American zoos are highlighting a reported rise in the wild panda population, currently at 1,864, as evidence of the success of conservation efforts funded by millions of dollars. However, this figure is derived from a 2013 Chinese government count that many in the conservation community, including the zoos, regard with skepticism.
Zoos globally rent panda pairs from China for fees up to $1.1 million annually, aiming to breed them for potential release into the wild. This initiative is considered a significant conservation program, yet investigations reveal that very few pandas have been released, with some suffering injury or death due to aggressive artificial breeding techniques.
Despite the outlined harms, zoos often depict the program as successful by referencing the increase in panda numbers. However, a 2006 proposal from the National Zoo questioned the reliability of the census methodology, noting a lack of systematic scientific examination and supporting quantitative data.
China conducts extensive panda surveys approximately every decade, employing methods such as GPS tracking and feces analysis to estimate panda populations. These creatures are solitary and usually inhabit specific forest areas, and their distinct bite marks on bamboo help surveyors gauge population sizes.
Critiques of the survey methodology include a 2010 blog post from a former survey adviser, who emphasized the need for scientific input and expressed concern over misallocation of funds. Alternatives proposed by experts, including DNA analysis, are sought after, yet local experts struggle to secure sufficient fresh feces for reliable testing.
The Chinese forestry bureau generates precise panda population figures but keeps its methods confidential, leaving American zoos and other organizations in the dark regarding the specifics of the analysis. Numerous inquiries about the methodology have gone unanswered.
Panda population data is heavily influenced by political factors, with historical evidence suggesting that some officials have underreported panda numbers to avoid logging restrictions, while others may inflate data to attract government funding.
In 2016, the International Union for Conservation of Nature declared that pandas were no longer endangered, suggesting a general upward trend in their population and habitat. This conclusion was met with some opposition from China’s forestry bureau, which expressed concern over decreased attention on pandas resulting from the new classification.
Despite discrepancies in data and methodology, both the Chinese government and American zoos now assert that the count reflects the success of their conservation efforts.