DLC 19 Speculation

Iben

Iben
The_Riot22 said:
From what I understand is that China "leases" the animals to other zoos. Meaning that China can take them back, and also they own the rights to the offspring of those animals.

That seems definitely a step further then "Kenya gets a portion of the $$ generated from the animals" - which is a system I probably would support.
Click to expand...
For me that is a possible implementation of that system. Otherwise the countries don't really have any way to really force zoos to pay their share.

An ideal system has an independent organization that handles everything, but alas, we don't live in an ideal world 😅
 

Marvinb

Marvinb
Villanelle said:
For the sake of argument, taking the agreement at face value, I'm trying to figure out if it is a good system that could be replicated anywhere else, and whether that would be in the interest of the greater good. Here are what I think are the main points on both sides:

Pros:
  • Could raise significant funds for the conservation of the target species.
  • Good way for zoos to build hype and drive extra ticket sales while they have the animal on loan (but also hefty cost for them up front, so financially riskier).
  • Theoretically builds international diplomacy and goodwill between nations but this really depends on transparency of records and mutual trust.
  • Provides visitors with an experience that perhaps motivates them towards behaviour change that helps protect the wild (but this would also be true if the animals were not on loan but part of a global breeding program like most zoo animals).
Cons:
  • Animals don't see borders, they don't claim nationalities. Can we say that a country "owns" the wild animals that live their own lives on that land? There are philosophical/spiritual/ideological mindsets against this and I lean towards them.
  • What about now that most captive animals were born to captive parents, far away from their native environments? What countries do they 'belong' to, if any?
  • It is unusual for a species to be native to only one country. It gets complicated beyond pandas...there aren't that many headliner species that come from just one country are there? Aside from Oz. Some Tiger subspecies maybe? Bornean Orangutans would be a good example but they span across Malaysia and Indonesia. So which country gets the benefit of the financial arrangement? Could create conflict and encourage poaching across borders to reduce populations to a narrower range.
  • Transporting live animals is risky, expensive and uncomfortable for the animals. Is it in the animals' best interest for them to be moved at the end of each loan term?
  • What about when they go from one really spacious, enrichment-filled and cared for place, to a lesser place? Do they get depressed?

Overall it seems a complicated and inefficient way to support and promote conservation. Zoos are finding lots of clever ways to raise money...at London Zoo recently we were able to pay £15 each to feed the penguins. We got a handful of sardines each and posted them down tubes into the pool so there was no physical contact and the penguins were in control of how much contact they wanted to have with us. Imagine the profits from £15 for a few sardines! That money was going of course towards a program for their wild counterparts and gave us a discount in the shop. Micro-transactions like that are a great way to eek more out of your visitor's wallets and make everyone feel good, especially the penguins! In contrast I'm not convinced that the pandas love racking up the air miles. I don't think its in their best interest and I don't think that's the point of it either, but shouldn't it be? Surely the whole point is to make a better world for the animals, and we can do that for the captive ones as well as those that still remain in the wild (or nowadays, in national parks)...
Click to expand...
Idk if there really are any other animals that this panda thing can even apply to ( atleast zo this exent)
I mean its gotta be a super big visitor draw to warrant a big cost, only be native to one country and not currently in captivity so the country in question can have the monopoly on it.
Honestly aside from pandas the only other animal fitting this is the platypus.
 

oca2074

O
Iben said:
For me that is a possible implementation of that system. Otherwise the countries don't really have any way to really force zoos to pay their share.

An ideal system has an independent organization that handles everything, but alas, we don't live in an ideal world 😅
Click to expand...
1) Pandas are not even endangered. Their numbers are not decreasing (rather there are too many of them in captivity) and there is zero percent chance of them going extinct.
2) Captive pandas can't be re-released in the wild, so this is not a captive breeding program.
3) Even if there was conservation value, China is not some poor country that requires external financing to save its species. Just like the US doesn't need aid. What they and other countries need are the right policies. All the financing in the world will go to naught if they insist on destroying habitats. There's not much others can do.
4) Pandas are used as leverage for geopolitics. They are used to win over hearts and minds of children (brainwashing) and goodwill. That is then leveraged to help China get what it wants. As punishment, China takes away your pandas. This is why they became controversial.
5) The high costs of pandas (over 1 million USD per animal per year, including for any offspring born) can bankrupt zoos. Zoos must airlift bamboo from China rather than grow their own. This adds to costs, gives additional funds to Chinese suppliers, and is environmentally bad. This money is used to pay for captive pandas back in China. Because of advanced artificial insemination, there is now an over-abundance of pandas in captivity and China plans on making foreign zoos foot the bill. Go to zoos in China and you can see "panda villages".
 
Last edited:

StellarLover

StellarLover
The panda situation is kind of messy in my opinion.
In the article that @Doran postes the director of the zoo ho they talked to said that at least 80% of the monay had to be at least spend on conservation so it's possible that the country used the money. There's a lot of money going to the country with 16 zoos paying for it, and while I agree with @Cooper_yang that the country doesn't need the money to be successful, some of is surely used on something. I don't believe that 32millions+cubs money are soley used on conservation.
And the politics around it are not helpful. The zoo has to agree with the politics of chine to even get a panda and a reason why prague zoo didn't had the animals as they didn't want to agree with the methods of china.
But to be honest, we don't know yet if the monkeys are going to be a similar system, so I can't talk about that.
 

oca2074

O
StellarLover said:
The panda situation is kind of messy in my opinion.
In the article that @Doran postes the director of the zoo ho they talked to said that at least 80% of the monay had to be at least spend on conservation so it's possible that the country used the money. There's a lot of money going to the country with 16 zoos paying for it, and while I agree with @Cooper_yang that the country doesn't need the money to be successful, some of is surely used on something. I don't believe that 32millions+cubs money are soley used on conservation.
Click to expand...
I'll tell you the dirty little secret. China doesn't need the money obviously, but they are cheapskates even towards their "national treasure". If they can get foreign zoos to help pay for captive pandas back home (which are constantly increasing in number), then that's what they'll do.

That's where the money is being used. To pay for upkeep on the country's ever growing army of pandas due to increasingly successful artificial insemination methods. Most Chinese zoos have multiple pandas and some have "panda villages." And foreign zoo-goers are paying for it.
 

USzoofan42

USzoofan42
Cooper_yang said:
Hahahahahaha, sorry, but I really can't help laughing.
The New York Times! Just "New York Times"! I thought such a confident accusation came from some rigorous research report, but it turned out to be just New York Times!
Okay, let me talk about it at a relatively long length this time. I have to state in advance that I have no intention of discussing too many topics related to international politics and ideology in this community. To be honest, I am tired of it. In recent years, these topics have been discussed in many communities and online platforms. PZ is one of the few relatively pure places. I don't want to destroy this atmosphere, but since this "news" is too ridiculous and ridiculous, I feel that I need to say a few words.
I have three questions:
"Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?"
"Did Michael Jackson commit those unforgivable things to children?"
"Can Donald Trump win the 2017 election?"
To be honest, if I want, I can find hundreds of examples of media like the New York Times that swore but were later proven to be completely lies, but I don't want to waste my time. Obviously, it would be stupid if we say that all the reports of the New York Times are false. But it is equally stupid to say that the New York Times report is all true. The absurdity of this news really opened my eyes. The total "panda rental" in the world is less than 100 million US dollars. For a country with a population of 1.4 billion, it is really a drop in the bucket. With the increasingly tense relationship between China and the United States, how did the author of this report get reliable data and draw his own conclusions? Is there really a spy like 007 James Bond who came to China at the risk of his life, just to investigate the whereabouts of the panda rental money? Please, if Hollywood screenwriters write like this, they will probably starve to death.
China is a country with a population of 1.4 billion and a land area of 9.6 million square kilometers. What is the concept of 9.6 million square kilometers? It takes more than 5 hours to fly from Shanghai to Urumqi by direct flight. In such a country, what level of resource investment is needed to promote infrastructure construction? I think any rational adult has some reliable answers.
The absurdity of this news... How can I describe it? It's like I want to buy a Ferrari sports car, and someone gives me a $5 voucher, and then declares to the outside world that he has made a huge contribution to my buying this car. What should I say?
At present, China has opened up a visa-free policy for people from many countries to come to China, and it has become very convenient to travel here. Come to China and see for yourself. This country has a strong side, but also has shortcomings. But in the final analysis, this is a normal country, not a "hell" or a "devil's cave". Ignoring the transportation costs, if you don't have to stay in a 5-star hotel, then 2,000-3,000 US dollars is enough for one person to travel in China for a week, to see everything in this country with your own eyes, and don't blindly believe the media. With the current tense atmosphere between China and the United States, if it continues to develop, I believe that one day there will be a media that says that the mastermind behind the assassination of Kennedy was China.
Unless there are more ridiculous views, this will be my final answer to this topic. This kind of baseless stuff is really boring and a waste of time.
Click to expand...
what in the yapperson
 

USzoofan42

USzoofan42
We all know that China doesn't use the money for panda reasons. Its already scroogy enough with their animals (just like the oceaninc countries) with ZOOCHATTERS pulling this we know its most likely true.
 

Cooper_yang

Cooper_yang
oca2074 said:
1) Pandas are not even endangered. Their numbers are not decreasing (rather there are too many of them in captivity) and there is zero percent chance of them going extinct.
2) Captive pandas can't be re-released in the wild, so this is not a captive breeding program.
3) Even if there was conservation value, China is not some poor country that requires external financing to save its species. Just like the US doesn't need aid. What they and other countries need are the right policies. All the financing in the world will go to naught if they insist on destroying habitats. There's not much others can do.
4) Pandas are used as leverage for geopolitics. They are used to win over hearts and minds of children (brainwashing) and goodwill. That is then leveraged to help China get what it wants. As punishment, China takes away your pandas. This is why they became controversial.
5) The high costs of pandas (over 1 million USD per animal per year, including for any offspring born) can bankrupt zoos. Zoos must airlift bamboo from China rather than grow their own. This adds to costs, gives additional funds to Chinese suppliers, and is environmentally bad. This money is used to pay for captive pandas back in China. Because of advanced artificial insemination, there is now an over-abundance of pandas in captivity and China plans on making foreign zoos foot the bill. Go to zoos in China and you can see "panda villages".
Click to expand...
Regarding the reintroduction of captive pandas into the wild, this is an ongoing project. Airlifting bamboo from China... I believe this is more of an economic consideration than a hard requirement. Just Google and see which zoos grow bamboo for their pandas. It's not hard.

The probability of pandas going extinct is 0? Ah... I have to say that it's really too optimistic. Pandas are doing better now. That's the result of generations of conservation workers, not some "unknown scoop". Do you know what I mean? It's the result of years of hard work!

Pandas are actually very fragile animals. You may not know how difficult it is for them to reproduce and how strict their environmental requirements are. Even though they have been downgraded from endangered to vulnerable, there are only more than 1,800 wild individuals, and more than 750 captive pandas. Is that a lot?

The African savanna elephant is an endangered species. There are more than 400,000 African savanna elephants in the wild and more than 40,000 in captivity, but their survival is endangered!

I know that the assessment criteria for the "level of endangerment" of animals are not just about the number of animals. But being so optimistic about the future of giant pandas... It seems that many people don't know how much effort the conservation workers put in to prevent the population of this species from declining further. Please go and learn about it. Decades ago, when their monthly income was less than $150, they had no decent means of transportation and spent all day exploring those cold and humid mountains. Some of them had never seen a wild giant panda in their entire lives. If you have a chance, go to the Smithsonian Zoo in the United States to see how some conservation workers tried their best to protect this creature when material conditions were extremely scarce. Please note that this zoo is in the United States. Even today when Sino-US relations are so bad, this zoo still retains those records and displays them to the public. By the way... I want to emphasize a fact again. There is no organization forcing some zoos to rent pandas, right? If some zoos feel the burden is too heavy, they can give up.
 
Last edited:

Cooper_yang

Cooper_yang
oca2074 said:
I'll tell you the dirty little secret. China doesn't need the money obviously, but they are cheapskates even towards their "national treasure". If they can get foreign zoos to help pay for captive pandas back home (which are constantly increasing in number), then that's what they'll do.

That's where the money is being used. To pay for upkeep on the country's ever growing army of pandas due to increasingly successful artificial insemination methods. Most Chinese zoos have multiple pandas and some have "panda villages." And foreign zoo-goers are paying for it.
Click to expand...
Oh, yes, yes, you know all these “dirty little secrets”. To be honest, I think that with your intelligence gathering ability, you should go to some important intelligence agencies to contribute to world peace.Come on, James Bond, world peace depends on people like you.
 

SanRazo

SanRazo
Cooper_yang said:
Regarding the reintroduction of captive pandas into the wild, this is an ongoing project. Airlifting bamboo from China... I believe this is more of an economic consideration than a hard requirement. Just Google and see which zoos grow bamboo for their pandas. It's not hard.

The probability of pandas going extinct is 0? Ah... I have to say that it's really too optimistic. Pandas are doing better now. That's the result of generations of conservation workers, not some "unknown scoop". Do you know what I mean? It's the result of years of hard work!

Pandas are actually very fragile animals. You may not know how difficult it is for them to reproduce and how strict their environmental requirements are. Even though they have been downgraded from endangered to vulnerable, there are only more than 1,800 wild individuals, and more than 750 captive pandas. Is that a lot?

African elephants are critically endangered animals. There are more than 400,000 in the wild and more than 40,000 in captivity, but they are critically endangered!

I know that the assessment criteria for the "level of endangerment" of animals are not just about the number of animals. But being so optimistic about the future of giant pandas... It seems that many people don't know how much effort the conservation workers put in to prevent the population of this species from declining further. Please go and learn about it. Decades ago, when their monthly income was less than $150, they had no decent means of transportation and spent all day exploring those cold and humid mountains. Some of them had never seen a wild giant panda in their entire lives. If you have a chance, go to the Smithsonian Zoo in the United States to see how some conservation workers tried their best to protect this creature when material conditions were extremely scarce. Please note that this zoo is in the United States. Even today when Sino-US relations are so bad, this zoo still retains those records and displays them to the public. By the way... I want to emphasize a fact again. There is no organization forcing some zoos to rent pandas, right? If some zoos feel the burden is too heavy, they can give up.
Click to expand...
The African Forest Elephant is critically endangered. The African Bush Elephant is just endangered and is the one you’re referring to with those numbers 🤓
 

Swjosdotschka

Swjosdotschka
USzoofan42 said:
pretty sure We can all agree though
Click to expand...
Obviously "we" can not. I don't have the sources or knowledge to support that statement, nor have I anything to proof it wrong.
What I can definately say is that I have personal glasses on that tint my perception of any country, any nationality, any group. And I have yet to find one single human to whom that does not also apply.
So unless we are dealing with proofable facts here from validated, reliable sources, there is no generalised "we" in any argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom