Week-old Panda cub dies at National Zoo, sixth cub to die at zoo since the 80's. Mother Panda's firs - Polidicks

[quote]The distress call had gone out at the National Zoo: The week-old giant panda cub was in trouble, perhaps dying, and the keepers had to get it out of the den for treatment, with its agitated 240-pound mother a few feet away. [b]It was a practiced but dangerous maneuver. Standing behind protective bars, one keeper, Marty Dearie, distracted the adult female with honey-flavored water, while another, Juan Rodriguez, reached in with a long-handled “grabber” and pulled the cub through the bars.The baby was then whisked to the keepers’ office in the panda compound where veterinarian Nancy Boedeker used her fingers to do gentle heart massage on an animal that weighed about four ounces. But there was no heartbeat and no respiration, and after about 10 minutes Boedeker stopped. The zoo’s giant panda cub, born amid hope and fanfare Sept. 16, was pronounced dead at 10:28 a.m., after a life of not quite 61 / 2 days.[/b] Somber zoo officials on Sunday painted this portrait of the cub’s final moments, along with the effort of keepers and veterinarians to save its life. The cub’s sudden death struck the zoo community on a beautiful fall morning, as the facility on Connecticut Avenue in Northwest Washington was thronged with visitors. The staff was “devastated,” zoo director Dennis Kelly said. “I’m worried about my keepers,” he said. “They’ve got 2,000 animals to take care of, and they’ve got to remain safe.” And it upended, for now, all the plans for a new era of giant pandas at the National Zoo and in the Washington region. Zoo officials said it was too early to discuss what they might do about their pandas in the future. The zoo’s giant panda population stands at two: Mei Xiang, the cub’s mother, and mate Tian Tian, its father. The cub was so small that the zoo did not yet know its sex. [b]“Distressed vocalizations” from Mei Xiang were heard at about 9:17 a.m. Sunday, and keepers realized “this is not right, this is not good,” zoo spokeswoman Pamela Baker-Masson said. Kelly said Mei Xiang “got up and moved off of where she was holding the cub, and made a honk,” which was unusual for her. “We surmised that that was a distress call,” he said.[/b] The keepers also had stopped hearing the cub’s healthy squealing, which had gone on for a week and was a sign of a thriving newborn. Emergency protocols were activated, and within minutes a team of four keepers and two veterinarians had assembled in the keepers’ office in the panda house. The effort to extract the cub from the den was delicate. “[Mei Xiang] is a 240-pound wild bear with maternal instincts,” Kelly said. “And she’s upset.” First the keepers tried calling Mei Xiang to get her out of the den, but that didn’t work, zoo officials said. Then Dearie and Rodriguez entered an area adjacent to the den, where they were protected by bars but could reach the cub if they could distract the mother. Dearie did so by splashing honey water near her, and at about 10:15 a.m. Rodriquez got the cub. [b]He handed it to Dearie, who rushed the cub to the keepers’ office, which is stocked with incubators and other emergency equipment.Boedeker tried to intubate the cub to establish a good flow of oxygen, but its airway was too tiny, Kelly said. She then did heart massage for about 10 minutes, Kelly said, and stopped when it was clear that the cub could not be revived.“This is devastating news for the entire Smithsonian National Zoo community,” he said. “Our staff, our volunteers, the people all over Washington and all over the nation that were following the wonderful announcement of the birth of this cub.”[/b] The zoo said it was not clear what happened, but a necropsy was scheduled to be performed Sunday night by John Roberts, a zoo veterinarian pathologist. The zoo said it might have some preliminary results by Monday. “We’re all very anxious to know what happened,” chief veterinarian Suzan Murray said. Murray noted that upon preliminary examination, [b]“the cub looked just fabulous. There were no external signs of trauma, no signs of clinical illness or disease, nor had we seen anything in the last few days or the past 24 hours to indicate that anything was wrong.”[/b] “The cub was just beautiful,” Murray said, her voice shaking for a second. “Beautiful little body. Beautiful face, with the markings just beginning to show around the eye. Couldn’t have been more beautiful.” Mei Xiang had been “a fabulous mom, taking very good care of the cub,” Murray said. Indeed, Mei Xiang had been holding the cub so close to her body, apparently to nurse it and keep it warm, that zoo officials had scarcely been able to glimpse it on the panda cam monitoring the den. [b]It was the sixth giant panda cub to die at the zoo, going back to the 1980s. A seventh cub was stillborn. The only cub to survive into maturity has been Tai Shan, who was born to Mei Xiang and Tian Tian in 2005.[/b] Giant panda cubs, like many newborns at the zoo, are extremely fragile. Murray said the zoo’s giant panda pair appeared to be in good health Sunday, although the staff had a close eye on [b]Mei Xiang because it was the first time she had lost a cub.[/b] The cub was born a week ago, at 10:46 p.m. Sept. 16, to jubilation across the region. [b]The surprise birth came after five failed attempts to impregnate Mei Xiang, and zoo experts thought the chance of her having another cub was less than 10 percent.[/b] “There are so many things that can go wrong in the first week of life,” Murray said. In 2010, a newborn red panda cub died at the zoo. That cub was found lifeless on July 7 and was rushed to the zoo’s veterinary hospital, where its death was confirmed. The male cub, born June 16, 2010, was the first red panda cub born at the zoo in 15 years. The zoo said there is a 50 percent mortality rate for red panda cubs born in captivity. Much smaller than giant pandas, red pandas resemble a cross between a fox and a raccoon. In the 1980s, five giant panda cubs were born to Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing, who were given to the United States by China in 1972. [b]Ling-Ling had her first cub in 1983, but it died of pneumonia three hours later. She had another cub that was stillborn in 1984. In 1987, she had twins, which is not uncommon among giant pandas, experts say.One of the twins died immediately and the other died of an infection four days later. She produced another cub in 1989, but it died of pneumonia 23 hours after it was born.Ling-Ling died in 1992 and Hsing-Hsing in 1999.[/b] Zoo visitors on Sunday were dismayed by the cub’s death. Rose Barnaba, 33, said she cried when she heard the news. “The whole thought of a mother losing a child — whether it’s a human or an animal — that really hits close to home,” said Barnaba, a Baltimore resident. Sitting nearby was her 2-year-old daughter, Mariah, who, like the cub, was conceived through artificial insemination, Barnaba said. . A few feet away, Nancy Jackson, 62, and her granddaughter Isabel sat at a table near the panda exhibit. Residents of Madison, Wis., the two were in town for a wedding and wanted to see the cub. Jackson said this would be her granddaughter’s first experience with death. Jackson said she needed to treat the issue “very carefully.” She didn’t want to ruin Isabel’s trip. Pandas “exude this cuteness and this cuddliness, and there’s something spiritual about them,” Jackson said. “I feel sorry for the mother because I’m sure she is feeling the loss.” “What loss?” said 6-year-old Isabel, who had a pink butterfly painted on her face. Jackson mumbled nervously and said, “We’ll talk about it later.” When Patricia Valle, 37, moved to the United States from Bolivia nine years ago, one of the first things she did was visit the pandas at the National Zoo. “In my country, you would never see any pandas,” she said, adding that she was in awe of the “tender” creatures. The Waldorf resident said she visited the zoo with her sons, ages 4 and 8, on Sunday so that they could understand what she’d felt nine years ago. For Marc Stress and his family, the pandas were a “big part” of why they came to the zoo, he said. He added that his son, Orion, 7, made it one of their top priorities to see the pandas. Throughout the day, they checked the zoo’s panda cams on their cellphones. Stress, 43, a graphic designer who lives in Syracuse, N.Y., said it was a “tremendous loss” for not only the pandas, an endangered species, but also the zoo’s staff, which worked many hours to help the pandas reproduce. He said that Orion would hear the sad news later. It was the boy’s birthday weekend. [/quote] [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/newborn-giant-panda-cub-dies-at-national-zoo/2012/09/23/e58c19f8-019b-11e2-9367-4e1bafb958db_story_2.html]:([/url] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/TaiShan_MeiXiang.jpg[/img]

There is a reason why they are going extinct. People only want so save them because they think they're cute. Its still stinks since it was a cub and all.

...Or they''re a species valuable just as any other?

[QUOTE=Mysterious Mr.E;37779218]Pandas are stupid. There is a reason why they are going extinct. People only want so save them because they think they're cute. Its still stinks since it was a cub and all.[/QUOTE] I'd like to hear your reason why they are going extinct

[QUOTE=Mysterious Mr.E;37779218]Pandas are stupid. There is a reason why they are going extinct. People only want so save them because they think they're cute.[/QUOTE] yeah lets just fuckin let all the beautiful things that nature has created just die out because we consider ourselves the best species and dont give two fucks about anything else.

is it me or Sensationalist Headlines always has the most depressing news holy fuck I can't come in here half the time without feeling depressed

Maybe at a moral viewpoint. But scientifically, its a freak. Natural selection has been trying to get rid of this thing for centuries, and here we are wasting thousands of dollars trying to prevent the inevitable. I still believe the only reason we want to save them is because they look "cute". If it were some ugly ass thing nobody would care. Its true. Prove me otherwise. I'll praise you.

I felt like putting a bullet between the eyes of every panda that wouldn't screw to save it's species.

[QUOTE=Mysterious Mr.E;37779218]Pandas are stupid. There is a reason why they are going extinct. People only want so save them because they think they're cute. Its still stinks since it was a cub and all.[/QUOTE] If they were going extinct merely because of their stupidity they would have already stopped existing a while back. [editline]24th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mysterious Mr.E;37779392]Maybe at a moral viewpoint. But scientifically, its a freak. Natural selection has been trying to get rid of this thing for centuries, and here we are wasting thousands of dollars trying to prevent the inevitable. I still believe the only reason we want to save them is because they look "cute". If it were some ugly ass thing nobody would care. Its true. Prove me otherwise. I'll praise you.[/QUOTE] Actually the disappearance of Pandas have been very mainly caused by the destruction of their natural habitat, not because they are "freaks". Going by your logic sloths should not exist anymore because they spend most of their life sleeping.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;37779425]If they were going extinct merely because of their stupidity they would have already stopped existing a while back.[/QUOTE] I don't mean literally. I just hate pandas. This guy over at the MightyHeaton does a very good job at explaining both mine and my Biology professor's idea on pandas. [quote]I’m pretty sure pandas would be declining without our intervention by now even if Bill Gates bought half of China and converted it into a bamboo plantation for them. The singular evolutionary advantage which pandas seem to have at their disposal is the ability to endear themselves to humans. For this I applaud them: pandas are good at picking winners. Other than “cuteness,” however, pandas are the evolutionary equivalent of a sixth-year high school senior. I’m not surprised they’re declining. Let’s consider some key facts about pandas: 1. Pandas are too stupid to eat meat. Pandas are designed to be carnivores. They have carnivorous digestive systems and they’re taxonomically classified as carnivores. They have ursine (bear) teeth, and when they run out of bamboo will resort to eating meat, fish and eggs. Yet they eat bamboo anyway. A plant virtually devoid of energy or protein nutrients. Bamboo is so nutritionally useless that they have to eat it constantly, otherwise they would presumably slip into adorable starvation comas. 2. Pandas are lazy. Pandas imbibe so little energy from eating bamboo that it affects their behavior, to the point that they socialize comparatively little and literally avoid walking up or down hills. They mostly just sit around, listlessly, thinking about bamboo. 3. Pandas are constantly pooping. Pandas consume up to thirty pounds of bamboo shoots and leaves a day, with the logical result that they also poop on average forty times a day. Maybe instead of crapping themselves blind they should do something productive like grow bigger fangs, or set up mutual funds. 4. Pandas aren’t remotely horny. A major part of every successful species is being horny. There are certainly advantages and disadvantages to our own species’ obsession with cronking, but it was an absolute necessity for our hominid ancestors, as with all critters. If you aren’t making babies your numbers dwindle and you go extinct. Make babies! Not pandas, though. Unsurprisingly, these slothful bears have little interest in mating with each other. Their pitiful libido has been so frustrating to zoo keepers that scientists have done everything from showing them pornographic panda videos, to giving doses of Viagra to males. All for naught. 5. Pandas are miserable parents. Pandas are only vaguely interested in mating in the wild, and totally apathetic about it in captivity. Basically every few years if pandas run out of good TV shows to watch they will reluctantly agree to slow, boring humping as a sort of temporary diversion. If by some stroke of luck this lackluster romp results in fertilization, pregnancy is so minimal on panda physiology that often-times the female has no idea she’s pregnant. She might birth the cub unknowingly, then roll over and crush it while sleeping. In fact “crushing” is a perennial problem of the panda world– in 2006 a panda mother fell asleep on top of her cub, crushing it to death. Most panda pregnancies result in twins. Even if the pandas don’t inadvertently sit on the newborns or drive off with them sitting on the trunk of their car, in the wild they will let one of the pair die anyway. They pick the strongest-looking twin and keep feeding it, and the other twin expires.[/quote]

Also we've been actively trying to rescue a lot of animals that are either very dangerous and/or very ugly (a lot of insect species, tigers, etc), so your point really doesn't stand. [editline]24th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mysterious Mr.E;37779467]I dont mean literally. I hate pandas. This guy over at the mightyHeaton does a very good job at explaining our mutual ideas.[/QUOTE] So because you hate a species you think they don't deserve being rescued ? You're kind of a dick.

[IMG]http://pileofphotos.com/pics/pic_1177372482.jpg[/IMG] Say no to it [B]I dare you[/B]

^ ^ ^ This is a great example of the "cute" thing I was talking about. [QUOTE=Ganerumo;37779482]Also we've been actively trying to rescue a lot of animals that are either very dangerous and/or very ugly (a lot of insect species, tigers, etc), so your point really doesn't stand.[/QUOTE] What? Tigers and a majority of insect species are actually contributing to the proper food chain. And I see the pandas are doing a "great" job of keeping china's bamboo in check. Where would we be without them???

[QUOTE=altern;37779516][IMG]http://pileofphotos.com/pics/pic_1177372482.jpg[/IMG] Say no to it [B]I dare you[/B][/QUOTE] Go kill yourself.... Still cute though.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;37779268]yeah lets just fuckin let all the beautiful things that nature has created just die out because we consider ourselves the best species and dont give two fucks about anything else.[/QUOTE] hope you're a vegetarian then, cause if you ever eat meat, you're eating a beautiful thing nature has created because you think you're the best species entitled to eat defenseless little animals seriously, have you guys seen or even read about panda behaviors all they do is sit, eat bamboo, and shit if panda pornography, viagara, and etc. doesn't make them mate, they're not gonna survive, and we're just wasting money on trying to conserve them while we can have much more success on other endangered species who can survive

[QUOTE=Mysterious Mr.E;37779546]What? Tigers and a majority of insect species are actually contributing to the proper food chain.[/quote] I was saying that because you said the only reason we wanted to save panda was because they were cute. [QUOTE=Mysterious Mr.E;37779546] And I see the pandas are doing a "great" job of keeping china's bamboo in check. Where would we be without them??? [/quote] There's a ton of species that barely have a contribution in the food chain. Some bird species are devoid of any predators and most of their life is dedicated to looking fabulous, Sloths are basically fucking useless, cows would be completely useless if we weren't eating them, etc. [QUOTE=Mysterious Mr.E;37779546] Anyway my point does indeed stand and you will not change my opinion in any way, shape, or form. Quit trying you will only waste your time.[/QUOTE] Then why bother even giving your opinion if you're going to be so adamant about even remotely seeing it criticized, you dick.

[QUOTE=The golden;37779508]Pandas never seemed to have any problems until humans came along.[/QUOTE] Name me an animal that doesn't share this story. Apart from domesticated animals, there really aren't any.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;37779561]hope you're a vegetarian then, cause if you ever eat meat, you're eating a beautiful thing nature has created because you think you're the best species entitled to eat defenseless little animals seriously, have you guys seen or even read about panda behaviors all they do is sit, eat bamboo, and shit if panda pornography, viagara, and etc. doesn't make them mate, they're not gonna survive, and we're just wasting money on trying to conserve them while we can have much more success on other endangered species who can survive[/QUOTE] How do pandas know their species is dying? They aren't able to find that out like we can.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;37779580] There's a ton of species that barely have a contribution in the food chain. Some bird species are devoid of any predators and most of their life is dedicated to looking fabulous, Sloths are basically fucking useless, cows would be completely useless if we weren't eating them, etc.[/QUOTE] yeah, but how many of them needs money to conserve and need frequent human intervention to breed including pornography, viagra, and etc? [QUOTE=Rocko's;37779610]How do pandas know their species is dying? They aren't able to find that out like we can.[/QUOTE] what kind of argument is this, not many species have an integrated statistics inside their brain going "FUCK, WE'RE SUPER LOW, LET'S SUDDENLY FIND A MATE AND BREED?', but you dont see them requiring money to be maintained

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;37779561]hope you're a vegetarian then, cause if you ever eat meat, you're eating a beautiful thing nature has created because you think you're the best species entitled to eat defenseless little animals seriously, have you guys seen or even read about panda behaviors all they do is sit, eat bamboo, and shit if panda pornography, viagara, and etc. doesn't make them mate, they're not gonna survive, and we're just wasting money on trying to conserve them while we can have much more success on other endangered species who can survive[/QUOTE] I agree with everything you said. Good to see Im not alone.

I have a hard time understanding why you would be AGAINST saving an animal that is essentially harmless. All it does is make you sound like "that guy" who has to be against something everyone seems to agree on the fact that it is a good idea, just because it makes them sound edgy and clever or whatever. [editline]24th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=lolwutdude;37779621]yeah, but how many of them needs money to conserve and need frequent human intervention to breed including pornography, viagra, and etc? what kind of argument is this, not many species have an integrated statistics inside their brain going "FUCK, WE'RE SUPER LOW, LET'S SUDDENLY FIND A MATE AND BREED?', but you dont see them requiring money to be maintained[/QUOTE] You're taking the "porn and viagra" part a bit too seriously. Those were ATTEMPTED, it doesn't mean that they are doing this on every single panda out there. It's a failed experiment from a few years back that was dropped.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;37779627]I have a hard time understanding why you would be AGAINST saving an animal that is essentially harmless. All it does is make you sound like "that guy" who has to be against something everyone seems to agree on the fact that it is a good idea, just because it makes them sound edgy and clever or whatever.[/QUOTE] We're wasting money on something destined for failure. Panda's are nature's wet fart.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;37779627]I have a hard time understanding why you would be AGAINST saving an animal that is essentially harmless. All it does is make you sound like "that guy" who has to be against something everyone seems to agree on the fact that it is a good idea, just because it makes them sound edgy and clever or whatever.[/QUOTE] You're missing the point; we're trying our hardest to save pandas, arguably more than any other animal in the world. What's being said is, if pandas aren't reproducing than maybe that's how it has to be. We've stretched the limits of beneficial human intervention, maybe it's time to let it go. Note, I'm neutral on the subject. Maybe one day suddenly pandas will get an amazing sex drive and suddenly overpopulation, who knows.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;37779627]I have a hard time understanding why you would be AGAINST saving an animal that is essentially harmless. All it does is make you sound like "that guy" who has to be against something everyone seems to agree on the fact that it is a good idea, just because it makes them sound edgy and clever or whatever.[/QUOTE] and you sound like that "that guy" who wants to convince others or himself he's a paragon of humanity that wants to save everything cause he wants to look morally righteous i have something against spending money on saving something that can't be stopped from going extinct inevitably that contributes nothing to the ecology shit, if something that has a hard time being bred yet contributes something valuable to the ecology or essential, sure spend money saving them but if it's a lazy species that does nothing but sit, eat bamboo, and shit cause it's too lazy or don't wanna breed, then there's no reason to spend so much money saving them, all we're doing is spending money to slow down the inevitable

Oh and by the way, the main issue with Pandas not breeding is because their natural mating season was essentially effed up by humans invading their space. Pandas are supposed to give birth quite rarely (every two years or so), and one male is supposed to breed with several females. There is a lot of stuff inbetween to assure that all fertile females have bred, and such, but human intervention screwed up pandas so much they completely lost it. Which brings me to the point that scientific research is currently advancing to try and put that whole breeding cycle back into place, since we know pretty much exactly what is wrong with their behavior, what caused this issue and how it can be fixed.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;37779627]I have a hard time understanding why you would be AGAINST saving an animal that is essentially harmless. All it does is make you sound like "that guy" who has to be against something everyone seems to agree on the fact that it is a good idea, just because it makes them sound edgy and clever or whatever. [editline]24th September 2012[/editline] You're taking the "porn and viagra" part a bit too seriously. Those were ATTEMPTED, it doesn't mean that they are doing this on every single panda out there. It's a failed experiment from a few years back that was dropped.[/QUOTE] Looks like not everybody agrees its a good idea. Checkmate.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;37779679]and you sound like that "that guy" who wants to convince others or himself he's a paragon of humanity that wants to save everything cause he wants to look morally righteous [/quote] Er no I just defend saving a species because it's not gonna kill your kids and resurrect Hitler or something, you're the one who actually argues that an entire species should flatout disappear, because they don't fit your standards of living or whatever. [QUOTE=lolwutdude;37779679] i have something against spending money on saving something that can't be stopped from going extinct inevitably that contributes nothing to the ecology [/quote] Oh sorry I didn't know zoos were puncturing on your personal wallet to save a species, it's not like it's part of their already established budget or anything. [QUOTE=lolwutdude;37779679] shit, if something that has a hard time being bred yet contributes something valuable to the ecology or essential, sure spend money saving them but if it's a lazy species that does nothing but sit, eat bamboo, and shit cause it's too lazy or don't wanna breed, then there's no reason to spend so much money saving them, all we're doing is spending money to slow down the inevitable[/QUOTE] Once again it's not your money. It's not like spending money on this is going to burn down houses and run lives to the ground. You make it sound like it's a MASSIVE issue or something.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;37779682]Oh and by the way, the main issue with Pandas not breeding is because their natural mating season was essentially effed up by humans invading their space. Pandas are supposed to give birth quite rarely (every two years or so), and one male is supposed to breed with several females. There is a lot of stuff inbetween to assure that all fertile females have bred, and such, but human intervention screwed up pandas so much they completely lost it. Which brings me to the point that scientific research is currently advancing to try and put that whole breeding cycle back into place, since we know pretty much exactly what is wrong with their behavior, what caused this issue and how it can be fixed.[/QUOTE] okay, show me the specific scientific research of them which is advancing and progress of it

Oh and Pandas eat bamboo because they usually live in thick bamboo forests which provides good protection against predators, at the expense of available meat. It worked well until we started fucking the whole thing up. Once again if Pandas have always been so bad at breeding they would have already disappeared a long time ago.

Considering the conditions at the national zoo are absolutely disgusting, I am not surprised about this, that zoo is a joke, or at least it was the last time I was there.