Back in 2009, Chris Packham, wildlife expert for the BBC, made the controversial statement, "Giant pandas should be allowed to die out". He believes that the animal is "not strong enough to survive on its own" and that "the millions spent preserving them could be better spent elsewhere". He also argued that all animals that are bred in captivity for later release is pointless because there is not enough of their own habitat to sustain them.

Many experts and scientists argued against Packham's statements, one such being Mark Wright, who argued, "Pandas have adapted to where they live. They live in the mountains where there is plenty of the bamboo they want to eat. It’s like saying the blue whale is in an evolutional cul-de-sac because it lives in the ocean.”

On the WWF website, the latest figures (2014) showed that there were approximately 1,864 pandas left in the wild. You don't need to be a conservationist or scientist to know that that's an extremely low number for any animal. However, past figures show that the population is on the rise, with a mass survey showing that there were 1000-1100 pandas between 1974-1977, and by 2004 the number had risen to 1600.

So, what do you think?
Should pandas be allowed to die out so that we can focus on helping animals that have more of a chance of survival, or is it our responsibility to look after the animals that make our planet that much more diverse and interesting?