Wild Animals?

Question

We cage and display some wild animals because they are man eaters.
When ineptitude leads to one of these animals escaping and attacking man, we are then forced to kill it.

Is this right?

Ya RLY

because caged humans have the sense to act as if they are reformed or innocent people. They have the capacity to decieve and manipulate.

A wild animal has none of these traits and is, as it says on the wrapper "A wild animal"

Hi Jerry

The tiger id not choose to be in captivity. I am sure it's own chice would have been far different.
If man decide that a wild animal should be kept in captivity for profit, then do they have the right to end the life of that animal when their incompetance sets it free to kill.

YARLY

"Just a wild animal"?

Do you realise how many of these "Just a wild animal" types are close to extinction.

Now it may be that you have had your fair share of looking at wild animals, but what gives you the right to take that choice away from future generations.

Can I also point out that man is at the top of the food chain in his own environment.
He is far from top in the wild animals environment when using the same amount of weapons the tiger has.
Leave the animals where they belong!

rickster

dont worry too much, common sense comes with age, you will get there one day

Lena

so nice of you to grant these animals a "reasonable quality of life"
Would reasonable be enough for yourself?

Answer 1

The term "man-eater" is actually code for "trying to defend itself against its most powerful enemy". They are only man-eaters when threatened by man, which you are doing by keeping them in cages against their will. They are as you said, wild animals, and don't deserve to be locked up for life. And what's worse is when they express their discontent to you by trying to escape, you simply kill them, instead of returning them to where they belong. I mean, you could at least use a tranquilizer dart, or something.

Plz! give them to zoos or animal parks in their natural habitat. It's the only way to rehabilitate them, and give them a chance to maybe go back to the wild, or at least lead a happier life.

And to Yarly: They wouldn't kill humans for food! These animals are what we call "gorge eaters", so they may eat a whole lot of food Monday, and live off that for the rest of the week. And most of the times, if humans just provide a carcass or something, they won't ever feel the need to hunt. They're not gonna escape just to hunt down humans, because those aren't their natural instincts at all. Plz try to know what you're preaching to us about before you do it.

Answer 2

Ideally the animals should be kept in enclosures that are impossible for them to escape from. The way I see it, keeping these animals in captivity is better than catching other animals. These creatures would have been killed otherwise because they cannot live in the wild (as a threat to humans)

In captivity they can be used in breeding programs or as educational tools. If the zoo is reputable they will still have a reasonable quality of life.

Ed. Ok, when I wrote this the tiger story hadn't broken over here.

"Would reasonable be enough for yourself."
Admitting people to zoos to look at all the pretty animals can raise big funds for research and captive breeding programs. If not for programs like those run by zoos tigers would probably be extinct. Better reasonable than dead in my opinion.

Answer 3

(1) Tigers aren't normally maneaters.

(2) We display animals for several reasons; The MAIN one is probably mankind's belief that he has the right to satisfy any curiosity he has, but we DON'T show animals BECAUSE they are maneaters, since we exhibit all kinds of creatures lower in the food chain than we are.

(3) It might have been ineptitude. It could also have been a simple mistake, or an equipment failure, or an unusual coincidence, or maybe even malice-aforethought.

What, exactly do you mean "right"? Is your point that no animals should be kept in zoos? From what I heard, this one was in a natural habitat.

Answer 4

The Bald Eagle, Wild Thing

Answer 5

We kill humans in the same way. Why not animals.

EDIT: Wow at you hippies. If its just a wild animal then it won't mind being killed will it? Its natural instinct is to kill and therefore it will irrespective of human captivity, you can't blame it on human error, the animal would have killed someone or something even if it wasn't caught...its called the food chain. We're at the top of it. Well...some of us are. =/

Answer 6

It's not right,Stephen - it's madness!.
In fact a caged wild animal is more dangerous than in the wild - well wouldn't you be angry at someone who caged you for years on end for no reason? Just watch zoo animals prowling up and down and watching and waiting for their moment to escape and strike!

Answer 7

In order to protect other humans, yes.

I'm sure the zookeepers would have preferred the tiger be tranquilized, but apparently their was insufficient time/opportunity to do so, given the tiger had already attacked several people, killing one.

Answer 8

it is a nice question... according to law the no one has a right to kill animal except they have some infectious or some violence attack... i want to ask u one thing if the robbery came and take off all belongings then what you will do? as the same to save the people life it is some kind safe

Answer 9

well, if you were at the zoo that day i don't think you would be on here complaining that the thing got shot???

Do i agree with zoos NO they are arwful places to keep animals, ok the keeps may love the, feed them and care for them, but they should be out in the wild, thats why we named them wild animals!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 10

First the mauling of Roy Horn and now this, its pretty obvious that tigers have developed a taste for homosexual blood.