Category: Animal ethics

Giant Pandas for rent. No way to treat a vulnerable species.

China has been renting out Giant Pandas for decades at astronomical fees. The sorry state of Ya Ya and Le Le are the result.

In December 2022, Memphis Zoo returned two sorry looking aged Giant Pandas named Ya Ya and Le Le back to their homeland to great fanfare and publicity. According to the zoo Ya Ya and Le Le helped “pioneer research and conservation projects” and drew visitors to Memphis to “get a small taste of the exquisite culture of the People’s Republic of China.”

But according to several animal advocacy groups the zoo had not been providing them with adequate food or enough outdoor freedom and cited instances of them pacing in circles. These groups had been criticising the zoo for months and have claimed victory now that they are being returned to China. But it would appear their return may have been more to do with their contract expiring. And what are they returning to?

Giant Pandas Ya Ya and Le Le
The poor old pandas being airlifted home

What future for Ya Ya and Le Le

At 24 years old and 22 years old respectively, having already exceeded the usual life expectancy by a considerable amount, Ya Ya and Le Le may not have much of a future. Not to mention the stress of being uprooted and flown round the world.

Few people realise that Giant Pandas are “rented” out by China. After the Second World war China was in the habit of “gifting” Giant pandas to other countries as part of trade agreements and diplomacy and zoos would clamour to house them. But in 1984 China changed this policy and began leasing them for high monthly fees. This changed again in 1991 to ten year leases costing up to US$1 million dollars per year with any cubs born having to be returned to China.

Some cynics have suggested that the Giant Panda is used as a “strategic asset for geopolitical reasons” because of the many trade agreements coinciding with their arrival in a country. The Pandas at Edinburgh coincided with a £2.6 billion worth of trade contracts for Britain. Zoos in France, Canada, Australia, Malaysia and Thailand also received Pandas following trade agreements.

Giant Pandas can assure a zoo’s financial future

They always come in pairs and the zoos pray they will breed as any cubs born boost their visitors and make them tens of millions in revenue. Any cub born costs the zoos a further “baby tax” until they are returned to China for breeding at 2 to 3 years old to support a healthy gene pool. In 2012, Toronto Zoo paid the going price of $1 million per annum for a pair and they produced two cubs which resulted in visitor numbers shooting up.

Edinburgh zoo rented a pair in 2011 named Yang Guang and Tian Tian with a contract costing £600,000 a year and they must be returned at the end of  this agreement. Not that the zoo was too worried about the investment as visitor numbers shot up by 4 million in the first two years at £16 plus a head. This contract was extended by two years because of Covid and they are due to go back in 2o23.

The crowds tend to have a habit of losing interest if a cub is not born to reinvigorate the attraction, but luckily a cub was born in 2017 to much excitement and media coverage and probably to the relief of the zoo’s accountants.

Giant panda cubs lined up in China breeding centre
Bred for what?

Captive numbers have increased, but for what?

The number of wild and captive Pandas has increased to over 2,000 and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) have downgraded their endangered species label to “vulnerable”, but this does not mean that they are plentiful in the wild or will ever be, as there is very little room in suitable habitats for their release.

China (and of course the zoos they have been rented to) has bred and reared over 400 giant pandas and love to show off all the cute babies to world acclaim, but allegedly only 10 have ever been released into the wild since 1983 and only two of these have survived which appears to make a total nonsense of breeding them for release.

The bottom line seems to be that Giant Pandas have been reduced to tradeable merchandise.

Fund-raising Giant Pandas for rent and loan.
What is Zoonasia?
The lure of ‘get up close’ animal attractions

I’m a Celebrity. 17,000 complaints to UK RSPCA. Why?

The twenty-second series of I’m a Celebrity, of which I haven’t watched twenty-one, has finally ended, with the usual fanfare. It is a show which TV critics believe unites the country in a national conversation and arouses anger over the use of animals. But does anyone really care?

The twenty-second series of I’m a Celebrity, of which I haven’t watched twenty- one, has finally ended, with the usual fanfare. It is a show which TV critics believe unites the country in a national conversation and in some quarters arouses anger over the use of animals. But for the vast majority of viewers it is eagerly awaited and watched. So is it really worth complaining about every year.

This year the number of complaints to the UK RSPCA about the the use of animals increased. But as usual the producers brushed off any complaints because they know the viewers like it just the way it is and they can survive without those that don’t. It makes huge revenue for the ITV so there is no chance of them ever changing the format. People watch it because they like to see the contestants squirm and they like to squirm with them.

If dogs or cats were used on the show.

The animals involved are mostly rats, fish, reptiles and insects which are viewed by many as not “proper animals.” They are not the kind that viewers can empathise with and it is also difficult for people to grasp the notion that such lowly creatures may feel pain or distress, particularly when many cultures eat them anyway.

To most people they are just pests, creepie crawlies, bugs and slimy dangerous reptiles, which we stamp on, spray toxic chemicals on and randomly kill all the time. They are plentiful and not endangered and are mainly of nuisance value to us, so it is difficult to convince anyone to care. Now if dogs or cats were used on the show it would be a different matter. We have, and unfortunately always will have, this rather speciesist and hypocritical attitude to the status of animals and their welfare.

I'm a Celebrity

The RSPCA says:

Every year, we are faced with serious concerns about the use of animals, including snakes, insects and other live creatures during the filming of the show. Since ‘I’m a Celebrity’ was first aired, animals have been dropped, thrown, handled roughly, crushed, chased, overcrowded, scared by contestants and prevented from escaping from stressful experiences.

RSPCA

The RSPCA has had 22-years to do something about the show without success which is probably proof that it is an impossible task. This is because they do not have the weight of public opinion supporting them. In reality clogging up their telephone lines and workforce is a fruitless task when their time could be better spent dealing urgent cruelty calls in the UK. They do have a campaign at the moment whereby you can email ITV for all the good that will do. Far better perhaps to campaign and complain to the Australian RSPCA and State officials to stop them hosting the show, but of course they have their own version and seem little interested.

No mention of I’m a Celebrity.

There is no mention on the RSPCA NSW website about the show at all and as the show organisers point out the Society has an open invitation to attend and watch filming whenever they want. It would appear they cannot do anything either or be bothered.

Also, did I miss all the demonstrations by environmental and animal rights supporters outside the ITV headquarters in Holborn about the show, or perhaps there weren’t any. Activists seem to be too busy now blocking the M25 to worry about a few bugs, rats and snakes or perhaps too busy watching Matt Hancock eating and wrestling the creatures. Ironically there were far more complaints about him appearing in the show than concern for the animals.

Using animals for our entertainment goes back to the Romans fighting lions in the colosseum and beyond and the attitudes of the general populace haven’t changed in the interim. Most viewers do not really care or prefer to ignore the plight of animals in these circumstances, looking down of those who do as being petty and spoil sports. The show will only end or change when viewers get bored with it or contestants refuse to take part, neither of which seems anytime soon. But yes it is still worth complaining about.

Related articles:

The lure of ‘get up close’ animal attractions
Abusing animals for entertainment is pure showmanship