the tragedy of pandas
fascinating exposé yesterday
The behavior is unsavory at best or perhaps more appropriately reprehensible. Yet the New York Times piece yesterday, “Program to Save Pandas Harmed Them Instead” is so typical of what is at happens with our efforts to protect nature today.
China isn’t the only place that unintended consequences result from a policy choice, of course. Life is absolutely replete with similar cases, often with due to the most benevolent of intentions, where policies go awry. But this is notable because most of the world’s children find these seemingly charming black and white creatures enchanting, even though they are unlikely to ever touch one.
The world held its breath over the past few decades as pandas became an endangered species of cute animals (By the way, in China what we call pandas—the black and white bears—are joined by red pandas which are more prolific but look more like a fox or some critter that moves agilely along the ground instead of laying rolly polly eating bamboo. This column is about the big black and white variety.). As true for so many species, both commercial poachers and China’s human population still relying on traditional Chinese medicine—almost invariably based on the physical “benefits” harvesting some animal part requiring murdering the animal—threatens the pandas’s survival. Authorities in China, as happens so often, publicly avow protection for these creatures.
They similarly share them with the world through “panda diplomacy”. You never know what the Middle Kingdom will do to engender “respect”—or perhaps attention. China passes up no instruments of statecraft, a reminder we forget too often. Richard Nixon and Henry the K reopened U.S. engagements with the Middle Kingdom in 1972 following the fanfare of the presidential visit. One of the most successful outcomes of renewed interaction was Beijing’s offer to loan pandas to U.S. zoos for a fixed period of time—and a fee, the latter of which rarely apparently is understood by the public. Nixon and Kissinger actually shared two musk oxen with China’s zoos as a trade for the pandas. This panda diplomacy introduced hundreds of thousands of Americans to the “soft” side of China, these seemingly cuddly, cute black and white bears with the big eyes. What grandparent who could afford it hasn’t at least considered buying a panda for the granddaughter?
Panda diplomacy is perhaps China’s most unvarnished success over the past half century. The pandas became an instant hit with visitors around the world. When my daughter was young and I felt to pressed for time, I joined the Friends of the National Zoo to assure I would get her in the queue to see the cute guys. Our first trip was disappointing as the pandas were ensconced in back of their lair inside a dark enclosure so we strained to see anything but a subsequent visit saw them in the sunlight, happily chomping away on their bamboo stalks, just as the television shows suggested.
While the National Zoo, a portion of the federal Smithsonian Institution, was an early recipient, several cities clamored for these creatures to increase sagging attendance in the 1980s. San Diego, San Francisco and several other cities made the same sort of “rental agreement” to host the bears for a fixed period before they were returned to China. The zoos paid a fee and were, unsurprisingly, obligated to maintain the health of the bears while showing them only under conditions China approved rather than under the guidance of the zookeepers responsible for these visitors. All the while, the number of pandas in wild continuing dropping precipitously.
Veterinary science and breeding techniques have improved through the latter years of the 20th century, making it feasible for foreign zoos to be part of the state-supported campaign to expand the population in hopes of releasing them back into their natural habitats. I refer you to the article for the graphic details but suffice to point out that pandas proved notoriously challenging to breed in captivity, regardless of either the country where the attempt occurred or anyone’s intentions.
I assume every media market where pandas were in zoos underwent the same annual discussion we had Washington as females ovulated. When it turned out that males were not inclined to inseminate females under these high visibility conditions (not everyone does penises in public, I guess), scientists jumped in to help through artificial insemination. Yet all of this effort around the globe was part of expanding the supply of bears to reintroduce primarily to Sichuan in the southwest.
This is where things got interesting. Zoos, dependent on pandas for increased foot traffic and presumably greater membership receipts, also had to pay China for doing the artificial insemination process while following its ground rules on the rentals, like everything else. New York Times reporter Mara Hvistendahl reports that those specimens rented to foreign zoos were not as viable genetically, making the entire process even harder. Indeed, few live births ever resulted in any foreign zoos despite repeated efforts and what some scientists bordered on calling abuse of the animals by overly aggressive breeding. Pandas were big business but not one that everyone understood entirely, if one is charitable.
Further, as China opened to market forces (they were never free market as we tended to label their efforts but they offered more non-state options after the Four Modernizations), panda breeding in the designated domestic protection areas became a cash cow for many. Successful breeding efforts resulting in cubs that lived to six months’ age garnered $1400 per live birth, still a goodly amount in China today. As so often occurs, beautiful, quality regulations aimed at protecting the animals fell prey to unscrupulous breeders, corrupt local officials ignoring rules, and anyone else involved in the process to make more money first, and sustain pandas second. In short, pandas became a financial asset rather than a species deserving care and attention for all to enjoy, in Sichuan or abroad.
The article notes that by 2000, well after the Nixon visit, the global population of the pandas was 126 in captivity and the numbers in the wild were declining. A quarter of a century later, more than 700 pandas are now in captivity but not released back to their natural habitat where they would breed more easily. Instead, they are earning breeders cash whether the few live births in zoos abroad or more likely at breeding facilities within the Middle Kingdom. The bloodlines through this human-assisted breeding, however, appear more fragile since humans intervened rather than natural selection as true a century ago, leading to long-term questions for the long term.
China is hardly unique as a place where greed frequently exceeds other noble objectives. The Communist Party’s obsession with orchestrating Chinese assets manifests the massive insecurity of this regime. Many in China who see the future bleakly, despite CCP promises of national rejuvenation, have always struggled to cash in a trend while the money was good rather than ensuring sustainability, whether in pandas or business or anything else. Too many remember the depravations of the Cultural Revolution or other “lean” times; those memories reflect fear of history repeating. The Party, of course, takes whatever steps best advance its own position, in this case ensuring foreign income and dangling the lure of the pandas for panda-crazy foreigners while assuring ever more pandas remain home in captivity regardless of the cruelty or the long-term damage to the species.
Pandas are the losers. They may not be the smartest animals on the planet nor the nicest (they apparently are pretty nasty bears) but these arrangements at home and abroad were theoretically to protect rather than exploit them. Any of us who delighted in watching their seemingly carefree bamboo chewing were complicit without realizing it. In a world with decreasing species diversity or bloodlines, this is an all-too-familiar tale but one getting attention because of the big eyes on those black and white tubby bodies.
This is not a cosmic tale; it’s not about war nor do I intend to equate it as such. But, it’s a reminder that what sounds great in principle can have poor effects when those entrusted with a program lose track of the objective it is to meet. Perhaps pandas will survive, maybe not. But yet another species on our planet is failing and one has to wonder how long we can sustain those failures without genuinely cosmic effects.
Actions create consequences, of course.
Thank you for reading this column today or any other day. I appreciate your time and welcome you circulating it if you find it of value. I welcome any and all comments as well. I especially thank those of you who pay subscriptions to read this as you are my heroes.
Be well and be safe. FIN
Mara Hvistendahl, “Want to Rent a Panda? Here are 5 Things China Demands in Return”, NewYorkTimes.com, 19 October 2024, retrieved at https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/19/world/asia/panda-rental-contracts.html