Animl Rights Activists want polar bear cub killed

[Guest]

When are people going to start seeing throught these bastards for what they are:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03/19/polar.bear.ap/index.html

 

They don't give a damn about animals they just want power.

[Guest]

Now that's truly SICK by any measure.

 

Thanks ToS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFF

[White Fox]

It is simply a way to get their name in the paper! That is all it is pure and simple!

 

And they will do anything to get that as this story dictates.

 

W

[Guest]

I would like to believe that but I am afraid the AR movement is a whole lot more sinister.

Remember they stand for the complete eradication of all domesticated animals including pets. It is centre of their philosophy.

[Ravens8]

I agree ToS - very sisnister, and dangerous.

 

An aol vote today "do you think the cub would be better off dead?"

 

61,552 votes cast (a large number for an AOL vote, so obviously a lot of interest - 97% said no 3% yes. So as we all know the vast majority of us are clear thinkers, and yet these morons get so much publicity. It just doesn't make sense. It's only publicity that gives these people power

 

That german guys opinions shouldnt even have been mentioned in public. They are outside the norms or a moral socirty. It's like asking a parrot who should be next prime minister. ...............err.........come to think of it, not a good example, a parrot would probably give a better answer in todays political arena!

[Guest]

This should be the nail in the coffin of the AR movement.

 

Every time they open their mouths this polar bear cub thing should be jammed in it.

 

"We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. ... One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." - Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice-President of HSUS, formerly of Friends for Animals; Quoted in Animal People, May, 1993

 

"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership." -- Elliot Katz, President, In Defense of Animals, "In Defense of Animals," Spring 1997.

 

Add to that the claims of Peter Singer (how do you allow such an idiot to be employed in the US? No way would he be regarded as an academic in the UK) and Ingrid Newkirk that they are NOT animal lovers and you begin to see how these sickos minds work.

 

They would have NO hesitation in killing this polar bear cub and that should destroy them but it won't . Why? Because people can't think things through. So Pamela Anderson etc should have that question fired at themevery time they open their gobs.

"So it is wrong to kill a rabbit at 4 years old for meat and fur but okay to kill an orphan polar bear cub for nothing at three weeks old to prevent it being domesticated by man?" would be a good start.

 

Sorry about this long post but I am insensed.

[Guest]

To a certain extent I find myself in agreement with the AR's on this.

 

If the cub has been rejected by its mother then it has been done so for good reasons. In the wild the cub would not survive, the mother knows this. She would sacrifice the runt in order to give more attention to the rest, who will survive. It's only because its been born in captivity and its suffering from Disney cuteness that we want to preserve this animal. But does it have the right to live? In the wild no, in captivity, yes. If it had been born in the wild and died, we wouldn't have cared less, but because it's born in captivity we go all mushy.

 

I think we are the confused ones.

[Guest]

Don't be ridiculous Tryxie a cat will rear a baby squirrel; a horse a rabbit. It has nothing to do with mushy. I can describe in great length why that is so but you will have to pm me if you want to know why.

 

Suffice to say that a rabbit reared by a horse is quite amusing but has every right to exist; as indeed are humans rared by dogs or antelope.

 

ALL cats are humanised. Adult cats do NOT miaow. They become perpetual kitts because they are humanised. If you allow these idiots to go with that then they have th justification they ned to destroy every domestic animal.

 

Yes they become different; but so what? A pet lamb is far far more intelligent than one left alone with its mother . That is why the adopted are never killed for meat.

Edited March 21, 2007 by Guest

[ReFur]

In general, I do not agree with animal rights. But, if you look at the % that voted against this position, any group can have a member who operates on a different wave length!! Should we judge a whole group for one members position?

 

Linda

[Guest]

Linda it wasnt AR activists voting in the poll I dont think.

 

So were the Nazis innocent because only 0.00005% killed a jew?

 

You judge a movement by the ideology of its leaders; and the willingness of the drones to follow that. Anyone in PETA is evil or stupid.

 

Quite frankly fur is low on my priority as far as the AR movement is concerned. I fear for every domestic species, and second every wild species as the "new order" consume alternatives hence destroy habitat.

[Guest]

Oh and I hate to point out the logical fallacy with the AR position.

 

They say the cub will have an unatural life because it is reared in the zoo by humans

If it had NOT been rejected by its mother then it would still have had a life in the zoo not the wild.

 

So what it really is an objection to is the whole Idea of zoos; domestication; etc.

 

The real reason is that if you agree with them then all cats must die too; aswell as some dogs, all horses, goats sheep cattle reindeer etc. So actually their logic is pure; reveled in glimpses from their leaders. Just that it is veiled.

[Chubby]

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2242217.html

 

Chubby

[Ravens8]

I think we are the confused ones.

 

Only confused by the fact that we "think we are something seperate from "the wild". We are not. human kind is just as much a wild species as every creature on the planet. Granted we are a very successfull species but our colonies, although numerous and in many cases overlapping are still subject to the same rules and forces that the planet throws at us as the rest of the animal kingdom.

 

Our sucess as a species is due only to our use of tools, and our adapatability, hence we are able to overcome and adapt to changes in our circumstances.

 

A termite colony is also an intricate and successfull conglomerate of social "rules" and structure. If a termite could think, perhaps it woud be thinking "We are pretty marvellous in our complexity. We are so different from the "wild" world out there"

 

Of course, we, being "out there" , know differently.

 

So, in essence, what you have is one wild species taking in the orphan of another species. An action that is not just unique to us. As Tos pointed out, it happens frequently amongst species. However in our case, I think an action such as this is a demonstration of our ability to be compassionate towards other creatures, a quality that goes towards making us human. - " There is a time to kill, a time to heal"

[Guest]

Well said Ravens. As you say, it is the AR movment that regards us as "above" nature. It is they who are the speciesist ones. Inter species fostering even in the wild is surprisingly common. Yes the fostered animals take on the attributes of the parent animal but it is entirely natural that happens.

The AR argument that the animal domestciated by humans is an abhorrent creature is bizarre. Cats become perpetual kitens because they are clever and it is a survival trick rehearsed over 10000 years .

 

Likewise, all young animals have saucer eyes because the mother of most species are programmed to respond to that ...instinctively and without conscious thought. No "aaaaawwww" factor.

And if a mother has lost her babay....as up t0 50% of animals in the wild do....they will adopt a diffrent species given the chance. As our social groups are more complex (extended family get roped in) then our caring instinct applies to the young of other species too.

 

 

And a delightful link Chubby thankyou.

 

I suppose that the AR activists want those tiger cubs put down too so that they do not become exploited and "porcanised" ?

 

China, despite all the anti rhetoric; have managed to breed 1000 Tigers in captivity this year; some of which will be released into the wild. This single effort has guaranteed the gene pool for the Tiger in the future.

 

Without zoos the Tiger would be a gonner.

 

All the billions of dollars of AR money and they have not done one thing positive like that..rather, they want zoos banned.

 

Also worth pointing out that thse people are again acting with the moral authority of....well who? They are saying that if it can't have a natural life it has no right to life? Who says? It is a supremacist statement. It is correct for humans to manage their resources with care; as our main resource for millions of years has been animals then it is correct we should care for them. Abdicating our responsibility to them is a strange notion to me . There is something warped about people who don't get that. Yes it is within our power to kill farmed animals or wild ones in hunting or an elderlt pet; but again the life of a human can equally be in a Tiger or Bear's hands. We are all animals; nothing more. We all use each other. Even the herbivores eat plants and then when they crap and die they feed the plants. Circle of life.

[Guest]

Don't confuse me with the facts

 

My mind is made up

 

uh ... what was I thinking

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFF

[Guest]

just look at the pwetty tiger cubs with the little piggies OFF in Chubby's link!

Says more than anything.

[silverfox57de]

Most of that story is a complete newspaper hoax by german Bild Zeitung (thats pendant of british Sun)

 

It was triggered by the personal statement of the Aachen Zoo director that it would be cruelty to animals to let the bear live

 

A positive aspect of that story is that the AR organizations are loosing any sympathy if they are associated with such statements.

Actualy most german AR groups are loosing much of peoples understanding.

 

We had no real winter this year in germany, but nevertheless I had really many fur sightings even in cities where fur tradionaly was not one of the best choices.

[Guest]

Yes we all know what newspapers are like but remember such ideas are central to PETA policy; they kill animals rather than try to rehome them.

As far as I can make out frank Albrecht is real and the Aachen zoo dirctor backed him.

 

The problem is a misunderstanding of animals.

 

Bears pace in zoos. So people think that confinement drives them mad. If they are taken from the wild there may be a point. However guess what? Bears pace in the wild too.

 

This bear, born into captivity, will not know the life of the wild and will not pine for freedom . That is a completly human concept. It will have a far nicer life than the starvation faced by polar bears currently due to climate change whatever is causing it.

 

Horses will sometimes fret if they are out of their stables for too long. An animals prime motivation is security; security of territory formost. NOT freedom. An animal that tries to escape is one who is curious or panicked. This bear will never know he is not living a normal bear life; in fact he will think he is the same as a human and will think nothing of it.

A duck which hatches in a stable will follow the horse because he thinks the horse is mother. So it happens in nature too.

 

It is called imprinting and while we should avoid it in animals which are to be rehomed into the wild, it would be cruel to put this particular bear into an environment it has no experience of. Just like the idiots who free mink.

There is no question of this bear suffring in any way.

 

So the paper was correct to bring this to the worlds attention.

[Guest]

Bears pace a lot because they are forever loosing their car keys.

 

Elephants don't pace because they have excellent memories and always know where they left their keys.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFF

[silverfox57de]

Ok that Frank Wagner is real. He is a 37 year old window fitter with only one wish in his life: He dreamt to read his name in a newspaper.

 

With Bild Zeitung he found some folks which make any midge an elephant without any inquest.

Cause his opinion was such ridiculous as can be the journalist simply faked it

Originally he said that the Berlin Bear has to be killed because another bear puppy at Leipzig zoo was killed too some month ago.

Btw that was a complety other precaution , that bear was simply too weak to survive more than a couple of days.

 

The Aachen zoo director was not as silly to back Albrechts opinion - his statement simply was twisted too.

 

AND Bild zeitung meanwhile sues Albrecht a liar.

 

All, at least the german, AR organizations have gone to be very retentive with that negotiations to rather kill animals than to rehome because they are aware that its not in common with public attitude.

 

How important all that bullsh... is to people you might recognize on the fact that after two days no newspaper or tv station wants to report any more about that sick opinions

[Guest]

Sadly PETA kill approx twelve thousand animals a year because they believe they are better off dead than being rehomed.

But they pale into significance next to the UK RSPCA who euthanise 100 000 animals a year.

 

All these sick f**** think the same.

 

It isn't just a nutter called Albrecht. In the UK I have already heard AR activists trying to defend that position; not to mention a few here.

 

If that polar bear was in my custody I would defend its right to live above a humans as it would be my responsibility.

 

And most of us would do the same for our pets, sheep, horses whatever.

 

And that is one of the reasons that the antis think like they do: because they object to some people owning animals; or placing their welfare above that of humans. It's a misunderstanding of the duties of responsibility especially to animals resulting from urban alienation from them: they call it "property" and in the tradition of the warped interpretation of Proudhon's writing all property is theft. I was once among these people and they have NO sympathy empathy or understanding of animals at all. I quickly realised they were the real animals abusers using them as political canon fodder to secure a power base for themselves and fame and notoriety just like your friend Albrecht. Except unlike him they have earned billions from it and have a powerful voice in the media as they use that money for advertising rather than welfare. Killing the bear or euthanising animals they pretend to rehome because they are better off dead than exploited is a way to abdicate their responsibility with idelogy so they can use it for power.

[Earendil]

It's an emulation of survival of the fittest. I agree with Tryxie here..

[Guest]

The young have big eyes because their survival depends on an instinctive response by mothers to them. This is cross species and enables survival and man is not exempt from that. See a horse lick a young rabbit whose mother has been trampled and you will see what I mean. See a young bird fallen out of its nest so the mother doesnt want it live on a horses back and you will see what I mean. These animals survive and that is natural.

 

If an animal instinctively suspects that its energy is wasted caring for that young thing they will kill it. If the polar bear cub had some genetic sickness or abhorration we would instinctively feel it should be put down to. It does not. The animal should live and that is why 97% of the public agree.

 

Your survival of the fittest ideas do not take into account natures back up plans and you have offered no rational argument or evidence to support it.

What is more is if it bcame your responsibility I would bet anything that you and Tryxie would not kill it. On the other hand I have had to destroy animals for humane reasons; as do the keepers at berlin zoo. Those of us whose job it is to rear animals don't do lost causes.

 

As a fotnote it is also worth remebering that many mothers reject their offspring NOT because they are gentically poor...if this was the case they would kill them instantly....but because they are sluts.

 

This happens with horses a lot for example. The mother rejects the foal because it inhibits her over sexual behaviour. We had one that killed two excellent foal and the third we gave to a foster mother that was a different species of equine. The horse has since won three races and is a superb example of survival of the fittest...yet needed that extra aid.

Likewise this polar bears mother may just want to mate again and not want the hassle of rearing a perfectly healthy cub. If it is no good it will still die btw.

[Guest]

Another of the Tigpigs in FUR COATS LOL!

 

 

http://users.static.freeblog.hu/b/e/c/becherpig/files/images/tigpig2.jpg

 

Actually the coats may not be faux I don't know. Presumably she may have lost cubs.

 

So to get a foster mother with a horse sometimes you have to skin the dead foal and put it on the other one to get mum to accept it.