Should We Let Pandas Go Extinct?

MSNBC has a thought provoking article about the strategy of pouring money into panda conservation. They quote a radio interview by Chris Packham, a who hosts a tv show on BBC in the UK and runs a bat conservation group, suggesting conservationists "pull the plug" on the panda, which is a common symbol for wildlife conservation efforts. He has since walked back his statements a bit though continues to suggest that funds would be better used protecting ecosystems as opposed to specific species.

While he has a point that conservation expenditures are skewed towards cuddly creatures while many less charismatic species struggle, his argument misses some key facts. First, much of species-specific work (whether pandas or lions or whales) benefits the entire ecosystem through the creation of protected areas, restrictions on destructive activities, and education that helps connect people to nature. Second, any experienced environmental fundraiser will tell you that every conservation effort is under-funded and few people will donate to protect something they don't feel connected to (such as bats). By using charismatic creatures to raise funds, all wildlife benefits from efforts to combat global warming, overfishing, and other major threats.

Finally, charismatic creatures inspire people to become better environmental stewards. Local communities who benefit from tourism around creatures like pandas (or sea turtles or tigers) are more likely to protect their local habitat from exploitation that would affect the flagship species and every other animal that lives there.

I suspect Mr. Packham's aim was to stir debate and may be related to the difficulty of fundraising for bat conservation (isn't that species-specific conservation?). He may have accomplished that goal, though hopefully not to the detriment of panda conservation.