Radio Times

Autumnwatch presenter Chris Packham is a champion of nature and wildlife - just not all of it. "We pour millions of pounds into panda conservation," he tells Radio Times. "I reckon we should pull the plug. Let them go, with a degree of dignity."

It's not the attitude you'd immediately expect of a BBC wildlife presenter and vice-president of the RSPB, but he also doesn't think it's going to happen: "Here's a species that, of its own accord, has gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac. It's not a strong species. Unfortunately, pandas are big and cute and a symbol of the World Wildlife Fund."

He's angry about what he calls "T-shirt animals" and believes we should put farmers before wildlife. "Farming policy has trashed this countryside more than any other part of Western Europe. Go into the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with a flamethrower and torch all of the stupid bureaucracy that dogs our farmers. Let's start organising fair pricing for UK farmers."

Speaking of dogs - or, rather, their owners - Packham has something to say to them: keep them on leads in areas like the New Forest so they don't scare off the birds: "45 per cent of species here are ground nesting: meadow pippets, curlew, stonechats. There are 25,000 hours of dog walking per day in the New Forest, dumping 10,000kg of crap."

Cats are not much more of a favourite, either. He argues they should be neutered, fitted with bleeping collars and not let out at night: "Nocturnal predation accounts for 50 per cent of the things they kill - frogs, bats, mammals. Sixty million songbirds a year are killed by cats."

He's not all that in favour of people, either. When he's asked in the new issue of Radio Times which animal he wouldn't mind seeing made extinct, he says: "Human beings. No question. That's the only one."

Possibly you have a few opinions about that, but what else do you make of Autumnwatch's strident presenter? Read more in the new issue and have your say right here.

I forgot to add to my comment the other day that I have really enjoyed this season's Autumnwatch. I found that this team has really managed to create the kind of magic that I used to feel in the old days of Blue Peter, for instance, with Valerie Singleton, John Noakes and Peter Purves, only that here it is all about nature. Great and very informative. A great shame that there isn't a Winterwatch now, of course with the same team. I am sure they could achieve many good things together in aid of nature if they put their minds to it, just like that Blue Peter team used to do. Do any of you remember collecting tinfoil for a Guide Dog for the Blind or metal toys and stuff, and how an orphanage was established in Nairobi and Princess Anne went there with Valerie Singleton to open it? The same kind of thing could be achieved for nature in Britain and possibly elsewhere, too. That would be lovely and I feel the current Autumnwatch team has got that power, if only they would use it...

To Chris's comment about cats I just want to say that many years ago I used to live in a housing estate in Surrey with large gardens, and on many nights I heard the panicked continous cry of a blackbird that had been taken from its nest or roosting place by a cat that lived opposite. I always heard the accompanying tinkle of its little bell, so there was no question about who had let their cat roam at night. This cat was well-fed and only deposited its dead prey on the kitchen doorstep. This is the sort of killing I am absolutely against; it's totally useless and just for fun. Modern-day hunting is very often the same, of course.

Other than that, a new baby Panda has just been born again. I am definitely in favour of saving the species we can.

Cats and birds - I had a leaflet from the RSPB stating that the cat population made little differnece to the number of birds. How does the President know that 60million are killed each year, do people contact and tell him each time their cats kills a bird. I have two cats and in my garden the Sparrow hawk kills quite a few more than they ever have. Let's not blame the cats for all the bird destruction.

Your film of a rabbit chasing a stoat reminded me of an incident in the Yorkshire Dales a few years ago. We heard an animal scream, and in the field near us a stoat was attaching a rabbit. A few seconds later another rabbit came towards them at quite a speed and ran straight into the stoat. The stoat then released his prey and ran off; the first rabbit lay on the grass for about half a minute, then got up rather shakily and walked behind his rescuer away and out of the field, apparently none the worse for his experience.

Great programme, as is Spring Watch - but come on, it's family viewing, at 9pm and 9.30pm !!? My two grandchildren {aged 7 and 9} love wildlife and associated TV programmes, but this timing is ridiculous when it comes to that age group. You have a duty to include them but are missing out on a potentially greater and influential audience.

I worry that we have someone on autumn watch who seems so ignorant of farming. Does he not realise that much of the so called red tape applied to farming stops farmers ripping up hedges, pouring on nitrates and using dangerous chemicals. If all so called red tape was removed there would be even less bio diversity than there is at present and lets make no mistake we pay farmers not only to produce food but we are also paying them not to treat the countryside purely as a means of production. I cannot think that he knows a thing about farming or intensification - I've worked all my life in the farming industry and there has been asignificant change of attitude in the last few years mainly due to having some vision and control over the landscape. I don't like to see large areas designated as nature reserves, I think that farming should contain habitat on all farms and no subsidy (and subsidies are massive) should be paid without this being done. On the subjec tof cats, no cat can destroy songbirds in the way intensive arable farming, hedge cutting at the wrong time of hte year, building development and mis use of slug pellets. Its shallow and short sighted to single out any one factor in conservation and just arrogant really or sadly ignorant, can't really decide which. Regarding hte panda, its not jsut about saving the panda perhaps but about learning why it is disappearing and our part in it and there cannot be a value put on that.

The biggest plague and the most destructive animal has to be the human race yet we rush round blaming everything else.

For conservation it is location location location or in a nutshell habitat habitat habitat. And its habitat that we are losing - I live in a farming area and the only hedges are on my land, otherwise it is a barren desert for wildlife.

And yes I have stopped watching autumn watch - its stupid now and opinionated. I loved watching the gentle and self mocking Bill Oddie. Please bring him back.

While pruning a very overgrown Clematis today i found an old bird's nest full of empty snail shells. They all had the top few coils removed. They were mainly the striped snail but a few were garden snails. What had put them there and why?

We need research to find ways to get the most out of the land for both farming and wildlife. A healthy and sustainable ecosystem will benefit us with food security and leisure opportunities. Why are we still building on prime farmland when there are people in the world starving?

Over the past week, starlings have been gathering each evening on the power lines in a field at the end of our garden near Salisbury. They have done this each Autumn presumably before migration. 15 years ago they were very numerous but have been declining each year since. This year has been remarkable though, the total running into hundreds as more have joined the flock each day. Yesterday was the last we saw of them as they preened themselves and took short flights in groups before finally departing. The most incredible thing was that just before they went they broke out into what can best be described as a conversation. It wasn't chirping or the normal mimicry sound that we associate with Starlings but a very strong cluck which lasted for about half a minute. They then flew off together just after sunset. Do Starlings actually communicate with one another?

I saw a Painted Lady butterfly on a Verbena Bonariensis flower in my garden in Hampshire at about 4pm this afternoon. It has been here on sunny days for the past week.

Wasps.

Some years ago there was a wasps nest behind the airbrick beneath the patio doors here. It was fascinating watching them zip in and out, apparently with a one-way system operating. Some were obviously detailed to ferry water from the pond.

As the activity died down in the autumn several wasps brought two fat, white grubs out onto the paving and left them there.

Can you explain that please?

Whilst I kind of understand what Chris Packham means about the panda - yes we care more because it is cute and looks cuddly - yes millions of pounds are spent on this one species when there are many others that also endangered - that does not mean that we should simply let it die out when its mans destruction of its habitat.

People who think humans should be extinct are very much like the Panda: an evolutionary dead end.

I suggest they fight for their beliefs and give themselves vasectomies and sterilizations, or maybe just be bold and kill themselves now? But perhaps that's not really enough? Why not poison your local water supply and wipe out a good amount of so-called parasites?

Mankind has made many mistakes and we should be trying to find a balance between ourselves and our enviroment but just shouting things like "I do however think that if the human race died the impact on the earth would be huge and benefit it" is pointless, unproductive and nihilistic.

Syrely anyone even slightly rational can see that?

Thank goodness for the voice of reason which is Chris Packham... thanks goodness also that he has taken over from Bill Oddie .I believe what he was trying to say with regard to the Panda was that the vast amounts of money spent on it's conservation would be far better used to sustain the plight of many other species all over the world. His point about the UK farming industry hits the mark too. And as for cats and dogs; well I couldn't have put it better myself... they are a plague !

not too sure about pandas but agree totally about cats.I love them did not fully appreciate the damage they do to birds and small mammals.I really wish I had had Chris to educate me. People need to know,anounce it on Autumn watch...get your moggy a bell,give the poor wild life a chance,thankyou.

I agree with Chris that all cats should be neutered - who knows, they may then all die out and our birds and small mammals may live in peace. They not only kill, but often torment their prey and when allowed to climb onto kitchen worktops, are unhygenic. Soft and cuddly they are not!

I think that what he has said is awful! He is supposed to be a vice president of the RSPB for goodness sake! Pulling the plug and letting them die is certainly not dignity! I do not agree that someone had to say it because they did not. It was a nasty and horrible thing to say and I didnt like it at all. Its not like he is paying for them to survive, I had never even thought about it before.

Since you ask - I do not like Chris Packham. I have disliked him since he made an appalling remark about a cat on a childrens program years ago. He appears single minded, egotistical and opinionated. Not sympathetic to all nature as a presenter of a nature watch programe should be. He spoilt Spring Watch for me, and probably will spoil Autumn Watch. Get rid of him. I am sure there are genuine knowledgeable nature lovers who would do the job much better, and be delighted so to do.

I have thought for many years that mankind is the biggest plague on earth & has destroyed more natural habitats than any other agent.I also think that domestic cats should be clssified as vermin. M daughter has 5 of them & I can't see what earthly use they are.

Head above the parapet is right - and we need more like you, Chris.

And, much as I regret it too, the polar bear should be viewed in the same light. Okay, it's fate is much more closely linked to climate change and I wouldn't suggest that we should give up on trying to counter that - but I'm convinced that we're too late because it would take dramatic action by the world's nations working together to achieve anything significant - and that won't happen.

And as for Kief, don't you think Chris realises that the extinction of humans would include him and all the other obnoxious things that we've done to this wonderful little planet? Just because we're no longer here to appreciate it, doesn't mean it's no longer here.

It needs an extraordinary acceptance that we in the developed world must accept a radically "lower" standard (in our eyes) of living for the earth's climate to be prevented from changing drastically.

I fear for my children and their children.......but no longer for myself !

"The obliquity of the ecliptic" I may have nodded off but I heard your explanation for the seasons was due to the summer pole being closer to the sun and the winter pole being furthest away from the sun - hence the change in climate. This is not the case. If you imagine a cylindrical beam of the sun's rays landing on the earth normally at the equator then a circular beam of energy lands on the earth. A similar cylinder of energy landing at the poles is spread over a much larger area of the earths surface. It is this weakening which is responsible for the poles experiencing the seasonal change. The summer pole has a larger area of earth heated than at the "normal " equator and is cooler than than at the equator. The cylinder of energy that does land on the winter hemisphere is spread over a much greater area and thus is much cooler.

Chris Packham apart from being an arrogant twit who thinks he is a reincarnation of Charles Darwin should know it's natural for cats to chase birds, they have always done so, its known as pwerdation, please please bring back Bill Oddie.

If its about the money then what he has said is crazy, pandas may cost millions to keep around, but governments dont think twice about spending billions on shooting missiles all over the place...

Human beings may well encroach on and even destroy the habitat of pandas and other animals. However, pandas would have a problem with long term survival even without the effects of humans. They eat a type of bamboo which is very low in nutrition, meaning they have to eat a great deal and still have little energy. The bamboo on which they depend dies off periodically, leaving them exposed to the risk of starvation. And they are slow to reproduce. I have to agree that they represent an evolutionary cul de sac but by all means let us protect them while we can.

I think what he had to say about Pandas was disgraceful and I for one will not be watching autumnwatch this year or any other year when that man is presenting.

Pandas deserve the same right as any other animal to be pretected in the wild. It may cost a lot of money to keep them, but I for one are glad that they are being helped. I have not read the interview in the radio times and I do not intend to. Pandas are my favourite animal and one day I would like the opportunity to work with them in China, if they hadnt had all this money spent on them then I or anyone else who is passionate about Pandas will never be able to see them. And I for one want that opportunity and one day I will do it....i want to be able to live out my dream of seeing them hopefully in the wild, if not not far from it in China

If humans were extinct then how could you self-righteous posters write your pretentious anti-human rants? I mean, think about it.

Chris Packham is absolutely right (and I speak as someone who studied zoology as part of my university degree). Instead of pouring all our resources into one species we should be acting to preserve habitats and therefore giving lots of species the best chance to preserve themselves. As for cats, I am a cat owner but I agree with him there, too. My cat is not allowed out at night. He is also right about humans: we are the out-of-control species on this planet, the ones causing all the imbalances of nature.

Well done Chris, at least someone has the balls to put their head above the parapet and start a meaningful debate on true conservation rather than the token efforts towards preservation. I just hope that he takes heart that those that fail to understand where he's coming from are the tabloid fed idiots that don't have the capacity for meaningful debate.

Top marks also for the cat comments. Cats owners should be made to be responsible for their cats actions like every other pet owner including responsibility for the carnage that cutesy wootsy tiddles dishes out on our wildlife when they let it roam freely. Well done Chris.

Well done Chris Packham for being brave enough to say what needed saying. However domestic cats don't only murder song birds at night they have great fun killing all the long day. Our biggest problem though is over population of human beings and we need to get a grip of this now.

I am sure that when Chris Packham's daughter requires a house, he will be in the queue lobbying for the countryside to be concreted over. I find it shameful that he is making money on the back of programmes like Autumnwatch, whilst his actions help result in the countryside's very demise and the remaining wildlife within it. Surely wildlife deserves a presenter with more respect than this.

Chris Packham is a brave man and has given his opinion on contentious issues, which needed saying. Not just on cats, and frankly even if 60 million bird deaths caused by cats is way off the mark - anyone that has owned a cat (including me - but no more) knows full well the number they torture and kill is countless. There is simply no argument about that. As for pandas - I don't believe he meant at all to "let the panda die" he was saying lets spread the finite resources to less well known and less fluffy and cuddly species that are on the endangered list. Well done Chris - you are a man after my own heart!!

FAO: Vanessa,

Just to clarify, what Chris actually said in Radio Times magazine is: "The great myth of edible plants? One per cent of our flora is edible; one per cent is poisonous." Hope this helps.

Helen

Re: Radio Times 26 Sept - 2 Oct. Page 14

I was a bit concerned to read, in the Radio Times, Chris Packham encouraging people to go out foraging for edible fungi this autumn. He seemed to be saying that only 1% of fungi was poisonous and I believe this to be a very irresponsible thing to say. If this is not what he is saying, then I think he should express himself more clearly and be more specific on this matter because eating deadly mushrooms is a very serious business.

I would go further than Chris Packham and make it illegal to keep a dog or cat. As this is hardly likely to happen then strict control of particularly cats should be brought about. The only dogs I would like to see are those who earn their keep i.e. sheepdogs, dogs for the blind and for the deaf etc. Why do people who do not keep animals have to tolerate dogs excessive barking and presents from cats in their gardens. If you must keep an animal then keep it to yourself I do not wish to share it!

wtf commentBox: hopefully twits like him become extinct soon.....

No one would agree that the Panda should be left to die!Conservationists called the extinction of the Yangtze River Dolphin "a tragedy"- it would be exactly the same/even worse for the Panda as its more famous. Who cares about the amount of money which we pour for the conservation of the Panda? Britain's a wealthy country- we aren't in poverty! He says the Panda's a weak species- what the f*** is he talking about??? Human's are destroying its bamboo forest habitat so unlike what he thinks, its humans which are causing its demise. He thinks humans should be put in front of other animals- hes totally wrong on that!If you do that, every animal would go extinct! And hes so dum in saying cats shouldn't be allowed at night- I know the effect of their killings but has anyone heard on the news about songbirds in danger of extinction? Answer= no.They bounce back every year as they're fast breeders-only because he doesn't have a cat and he hates them doesn't mean he should be allowed to slaughter them!

i think he is an arrogant person can he please explain his comments to my grandchildren who love pandas i didnt watch the last series of spingwatch and i wont be watching autumn watch because of him

We agree with Chris Packham.

At last, someone in the public domain who is not afraid to voice the opinion I've had since childhood. I totally agree with Chris.

Chris is putting forward the realist's view of our relationship with nature. If the bamboo forests are dwindling naturally, how could a panda really survive?

Man has many blind spots as stewards of the planet; and the avoidable cutting of rainforests is greedy and selfish, trees are seen to be all they are cutting' but the fauna the woods support are ignored (viz orang-utans). At his position in RSPB Chris could lobby strongly for a law that cats wear bells or bleeping collars, as they do in Denmark, which would sound warning at least. Blind spots - I have a very dear friend whose cat brings in wild shrews etc to play with, and caught a robin midair getting seed for its young, but they are strong members of RSPB! "It's what cats do".

Chris is a very strong independent voice, speaking for a lot of us, rubbing some backs up, and I hope he can bring results. Cats seem to be the subject of nearly all responses. Good luck, but take care to allow Kate Humble her views equally as co-presenter.

Please pull the plug on Packham. This arrogant twit was never a good replacement for Bill Oddie. There are many other wild-life presenters who would represent the majority of British wild-life supporters.

I am a gardener and also love to see birds in my garden. My neighbours have at least two or three cats each (and have mainly paved over their own gardens to encourage their cats to go elsewhere!) Their cats lurk around my bird tables and this year I have had very few birds brave enough to risk their necks, my bird boxes remain empty although tits arrive every spring to investigate them. The cats also terrorise my daughter's bunny by stalking it. I have to cover every piece of tilled earth with wire or net or they use it as a litter tray, digging up newly planted seedlings and decorating my vegetable plots, they even use my lawn as a lavatory and I am not supposed to harm these vermin. I would ban all cats from towns as they seem to a pet for lazy people, they should be limited to farms where they can at least serve some purpose.

Well done Chris P. for voicing his opinion regarding pandas, tigers and habitat. Likewise his comment in Radio Times placing the most over rated species; humanity, in the same expendable catagory. Humans are just "doing a Panda" by a more sophisticated route

Perhaps Chris Packham would care to enlighten us as to exactly HOW he (or the RSPB?) arrived at the figure of 60 million songbirds killed by cats annually. How? This is a ludicrous assertion! Without performing an autopsy on millions of domestic felines under a VERY long period of time you would not know what their guts contained. How could you possibly carry out a head count on living songbirds, given that these are not ringmarked and do not wear a tracking device of any kind? This is pure speculation, not fact. As to the numbers of songbirds in Britain at any one time, this is just a wild guesstimate, NOT fact. Birds do not carry passports or ID cards, nor do they register with the police, the NHS or the Revenue. I suspect that Packham's figures are just fantasy figures, perhaps uttered to provoke. Are you aware that in Italy millions of migrating songbirds are caught in nets, killed, and sold for human consumption? Perhaps we should cull the Italians instead - or why not just cull ALL of the human race? At least all the endangered animals (AND the songbirds too) would then stand a sporting chance! What's with this obsession with songbirds? Do they have a greater "value" than other living creatures? I should think that numbers of birds (singing, or otherwise) - not to mention other animals - would have stood a greater chance of survival had Packham refrained from reproducing his own genetic material. Re dogs: Packham himself has two of these! Really, he is just a raging hypocrite, and I suspect he loves all the attention he gets as a result of the irritating, provocative utterances he makes - just like a small, naughty child!

Three cheers for Chris Packham! Animals have been becoming extinct for thousands of years and new species are even now being discovered. I agree totally with what he says about both cats and farming. This wonderful world is changing all the time and we need to go with the changes while being good stewards of it - not sentimental idiots.

I second Peter's comments, many are still missing the point. Conservation of habitats and resulting positive knock-on effect to the whole bio-diversity the region should remain a priority (and campaign efforts increased) but we shouldn't pick and choose focus on an individual species be it Panda or other and decide it's more or less deserving of protection.

Specifically regarding Pandas, even if the Panda's habitat was increased to counter what was taken away due to Human destruction, would this increase it's chance of survival as species? The answer would still be no, in actual fact immediately it would decrease as the current population would be more widely dispersed therefore reducing the chance of 2 individuals interacting for mating opportunities and recent history has proved against an argument for incremental habitat increase as/when needed as the Panda's have been unable to sustain let alone increase their current populations with Human intervention.

This is the key, any speices' survival has always been dependant on it's ability to adapt to changing circumstances and environments whether it be local in terms such as the natural arrival of new predatory species in area or reduction in favoured food source, or global in terms such natural disasters, ice ages and climate change, In all such cases the Panda has continually proved unable or unwilling to so. Our efforts need to be on focused on Sustainable 'Conservation' of what we have, which if achieved will promote natural expansion/migration in all species of all life forms in the long term, Not of artificial 'Preservation' of any one species especially if just based on sentiment or because we have already put a certain amount of time of resources in.

In Human analogy terms - When a dearly loved and missed individual suffers a tragic end and has been declared technically dead by medical experts with no hope of recovery, You have to ask yourself, How long can you be content with keeping them on life support believing they are alive as they still have a physical pulse?

The Panda may not quite be on the Life Support machine just yet but regrettably, I fear it has been terminally diagnosed and is slipping in to a coma with no cure in sight.....

I would go further than neutering all cats and suggest they be reclasified as vermin. Yes I am a gardener and encourage wildlife in my garden but cannot leagally do anything to eradicate the cat problem. Light blue touch paper and take cover! Good to hear someone like Chris Packman express their views.

Could you please tell me how the statistic that 60 million (only song?) birds are killed by cats in a year is worked out. Is it the number of cats in the country x the number of expected kills? I want to say that of the last 3 cats I have had (spanning 20 years) only one of them can be bothered to hunt seriously, occasionally bringing in a mouse, rat or bird. They both sometimes bring in a frog (unharmed) or a slow worm (which might have shed its tail) and they are both obsessed with killing flies and other insects. I love my cats but I love all animals, and hate the cats to kill anything (other than the flies), its just that in my experience cats are not such prolific killers as they are portrayed to be, and I can't believe that a lot of cats in this country, well fed and content, just "cant be arsed!".

Can Packham be now turned off?

I have to admit I've had an unreasonable hatred of Pandas ever since I failed to see one in the Quinling mountains in central China, but even I wouldn't agree we should let it go extinct. It is certainly an evolutionary oddity, but before humans impacted on its life it would have been quite a widespread and successful species with a good chance of carrying on for the 3 million years or so that is the average 'life expectancy' of a vertebrate species (in human terms that is for ever!). To call it an evolutionary failure because human induced habitat destruction has vastly reduced its range seems a little unfair.

Like Gorillas and tigers it is a 'flagship' species and as we approach the point of total destruction of most of the world's ecosystems it would seem the best chance for any of them to survive is if they are home to some big charismatic animal.

Conserve the Panda and you conserve the Golden Takin, the Golden Pheasant, the Golden Snub-nosed Monkey, not to mention all the other thousands of species that live in the area. I am unashamedly 'specist' and although we should fight tooth and nail to preserve every scrap of biodiversity I'm inclined to think a Panda, Gorilla or Tiger is worth an awful lot of beetle species! So I call on Chris Packham to publically recant on Pandas!

I think it is terrible that anyone can say that pandas should be left to die. The human race really is greedy, arrogant etc. Glad I do not eat meat etc.

I am the person who has cat proofed my garden and note the comments from a couple of people. Thank you. While this particularly thread is more about the panda, I just wanted to make it clear to people that cats can co-exist with birds provided we supposed pet lovers take sensible precautions.

Regarding the pandas. I suppose I sit on the fence, I can see both points of view. If it is us humans causing the extinction then we have a responsibility to do all we can reasonably do to prevent this. The relevant word here is "reasonably". However it does seem to me that the panda has itself chosen to take a path which because of its diet would in any event lead to extinction. So should we step in and do something about this or allow nature to take its course? Regretfully there will always be extinctions, some (many?) caused by humans and some caused by natural circumstances. I think that Chris is actually saying step back and look at the bigger picture and perhaps that is a better approach in the long run.

This man is an evil, disgusting specimine of humanity. Is this what it's come down to? We can ignor the fact that the economy spends billions of pounds on cigarettes every year and this is causing more damage to the universal economy than the pandas are! We were put on this earth to do whatever we can to preserve the earth that we were put on and the animals we share it with. Animals have become extinct because we couldn't do enough to help them and now we can, people like this just want to give up?!

The biggest killer of wildlife in this country is the motor vehicle. Anyone who gets out and walks or cycles along roads both minor and major will see countless animals that have been injured or killed on the roads. I've cycled various long distance routes covering thousands of miles in Britain and the amount of corpses is staggering, animals of every type, everything from birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals. As a consumer society we are all responsible for those, even if you don't use a car we are all dependent on road haulage for food and other consummables.

Becki misses the point spectacularly. Protecting eco systems is certainly an excellent cause, but there is no need to link that to pandas who soom to have a darwinian instinct for self-elimination. It isn't about money ploughed into conservation of habitats (isn't that part of his argument about the new forest, etc). It is more about the ridiculous lengths we humans are going to get them to mate, artificially inseminate or otherwise genetically enforce parenthood of a whole generation of reluctant panda-parents! Conservation may be a broader related issue, but it isn't the problem here. The cause of contention is more about why a creature who has clearly had enough of propagating their dwindling species is being given so much money attention, just because they're so iconic, when there are plenty of species desperately clinging to survival who are less cuddly/known/aesthetic/considered (delete as appropriate).

Agree with Dawn!

Well, the comments have prompted a response! I agree that all Wildlife movements need to think carefully about where their money will make the greatest long-term ecological impact. Wonderful to hesr someone echoing my opinion about cats - I haven't worked out how someone can claim to have a cat as a pet and then let it roam for 23 hours of the day; perhaps we can appoint cat wardens that collect up the strays as is done for dogs (in some areas).

When an acknowledged wildlife expert and Vice President of the RSPB tells us UK domestic cats are killing 60 million song birds a year - it's time as a nation of animal lovers some hard decisions are under scrutiny. I applaud an earlier responsible cat owner who takes sensible precautions to enjoy her pet and protect our songbirds. This level of cat predation really needs deeper discussion.

Well here we have the ranting of a man who likes to ensure the he is in the limelight. This can be the only conclusion when he makes an outrageous statement that I am sure the founder of modern conservation, Sir Peter Scott, would totally reject and then says but it will never happen. So why say it, are you not getting enough airtime? Whilst I acknowledge you vaste knowledge in the bird world, I would respectfully suggest that you stick to what you know. I have to take issue with someone who blames the dogs for the problems of the New Forest, its not the dogs that cause the problems it is the irresponsible owners. But then again I suppose that your statement is aimed at getting a response, it has, and again I have to conclude that this is the statement of a prima donna who feels that they are not being seen or heard enough. I could go on but I thing the point is made.

We pour millions of pounds into cats and dogs....why not get rid of cats and dogs and save the panda!!!!

His comments have clearly been made through a lack of understanding of wider conservation projects. By protecting the Panda you are protecting its habitat and environment and therefore protecting the entire eco system that it lives within, including the people that need sustainable livelihoods. He's clearly missing the bigger picture that species and humans are intrinsically linked and by saving one you are protecting the longevity of the other. The fact that iconic species are used to front campaigns of certain organisations shouldn't be misinterpreted - there is always a wider context.

I agree 100% with Chris on three points he mentioned 1st:I detest cats. 2nd:Birds of Prey are it.3rd:Girls Aloud are pathetic.

Here, Here,!

Nice to hear someone with such a public profile expressing the honest view of the majority within conservation circles. It's long been widely agreed that the long term success of such efforts, depends on promoting sustainable environments, where the natural world (including all the animals, plants, etc..) will find it's own balance without us. As opposed to the reactive preservation on total global numbers of individual species policy, without regards to impact on local environments.

Nicola-Lucy - Breathe.. and relax... I think you may have mis-read Chris' view on Panda's, I think he meant we should 'pull the plug' on ploughing so much money into a campaign that has seen no marked improvement for decades now, not go round culling the remaining population and be rid of the issue.

And as for the NHS analogy, if he's happy for the only species to become extinct is us Humans, then the absence of the NHS becomes a moot point as there would be no need for it in the first place. Not to even get started on what percentage of the global population of Humans, actually have free access to a health service such as ours, are we more deserving of such privalages just because we happen live within these International borders? In evolutionary terms, the answer is a firm NO!

This isn't a new discussion. This appeared on www.Wildlifeextra.com in June 2008, see http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/packham-panda342.html

Yuo call pulling the plg, Dignity?

I have to agree with Chris Packham. I am a cat lover, I keep my cat in at nights and have a cat proofed garden to keep her from straying and catching birds etc. So she has some freedom and the birds are safe, it can be done with some thought. I am also a member of the RSPB so feel that I'm doing my bit to protect the birds. However I don't always agree with the RSPB especially with matters like the Severn barrage. I accept that it will affect some sites but if we do nothing then with global warming the sites will suffer anyway. In any event the barrage would not happen overnight and surely with some thought additional nesting sites could be created elsewhere. Afterall nature has always had to change and deal with new situations and can't see that would be any different.

Lay off them! they haven't done anything to you. they are already nearly extinct let them die naturally. how would you like it if they told you to go and die 'ey? You wouldn't like it would you? No!

what happened if we pulled a plug to the NHS 'eh?

People would be dying and dead for no apparent reasons.

Leave the poor bears to die alone, untouched and naturally.

They havn't done anything to you.

Why would you want to say that? They haven't done anything to you. Jill, what the hell are you on about?

Personally i think your all being unreasonable towards the animals. i don't think david (whats his face) Attenborough would like this would he? NO.

In my opinion you should let them live their lives how they are now. You wouldn't like it if someone told you lot to die would you? No. And what would happen if we pulled a plug to the NHS? People would be dead and dying for no apparent reason. So why dont you all just but out of it. these animals are nearly extinct as they are, just let them die naturally, they haven't done anything to you have they no.

So just lay off. leave them alone, their dying enough as it is without you protesting to kill them.

Watch your backs.

Leave them alone.

How would you like it if they said to you to die 'ey? You wouldn't like it so stop saying it about them.

Nicola-Lucy,12,Panda lover :)

Not surprised he's an RSPB official. I sometimes think that's an organisation that would happily see everything else in creation die out. Round here (Cambridgeshire) they're happy to see ancient meadowland dug up for gravel extraction just so long as the land is restored, not to what it was, but to featureless 'lakes' to provide yet more habitat for non-traditional waterfowl, and stuff the mice, snakes, foxes, etc.

He's right about humans, though. Even those of us who aren't RSPB members are basically just parasites!

Totally agree

Hooray for Chris Packham. Thank you for having the courage to make your controversial views public. My neighbour has four cats. I no longer feed the birds because they no longer visit my feeding stations and slugs and snails have increased since the frogs deserted (those who managed to keep their heads). Surely it is time for someone to lead a campaign against the over population of domestic cats and irresponsible dog owners. Come on Chris!.

Thank goodness Chris Packham has the courage to speak out about the number of cats in the UK. They are as Chris says "responsible for killing 60 million song birds a year" This should be shouted from the rooftops until cats are brought under control and this decimation of our natural wildlife has some balance restored to it.

I think that educating and working with farmers would have huge impact on the wildlife and with this there would be a knock on effect with the wildlife and areas they live in. I don't agree that the panda should be left to die. I do however think that if the human race died the impact on the earth would be huge and benefit it. Education is the best policy throught the world

Someone had to say it