Polar Bear Better Off Dead?!

[Miss Wiggle]

bit of controversy for the new forum!!

http/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6470509.stm

saw this on the news this morning, i just do not understand it at all.

i simply can't see the justification for putting it down..... what do you guys think?

I'll happily admit I don't know a massive amount about Polar Bears, but the only justification for not keeping him alive IMHO would be if they couldn't provide him with a decent home in which case yes it could be better to put it down humanley now rather than force it to live in unsuitable conditions. But I'm sure Polar Bears have been kept in captivity before and as such I don't think the above would count as a reason.

 

[QuotheRaven]

IMO they are here in the world now and have been for years leave them that way and let nature take it's course.

 

[Miss Wiggle]

leaving them to die in the wild in the first place is one thing, if they'd done that it wouldn't bother me, wild animals die every day from natural causes.

but putting them down once they've been rescused is different IMO

 

[-germ-]

Damn right, read it in the times yesterday, its ridiculous, humans are responsible for the situation the polar bear is in, to kill it is to wash their hands of a situation they are responsible for.
Feral children raised by animals are heard of every now and then, they too struggle to live in the society their species is accustomed to (two this year in india) and you would never hear a human clamour for them to be put down! Why because apparently its cruel to kill our own species for the same problems people are considering killing this bear for. Elitism and darwinism of the most cold-hearted and cynical kind!!!!!!
With the strong involvment of media and local government there is no way that a good home could not be found for this bear. But then again it can't read or write or speak as we know it, so maybe it should just die........
Grrrrrr

 

[The-Wolf]

hmm a tough one
nurture V's nature.

this is a moral descision I'm glad that I have no part in.
I can see both sides of the argument, don't get me wrong
I'm very pleased that the zoo will not kill this innocent animal
however if Knut becomes irrepricably imprinted, on the keeper
who is hand rearing him, he will have a tough life ahead.

 

[-germ-]

Oh yeah...
Raven, this may be a broad and manipulative statement but your comment is similar to saying all medicines and treatments are wrong due to them interfering with the course of nature....
If man chooses to create something that makes it a product of nature, if they choose to affect the enviroment, its a result of humans natural drive to progress as they see fit.
If they choose to interfere for the good of a dying species its down to nature, i suppose this suggests if we choose to ignore it, again its only natural.
But i guess if you or a family member suffered an illness you would look for an "un-natural" medicine (ie. solution) if it alleviated the problem.
To let animals suffer or die out while humans take the lion's share of responsibility for their environmental decline is arrogance and carelessness of the highest order......

 

[nmonks]

It's a very tough call. On the one hand "tame bears" are really tame. Once the bear becomes bigger, and especially when it becomes sexually mature, it will very difficult to care for. However cute it is now, it will eventually become an animal that could easily rip your arm off. Feeding and cleaning it will require the zookeepers to expose themselves to a risk every single day. The other bears in a zoo aren't really tame; they back off from the zookeeper and interact with one another. This bear will have no fear of humans and will assume humans are the source of all stimulation. When it wants to mate, but can't approach another bear because "it doesn't speak bear" it is going to cause some real problems to the humans around it (it's 500 kilos of sexual frustration -- how do you think it is going to feel?). Besides, what quality of life will it have? It can't live at home as a pet, it can't live with other bears. It basically will spend its entire life in a small enclosure by itself except for when it gets fed and watered.

On the other hand, bear cubs have been reared by people and then carefully returned to (captive) bear populations over a period of time. Not sure about polar bears though.

Polar bears aren't especially rare, so one cub either way isn't going to make a difference. They are threatened in the wild by habitat destruction of course, but the populations aren't so small that captive breeding is critical to their survival.

The animal-rights people are basically against zoos, period, and a lot of this is rather cynical. On the extreme wing of the animal rights movement you have people who would ban zoos, pets, aquaria, and basically anything other than animals in the wild. While I'm not unsympathetic to the notion that the best place for animals is in the wild, I fear simply trying to ban everything else is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The more removed people are from animals, the less they care about them. Anglers are probably the most active and militant freshwater ecologists out there, and do a huge amount to keep rivers and lakes in good condition, far more than the well-meaning but frankly ignorant animal rights people who'd ban fishing because it's cruel (which it certainly is at some level, but in the big picture helps fish populations far more than it harms them).

Cheers, Neale

 

[Miss Wiggle]

interesting points Neale.

when yuo say it won't speak bear... is there any evidence to say it won't be abl;e to communicate with it's own kind eventually. Maybe not at first but would it not learn over a period of time? And why could it not eventually live with it's own kind, if they are kept in captivity elsewhere could they not be carefully introduced just as you could introduce an animals back to the wild population?

I was very surprised by a friend of mine who's an ecologist, studied it at uni and feels very passionatley about it. Got onto the topic of hunting with me and I was initially really surprised that he was pro-hunting. However after he explained to me about the destruction of wildlife in hedgrows in the countryside and explained that areas where people hunt are one of the few places farmers and landowners will actually conserve (cos lets be honest, no one's gonna pay them to not cut down that patch of trees in the middle of they're fields except hunters) I can really see his point of view. It's the lesser of two evil's argument isn't it. harm a handful of foxes but then preserve a large part of our wildlife. I wouldn't nescessarily say that harming the foxes is the lesser of two evils, but i can definately see the argument. I think there is a lot of ignorance amongst activists, keep meaning to have this discussion with my sister who's your typical crusty vegan activist type.

 

[-germ-]

Hope all the talk about animal rights activists isn't related to my earlier posts?
I'm certainly not an activist, i think (i know) all situations are different and require different methodologies. For example i agree with fox hunting, but my grandfather having been a sheep farmer showed me that hunting foxes does not require all the fuss and prolonged agitation involved in the popular version of a fox hunt, these had nothing to do with the countryside more to do with the social aspects of the hunt.
To justify the killing of animals for what amounted to pleasure, basically an excuse for a get together, especially when the big old-fashioned fox hunt will catch 1-2 foxes a day compared to a limitless amount based on a lone gunmans skill and less stress for the soon to be dead fox, is to put it bluntly ridiculous and dishonest.
Human and animal interaction is inevitable, each situation calls for different measures this was merely my opinion on this specifc topic. But NO ONE can claim (as raven did) that to turn our backs on problems we have helped create is an adequate response.....
But hey what would i know?
Umm... sorry i don't actually know if i was accused of being an activist but if i have been please read my earlier post and evaluate the arguments whilst ignoring the anger i obviously feel.
I'm not an animal activist more pro-commonsense and anti-ill thought out argument.

 

[nmonks]

when yuo say it won't speak bear... is there any evidence to say it won't be abl;e to communicate with it's own kind eventually. Maybe not at first but would it not learn over a period of time?

I believe this is possible for some species. I've certainly seen TV shows about people having done this with apes and wolves and smaller bear species. But it is very hard work and requires dedicated people who have lots of experience of the animal in question and are able to create a "halfway house" between the ranch and the wilderness. I'm not sure this is possible with polar bears in the wild, though perhaps do-able in a zoo.

It's the lesser of two evil's argument isn't it. harm a handful of foxes but then preserve a large part of our wildlife.

Precisely. I personally find the idea of chasing after a fox and then having it ripped apart horrible. I can't see where the fun is, and nor can I see how it makes a person look more manly or courageous. Seems pointless and cruel. But compared with ripping up hedgerows and losing all the wildlife from tiny bugs to owls and badgers, I say, let 'em kill a few foxes if they must. At least, until we learn how to live in harmony with wildlife anyway.

Cheers, Neale

 

[catxx]

the only the reason this bear is being reared by humans because it's own mother rejected it
this is neither the cubs nor the keepers fault, and it would die without human intervention
now if they'd marched into the wild and picked this cub up and brought it back to the zoo, then maybe there might be some argument.
but the bear was born in a zoo, and berlin zoo is an excellent zoo to be born in, just with any orphaned animal, they get reared by hand. no doubt once he's older they will try and rehabilitate him in with the other bears.

with an endangered animal such as this, why just kill another one? i'm all for it staying alive.

 

[Miss Wiggle]

Hope all the talk about animal rights activists isn't related to my earlier posts?

not at all germ, i was just making general comments

Precisely. I personally find the idea of chasing after a fox and then having it ripped apart horrible. I can't see where the fun is, and nor can I see how it makes a person look more manly or courageous. Seems pointless and cruel. But compared with ripping up hedgerows and losing all the wildlife from tiny bugs to owls and badgers, I say, let 'em kill a few foxes if they must. At least, until we learn how to live in harmony with wildlife anyway.

this is the only part that worries me, although this can help maintain our wildlife for now, is it just giving people an excuse not to do/learn anything in the long term?

 

[-germ-]

Oh.....
Not enough sleep and too much caffeine, i digress from this topic but wiggles theres what is hopefully my final question on my help.. topic if you have any more advice....
Raven not being offensive just thought your answer was a bit simplistic and kind of ignored the wider issues involved.....
and relax.

 

[vancouver]

Didn't they decide that it wont be killed..

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Personally i do not see this any different from people in China hand-rearing baby panda bears. Plenty of panda bears are hand raised by people and they grow up to lead healthy and happy lives- the amount of polar bears in the wild is not unlimited, and polar bears bred in captivity may one day help save their wild relatives, so i do not see what is wrong in raising a young cub (which would have otherwise been doomed) in captivity as long as it is well and properly cared for.
(edit: i wonder if some animal rights activists would also be against the hand rearing of baby panda bears abandoned by their mothers as well?)

The animal rights activist who said ""Each time his keeper leaves him, and he can't follow, he will die a little." i think is rubbish- either way, when the cub grows up its mother would have left him anyway- for a polar bear cub, i doubt this is going to emotionally scar him for the rest of his life or anything like that. If the cub is showing no signs of distress at being left alone (which no one has said so far), then i don't see what is the issue.

IMHO, as long as the animal is better off and happier alive than dead, then it should be allowed to live.