In germany,they found a small polar bear abandoned by his mother.They(the zoo i think)took him and hand-fed him,but now(it`s not that grown but it`s capable to live on his own) some acttivist of the animal`s rights say that they should kill him. As a wild animal he shouldn`t live in captivity but the zoo just can`t because they don`t think it`s fair.What would you say?
I think it would be brutal to kill him.It can be a chance to raise such animals because they are in exctintion.
Your comment..
P.S.Sorry for my english
2007-03-22 03:36:48 · 11 answers · asked by kvcreom 4 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Zoology
I think it is absoulutely RIDICULOUS for animal RIGHTs activists to think an animal should be killed. It is hypocrytical and disturbing. Should we kill a CHILD because its parents abandoned it?? No, they would be put up for adoption. Same as this lucky polar bear. Not only will he have the gift of life, but he will give people a chance to see and learn about the species by being in a zoo.
2007-03-22 03:48:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
back in the 80s when I was first interested in wildlife rehabilitation, there was a large segment of the population who thought it was wrong. Rehabilitating an animal meant that you were not "letting nature take it's course" and were then going to re-introduce an animal back into the environment that otherwise would have been taken out of it. Whereas I could see their point of view, I also realised that if it weren't for humans, most of the animals I was rehabilitating wouldn't be in the situation they are in (car hits, abandonment, shooting, power line hits, etc)
there is also the case of the California Condor. This species was naturally going extinct. It's natural prey population was disappearing and was down to only a handful of birds. All wild birds were taken into captivity and force bred (taking eggs away as soon as they are laid to provoke more egg laying) to increase the number of birds. Then they were released back into the wild, but have to be supliment fed to make sure they get the necessary nutrients.
The case of the polar bear cub is sort of in between. Would the mother have abandoned the cub if it were out in the wild? Probably not, unless there was something physically wrong with the cub.
Is it an endangered species that needs every possible individual for genetic diverity? no (well, it's not as endangered as some).
Should everything be done to save a living creature, even though it would be very long, time consuming, and ultimately may be hopeless? That is for the zoo itself to judge as they will be the ones ponying up the time and money.
2007-03-22 10:49:53 · answer #2 · answered by taliswoman 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's crazy what animal rights people want to do to animals. They say that their purpose is to save the life's of animals, but all they end up doing is harming them. Im not sure if they mean to do it, but either way it happens. I believe animals do deserve rights, but some people just go too far.
I think that the polar bear should stay in captivity. Im sure it could live on its own, but Im not sure it would live long. It needs to learn most of its survial skills from it mother, and since they found it young it probally hasnt had time to learn much. Im sure that the zoologists who have the polar bear right now are teaching him a lot of stuff he needs to know to survive, but it just gets a much higher survival rate when it's raised by its mother.
It would be just fine for the polar bear to live in captivity, such as a zoo, as long as its in a humane exhibit, and not in a small, square, concrete cage. In fact it would live much longer in captivity anyways. Having it there would be good for scientists and their reasearch, too. They could study lots of things about the polar bear, such as how easy it is for one to adapt to new surroundings. Animal rights people can just take this stuff a little too far sometimes.
2007-03-22 11:12:44 · answer #3 · answered by Linzi 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
of course it would be absurd to kill that polar bear cup, yes it would be better if it would crow up in his own world.
but that is not the case anymore,it would never survived.in a modern zoo ,nowedays the living conditions are a lot better than before.
they have living space,good food and the company of other bears.
i dont think it is such a bad live,at least the cup is well protected,nature can be very cruel and bear cups are often eaten by male bears,to make the females fertile again.
(dont worry they will not kill it)
2007-03-22 10:59:31 · answer #4 · answered by Nanno D 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is the craziest story that I've heard in some time... Why kill an animal that could be kept alive, and live a healthy life in a nice zoo?
This animal could be the ambassador for the conservation of the species.
2007-03-22 10:51:42 · answer #5 · answered by Brian H 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think to kill him would just be uncalled for.he shouldnt live in captivity by rights but if it is his only chance he should be let live out his days.i dont like the idea of captivity but for some animals it is their best hope
2007-03-22 10:51:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that any true animal activist will willingly want to kill an animal that is threatened. They will instead encourage the preservation of the species.
2007-03-22 10:46:06 · answer #7 · answered by onyx27 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yeah, ive read the article and saw the cute pictures..
killing the bear..and they're talking about animal rights?!they better change their rules.. how about putting the right to live for abandoned creatures?that will work
2007-03-22 12:02:17 · answer #8 · answered by jan-na~♥~ and im luvin it 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they have polar bears at seaworld so why not put him in a place like that. they shouldnt kill him thats just cruel and unfair.
2007-03-22 10:41:58 · answer #9 · answered by looking for love this time 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If they would of killed it some else wold cry about it. It's a no win situation..
2007-03-22 11:29:03 · answer #10 · answered by pepper_y2k 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋