species that are on the brink such as many insects which are the base of the food chain for a huge number of birds and mammals due to intensive farming and habitat loss.
Re: Thats nice to know (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly not enough to keep the species viable without help from man. The only reason they've been saved is they're cute fluffy veggie bears, if they'd been a lizard, fish, insect etc no one would have given a toss and they'd have been allowed to go extinct.
Re: (Score:3)
The species was viable without man. The main reason they are endangered (now vulnerable) is because of habitat loss. That's habitat not habits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its a shame an equivalent amount of money isn't being put into saving less photogenic but far more important species that are on the brink such as many insects which are the base of the food chain for a huge number of birds and mammals due to intensive farming and habitat loss.
SAVE THE MOSQUITO!
Re: (Score:2)
You joke, but mosquitos are an important food source for many bird species.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mag... [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Thats nice to know (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"destruction of their habitat?"
Do you know how quickly bamboo grows? Its almost impossible to irradicate it short of concreting it over and even then it can break through. We're not talking tropical rain forest habitat here with trees that take 100 years to mature.
Re:Thats nice to know (Score:4, Interesting)
for human settlements is not affected by how fast it grows. 2) Clearing out bamboo forests for cultivation does not help pandas as they like to eat every day. Waiting a few weeks for every meal somehow does not help their survival. Are all your posts so half baked?
Re: Thats nice to know (Score:2)
"Habitat" does not equal "food".
Just like for you, "burger" does not equal "a place to stay".
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, pandas don't breed that well in the wild either. And captive breeding programs, although difficult, have helped the pandas to recover. To the point that some environmentalists have argued that China doesn't have enough habitat left in which to release them. You can't argue both ways.
What I see is some people arguing that saving pandas isn't "worth it" because management and captive breeding aren't helping push people back out of their habitats. "Might as well eat the pandas" some have said if w
Re: (Score:2)
One could say the same thing about the southern resident orcas [wikipedia.org]. They refuse to eat anything other than Chinook salmon, for which they compete with sea lions which we are not allowed to cull. In the rest of the world, sea lions are food for orcas.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, what you said is all wrong. [popsci.com]
Endangered sequel. (Score:2)
This is good news for Po. [imdb.com]
Panda ownership (Score:2)
Re:Panda ownership (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, bald eagles exist in the wild in countries other than the U.S.
Every Giant Panda that exists outside of China is there because the Chinese government gave them to a zoo.
Re: (Score:2)
Loaned, not gave. China's panda program has fixed rules: The pandas remain property of the Chinese government. They are merely on loan.
Re: (Score:2)
They used to occasionally give them away - there was one that was gifted to Japan before they brought in the policy of only ever loaning them out.
Giant Pandas, yeah (Score:2)
Save one species, exterminate 1000 others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The primary reason they have currently been saved is because the Chinese cherish Pandas: https://www.thedailychina.org/... [thedailychina.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
1800 Pandas = (Score:2)
Definite genetic bottle neck at a minimum.. Worst outcome loss of species.
Good luck Pandas!
Sweet (Score:2)
Good job China! Hopefully more countries will follow this example.
Vulnerable? (Score:2)
Re (Score:1)