[URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17703212/?GT1=9145[/URL]
Apparently there's a lot of debate going on with the zoo and animal rights activists. Surprisingly, the activists wanted the cub dead because it was rejected by it's mother. The zoo took the rejected cub and intend to raise it until it can manage on its own, but since the mother left it to die, animal rights activists want to let nature take its course.
I'm really shocked that any animal rights activist would want a completely healthy polar bear cub to die because its mother refuses to care for it. The species is nearing extinction and human interaction isn't making it worse off. The situation may not be as critical as pandas, but a zoo doing whatever is in its power to save one of their animals isn't as cruel as certain people make it out to be. Seems like another act to just spite zoos.
Well, animal rights activists have always been full of crap. Peta euthanizes 80% more cats and dogs than animal shelters do. Most of the animal rights activists are complete hypocrites. This reminds me of Penn and Teller's Bull**** episode on Animal Rights.
What the hell? I understand where they're coming from, but oh lord they're full of ****. I'd hate to be their children.
PETA also sent threatening letters to Ted Nugent saying they'd kidnap his children if he didn't comply with their wishes and stop hunting for sport. Still, I laughed hard at the video they asked Trent Reznor to do. In the beginning, not at the part where it shows the animals. That part is just sad.
[URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=64IWFAN4orY"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=64IWFAN4orY[/URL]
How is administering a lethal injection to a cub rejected by its mother letting nature take its course? Hello, zoos are mostly artificially constructed miniature habitats completely controlled and regulated by people; certainly not the wild. Why should it be treated as such in this case?
It seems animal rights activists should be most concerned with animals' rights to not only survive, but to live decent lives. I don't see why this cub won't live well. I believe some animals end up living happier, not to mention easier lives in zoos than in the wild- haven't those protesting stooges seen Madagascar? (I'm not at all condoning the practice of placing animals in captivity for the amusement of human beings.) Besides, it is true that keeping him alive may ultimately benefit its species.
It seems that animal genocide is the animal rights activist's ultimate goal.
This particular incident is retarded, but surely you recognise that,as a general principle, many people believe euthanasia is preferable to making people (or animals) suffer pointlessly? The fact that you disagree with the idea behind it doesn't mean it's not a valid and internally consistant position.
The line "Peta euthanizes 80% more cats and dogs than animal shelters do. Most of the animal rights activists are complete hypocrites" makes me think you just don't get the logic behind euthanasia at all.
Except in this case the cub wasn't suffering. The zoo can raise it to be a completely healthy bear without the aid of the mother.
Are polar bears either an endangered or threatened species? I honestly don't know. If they are, PETA is even stupider than I thought.
LIVE FREE OR DIE
Don't bring Libertarian policies to animals. Domesticated animals can't live free, because it is not natural for them to live in the wild.
I just saw that this is taking place in Berlin. The clarity is blinding.
well, to me this just shows the stupidity of people in general.
Haha, turns out the story was a complete lie. And I do mean COMPLETE.
The story started with a German tabloid who misquoted this Albrecht activsit guy, who was drawing an analogy to a recent court case where a baby sloth at Leipzig Zoo had been put down. A ruling which, consistant with his love of animals, he had fought against and lost. So he was saying that to be consistant with that ruling, which he opposed, the cub should have been put down.
I'll post a link to the [url=http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/]Media Watch[/url] story about it when their website gets updated.
What?
Anyway, here's the Media Watch story. As I said, it was complete fiction.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1887892.htm
OOPS.
I'm pretty sure the article quoted multiple animal rights activists, so it's not like all of the opinions were made up.
Except that the animal rights activist were all, funnily enough, against killing the animal.
By the time this story filtered through to MSNBC it was two months old and the quotes were third or fourth-hand at best. The fact is, there were no animal rights activists saying that the polar bear cub should be put down, as Media Watch clearly illustrated with its quoting of Albrecht and the Berlin Zoo's zoo-keeper. It was a bullsh!t story by a German tabloid to begin with, and, as they always do, everyone else ran with the story, embellishing and adding to it further, without doing any source or fact checking.
we should put people in zoos and have animals look at us. right?
So, anyone wanna go to the zoo and watch a pack of wild humans have sex?
No need to drive. Just use the internet.
som' *****!! Driving to the zoo is fun, but we should do it while drinking, so's we're drunk on arrival and are fully capable of making spectacles of ourselves when in fact, wild humans having intercourse in public, should be..