Polar Bear Cub Controversy
 

I found this article on the MSNBC website, and after reading it, I was obviously outrage that of all people, these animal activists actually wants this cub, known as Knut, to be dead, and justifies this because apparently, Knut became too dependent on humans, or something like that.:terrence:

If your curious, here's the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17703212/?GT1=9145

Well, that's all I have.

what.. the.. censored? i shall not even comment on how i feel about the guys saying they should kill the polar bear. i just have to ask. what they are on?

It is actually commonplace in American zoos for staff to handraise animals, since it makes it easier to work with them and do routine vet checkups, and is far less stressful on the animals if they are used to at least some human contact. In the case of rare and endangered species, if the mothers shows even the slightest indication that she might abandon or harm her offspring, the staff won't take the chance of leaving the babies with her, but will intervene and raise the babies themselves. They can't take a chance that even one valuable member of a rare species might be lost.

One thing that you must understand about the Animal Rights people-this is NOT the same thing as Animal Welfare, which is about protecting animals from cruelty and promoting humane care of animals. The basic tenent of the Animal Rights movement is that ALL animals are better off dead than living in contact with humans, and that included the animals in zoos, as well as your pets. They believe that it is cruelty in and of itself for humans to keep ANY animals in captivity, whether it's a polar bear in a zoo, or a Yorkshire Terrier in a townhouse. They would rather see that little bear cub killed than to see it in a zoo, period, whether or not it was handraised by humans. The Animal Rights movement is born not so much out of a love of animals- indeed, their founders and leaders, such as PeTA's Ingrid Newkirk and Pete Singer, will readily admit that they have no love of animals-as it is a hatred and contempt for all of humanity. The militant, terrorist arm of the Animal Rights movement, the ALF(Animal Liberation Front), has repeatedly threatened to release deadly animal diseases like the Asian Bird Flu and Hoof-and-Mouth Disease within the population of American livestock, and to initiate a campaign to kill American pets-for their own GOOD, of course. I find it VERY interesting that the cause of death in so many dogs and cats from eating tainted pet food recently was a rat poison which is banned in the US, except as an experimental cancer treatment drug, used in labs also targeted for break-ins by the the ALF. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. The sad thing is, a lot of young people proclaim themselves to support these groups and to be all for Animal Rights, without realizing just what these groups and the movement really involve, and the groups take advantage of that. What we have seen expressed by the AR activists in Germany is TYPICAL of how these people think, not an exception at all.

pitbulllady

I think i know the type. MORONS.

All these Eco-Terrorists are ridiculously out of touch with reality. The Greenpeace freaks used to cut the massive trawling nets, which actually created a bigger ecological peroblem then the simple harvesting of fish would have. The guys who burn developments because its "urban sprawl" really piss me off too.

Would you believe that I actually met someone who said, "We should be vegetarians because animals don't eat each other in the wild"?

Peter Singer is not the founder of, nor associated with PETA or the ALF. He is merely a modern utilitarian philosopher who asserts that while animals have different rights and abilities to human beings, they share our ability to suffer so minimizing harm inflicted upon them is morally desirable. While his views are controversial, they in no way encourage harm against human beings unless grossly misrepresented. In this country, philosophys like those espoused by Singer and others underpin the laws that give animals legal protection against undue suffering where they are used for human purposes.

Aren't these hippies supposed to be cheering for this. ::)

*Sigh* These people should really get a grip. Pitbully has explained exacly why these animal/enviromentalists rights activists need to be stopped anyway possable. What really bothers me is how the media always portrays Greenpiece in a possaitive light and make them out to be heros. They kill people because they think a human life is worth less then that of a tree.:scaryberry:
I'm sorry for that, but I needed to let my opinion be known. I say let the bear live. What harm will it do? Even Stephen Colbert had a hard time condeming the bear cub to death.8D

What really bothers me about such militant organisations and their actions is that a lot people are inevitably going to generalise their hateful outlooks to all folks who feel in any way passionate about animals, their welfare, and the conservation of their natural habitat?.there are plenty of environmentally-conscious people out there who don?t deserve to get lumped in with that crowd.

I care very much about animals and their wellbeing. But I think my cat's perfectly happy living with me. And that the polar bear cub would be perfectly happy living in capivity, handreared by human hands, so long as he was properly cared for.

I tried hand-raising an abandoned baby hedgehog once...sadly, it didn't have a happy ending. :(