Back in late August of 2022, the Smithsonian’s National Zoo in Washington, D.C., celebrated the birthday of two-year-old panda Xiao Qi Ji, by giving him a cake made of fruit with the number “2” engraved on the front. In tandem with the birthday party, the zoo also recognized their “Pandaversary” the weekend prior, which commemorated 50-years since the first giant panda arrived at the National Zoo. The zoo referred to this milestone as an “unprecedented achievement in the care, conservation, breeding, and study of giant pandas.”
Panda Captivity Does Not Aid in Species Conservation
This should not, however, have been cause for celebration. The captive keeping and breeding of pandas realistically has very little to do with the conservation – or the wellbeing – of pandas at all. In fact, according to Ron Swaisgood, who chairs the IUCN’s Giant Panda Expert Team, “It is generally the case that zoos lose money on pandas. The costs of leasing, feeding, housing, and handling pandas typically exceed the revenues they bring in, and the economics are similar around the world.” Therefore, keeping pandas in lifelong captivity does not benefit, and likely even undermines, wild panda conservation efforts.
A Tragic Panda Death Renews Concerns about Captivity
This anti-conservation theme has sadly been echoed by the recent Memphis Zoo panda controversy, in which Giant Panda male LeLe died in February 2023 due to alleged neglect by the zoo. This controversy gained traction over two years ago, when In Defense of Animals and Panda Voices began campaigning for better treatment of LeLe and female YaYa due to growing concerns of poor welfare and declining health. These concerns led animal rights groups to advocate for their return to China before the scheduled date in April 2023. Ignoring these concerns, and months after LeLe’s death, the zoo has just initiated YaYa’s return to China this week on Wednesday, April 26, 2023.
Unfortunately, Memphis Zoo chose to keep LeLe and YaYa, despite ongoing public outcry; years of unsuccessful and stressful breeding attempts; the pandas’ observable deteriorating health (including weight loss, malnourishment, dental issues, skin disease, behavioral abnormalities, and chronic stress); and the zoos’ inability to provide adequate care for them (including limited access to proper dietary and veterinary resources).
The tragic and recent death of LeLe, allegedly due to heart disease based on preliminary necropsy results, has sadly confirmed what Born Free and many other animal advocacy groups know to be true: captivity is no place for wild animals, despite any justification zoos may claim about improving their conservation. This is true for giant pandas and the many other species forced to live and die in zoos without any benefit to their wild counterparts.
In-Situ Panda Conservation Efforts Provide More Value
Giant pandas’ naturally slow breeding rate prevents wild populations from recovering quickly from main threats to their survival, including illegal hunting, habitat loss, resource depletion, and other human-related causes of mortality. Therefore, in-situ conservation efforts to reduce these primary threats remain crucial to improving panda population status in the wild; not breeding pandas in captivity and sending them overseas to be showcased in United States zoos, most of whom will never be released back into the wild successfully. As few as 1,864 giant pandas remain in their native habitat, while another 600 pandas live in zoos and breeding centers around the world.
Panda Captivity Is about Everything except Wildlife Conservation
The history of captive panda dealings around the world may come as a surprise and has long been rooted in anything but genuine conservation. Pandas have been used by China as political, economic, and social pawns since as early as 685 AD. In attempts to enhance its political appeal and foreign policy opportunities with other countries, China has used pandas as a type of living currency for transactions to advance political popularity for centuries.
For example, according to a report conducted by the Financial Times in 2017, Australia, France, and Canada all received pandas after agreeing to sell nuclear technology and uranium to China. Scotland accepted a pair of pandas in 2011 as part of an agreement to share offshore drilling technology and supply salmon to China, and the Netherlands finalized a loan in 2017 when they agreed to supply advanced healthcare services. Giant pandas have also been exploited as props in photo opportunities with several global leaders when visiting China to promote China’s “softer side,” including former UK Prime Minister Edward Heath, Former U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Former U.S. President Bill Clinton, Former French President François Hollande, and Queen Letizia of Spain.
Additionally, China loans out pandas to zoos in other countries that wish to display them—but only if the price is right. Despite restrictions that prevent pandas from being internationally traded for commercial reasons in attempts to protect their population status in the wild, including a U.S. Fish & Wildlife ban and a CITES Appendix I listing, which prohibits all international trade except for scientific purposes, demand from zoos to put pandas on display and the corresponding profit to be gained urges officials to make exceptions to these rules.
The San Diego Zoo became the first zoo in 1996 to participate in an agreement that later became the model for all future panda loans from China: they received a pair of pandas on a 12-year “research loan” at the cost of $1 million USD per year.
Currently, the agreement states that 70% of the annual $1 million USD fee allegedly goes towards giant panda conservation, but foreigners have no say over where or how this money is spent, nor are they informed of the destination or impact of their financial contributions. As the property of the Chinese government, all bears must be returned to China after ten years. If the rented pandas have cubs, the cubs must be returned to China after two years. This ruling leaves young Xiao Qi Ji’s fate uncertain: how much longer will he stay in D.C. before being shipped all the way back to China, perhaps to be traded yet again in the future should diplomacy demand it?
Panda Have Been Turned into a Commodity
Thus, the irony is not lost on us that while pandas have become the most renowned mascot for global conservation, and simultaneously an unwilling political pawn, their own conservation and individual welfare suffers immensely as a result. Sadly, for China and zoos around the world, the only perceivable value pandas offer is economic. Their intrinsic value has been erased by the trading of their ability to choose to live a natural life, the unequivocal bartering of their freedom in exchange for an impermanent advance in global social standing. The devastation already done to wild pandas, however, has the potential to be permanent unless we can all agree that zoos accepting pandas in this exploitative fashion does more harm than good. In the name of “education,” a false purpose that zoos most fervently cling to, the best thing we can do for future generations is to teach them that this is not the way to view or treat wild animals.
Keep Wildlife in the Wild,
Devan
