Okay, I know this was a while ago, but do you thing it was morally wrong to keep the bear alive? Or do you think it was morally wrong to kill him?
Personally, I'm a sort of renegade animal rights activist. I'm PRO-LIFE. It doesn't matter wether he's in the wild or not. He had the right to live. Thank god the zoo didn't kill him. There would have been MAJOR problems.
Besides, the Polar Bear is a dying species, thanks to Global Warming. Conservationalists would have caused an uproar if the bear was killed.
2007-10-09 15:08:58 · 2 answers · asked by Nancy Drew 1 in Environment ➔ Conservation
Over night Knut became the "spokes bear" on wildlife protection and the impact of global warming on the arctic regions.
An unidentified "animal rights group" and the director of another German zoo advocated Knut be euthanized. The stunning and sweeping amount of support that the Berlin Zoo (Knut's home) garnered lead to record attendance, financial support and volunteers -- this culminated in a special "Knut Day" at the zoo.
I strongly believe that the Berlin Zoo handle the situation with Knut in the best possible way -- in a sense, saving Knut has created much more awareness of the dire state the world's polar bears are facing in nature.
It's amazing how many animal organizations support Knut... considering... well you know, he eats meat and wears fur. LOL
2007-10-10 09:06:04 · answer #1 · answered by Andy 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why should they have killed him if they had the means to take care of him? We need to preserve animals, especially ones that represent unique evolutionary branches.
2007-10-09 22:27:08 · answer #2 · answered by Lady Geologist 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋