The Kintyre Forum

Is it me or is the world crazy?

An animal rights activist says that it is unnatural to feed a baby polar bear abandoned by its mother, so the zoo must kill the bear.
His thinking is, "If a polar bear mother rejected the baby, then I believe the zoo must follow the instincts of nature," Albrecht said. "In the wild, it would have been left to die." Left to nature, a good many babies and, for that matter, a good many of us would be dead too. I hope this person's next line of work isn't the child protection agency.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03 ... index.html

What the hell is wrong here? The bears are not in their natural environment in the first place. THEY ARE IN A FREAKING ZOO and not in the wild, where they are supposed to be taken care of by compassionate people, NOT KILLED!!!

Do these people not take into consideration that the mother may have had some difficulty finding and digging out a den in her enclosure (just for example) - hundreds of other things could be a factor in the mother rejecting her cub!

Who could look at that little white fuzzy face and then say it must be killed!

[/img]

I like this guy's attitude a lot more!

"These criticisms make me angry, but you can't take them so seriously," Andre Schuele said. "Polar bears live alone in the wild; I see no logical reason why this bear should be killed."

Schuele also argued that given the increased rarity of polar bears in the wild, it makes sense to keep them alive in captivity so that they can be bred.

"Polar bears are under threat of extinction, and if we feed the bear with a bottle, it has a good chance of growing up and perhaps becoming attractive as a stud for other zoos," Schuele said.

Very interesting,
The problem lies with the mother in the first instance. I feel that the term used by the animal rights body, rejection is wholly inappropriate. The mother either won't, or can't, feed her offspring, for whatever reason. The term rejection fits more comfortably with won't than can't. In other words the deed is easier to do, when there is some minor blame attached.
Motherhood appears universal in all mammals, in that both bear and human share common functions when feeding their young. In humans however- would one describe- a mother who chooses to bottle feed her baby as being in some way negligent, and that the baby would fail to function because it lacked mothers milk. The answer is a resounding no.
These so called animal rights campaigners have failed to impress, yet here I am a lover of animals, a vegan, someone who cares about the rights of all animals, I wouldn't go near any of them without a bargepole. Their campaign is seriously misguided when one considers the need for scientific investigation, in order that the highest animal- mankind- can overcome disease and death.

I totally agree with that statement. It is outragous that we should even think to treat zoo animals in this way. If you read the total article it also goes on to say that the Polar Bear may soon be added to the extinct list. This baby polar bear's sibling died already. Do some people not have any compassion? And they have the gall to call themselves animal rights activitists. Gimme a break!!


What the F(#$&)#(@k??????????

CBS News RAW Knut a baby polar bear is being raised by German zookeepers after his mother a former circus-performing bear rejected him and his twin brother. NO AUDIO. (March 20)

http://www.aolvideoblog.com/2007/03/21/knut-the-baby-polar-bear/

See! Even his mother is not a wild polar bear. She was actually a bear saved from the circus by the zoo!


Duh!

Some say I'm cute, as white as snow
they named me knut - to go on show
mammie didn't feed me -she lost the touch
if only they knew -I could love her much

Some say kill - it not being right
to nurse me gently through day an night
I at mercy of human hand
touch teach tender tot.

I had a dream in my box
Mammie to care an show the way
alas for me the case is not
as I wake from wooden box

So thank-you humans - you made my day
if only knut - could have a say
I say thanks with all my heart
animals together make good start.

Annie wrote:I totally agree with that statement. It is outragous that we should even think to treat zoo animals in this way. If you read the total article it also goes on to say that the Polar Bear may soon be added to the extinct list. This baby polar bear's sibling died already. Do some people not have any compassion? And they have the gall to call themselves animal rights activitists. Gimme a break!!


What the F(#$&)#(@k??????????

You are on the mark Annie. "Activists" or as I view them, single issue "religionists", should be watched for thier real actions.
Let's take for expamle PETA who espouse their GREAT concern for animals. For those who don't know, here in the U.S. there is a program on T.V. done by two men named Penn and Teller. They investigate such things and do a very good and level handed presentation of their findings. Recently they checked into PETA. They did a comparision of the treatment of stray animals and picked the Los Angeles, California city animal control services to be the comparision to PETA. L.A. animal control were found to capture stray animals, provide needed medical treatment for them, put them in clean and appropriate kennels. They fed the animals well and made very good effort to "adopt" them out as pets before after a certain time, sadly those not adopted were then humanely put down by injection. Due to the cities efforts and advertising these animals as available pets, a large percentage of them were adopted. PETA on the other hand at all their facilities nationwide did nothing but immediately put the animals down. PETA would not comment on the manner in which they killed these animals or comment further and were furious at being questioned.
Be careful who you support and look behind the curtain of ads and TV spots to see how organizations REALLY behave as most seem to be only shams looking for your donation money. I guess that is easier than getting real work. Unfortunately many people do no checking into these types of organizations and become their advertising on the street as zealots when all they are really doing is feeding their puppet masters.

Thanks!

I saw Penn and Teller do an expose on the greyhound track dog breeders. I was so aweful I cannot even put it into words!

A hid a dug
a bonny wee dug- a bonny wee dug called boabie
spent the night catching fleas- scratching away in the lobby
ma dug- ma bonny wee dug- he answers tae the name o boabie
he made a mess the other night, fur such a wee dug -a great big joabie
fightin wae Alsations an the polis tae- ma bonny wee dug called boabie
he's a great wee dug- ma wee dug- mae wee dug boabie
scurfy aye- minus wane eye- mae wee dug boabie
a widdnae swap him fur a million pound- mae wee dug called boabie

ionnsaigh wrote:Very interesting,
The problem lies with the mother in the first instance. I feel that the term used by the animal rights body, rejection is wholly inappropriate. The mother either won't, or can't, feed her offspring, for whatever reason. The term rejection fits more comfortably with won't than can't. In other words the deed is easier to do, when there is some minor blame attached.
Motherhood appears universal in all mammals, in that both bear and human share common functions when feeding their young. In humans however- would one describe- a mother who chooses to bottle feed her baby as being in some way negligent, and that the baby would fail to function because it lacked mothers milk. The answer is a resounding no.
These so called animal rights campaigners have failed to impress, yet here I am a lover of animals, a vegan, someone who cares about the rights of all animals, I wouldn't go near any of them without a bargepole. Their campaign is seriously misguided when one considers the need for scientific investigation, in order that the highest animal- mankind- can overcome disease and death.

Poor, poor, delusional Ionnsaigh, what makes you think that a child of any species is not rejected by choice. There have always been babies abandoned on doorsteps, in bins, in carrier bags etc. Not because the mother can't feed them, not because she is in poverty but in a lot of cases because she does not have the maternal instinct needed to bond with her offspring. In short, the hormones don't kick in. Because a creature gives birth, only technically makes it a mother or, in the case of seahorses, a father. You really need to read some more and get off Al Jazeera TV

ionnsaigh wrote: Their campaign is seriously misguided when one considers the need for scientific investigation, in order that the highest animal- mankind- can overcome disease and death.

How does one overcome death? I thought you Communists did not believe in the afterlife. As far as I know, that is the only way to overcome it. However some medicines and surgical practices can prolong life but not indefinately im afraid

Friend Of Dorothy,
" How does one overcome death".
" I thought you Communists did not believe in the afterlife".
1. By living longer.
2. As an Atheist I can't except superstition in any shape or form. Communists on the other hand may have some long lingering left over indoctrinated traits.
Communism and Atheism, are two distinct, separate non antagonistic and complimentary species. It is not really surprising that you confuse the two. never mind we live and learn.

I notice you never did manage to answer my question.