Crazy German Animal Rights Activists
Knut is a three-month old polar bear cub at a zoo in Berlin. His mother rejected him and he has been raised by hand by a zookeeper. (See Der Spiegel for more, including a photo gallery.)
He is extraordinarily popular. And yet some want him dead. Who?
Various animal rights activists who think that “[r]aising him by hand is not appropriate to the species but rather a blatant violation of animal welfare laws,” to quote one of them. The director of another German zoo, in Aachen, even argued that it isn’t “appropriate for the species that the little polar bear is being raised on a bottle”.
Huh? What?
I know, that was my reaction, too. Apparently this is rather common practice: killing baby zoo animals who for whatever reason cannot fend for themselves.
But come on. How insane is that?
Surely the humane treatment of one member of a species doesn’t enganger the entire species. And surely there is some other solution to the “problem” than animal infanticide. Surely it should be in the realm of “animal welfare laws” for humans to take care of animals who have been rejected by their mothers or who otherwise find themselves alone. Surely an animal like Knut is precisely what the animal rights movement needs to attract widepread public attention to the welfare of animals.
And given all the animal abuse out there in the world, all the real abuse that should concern animal rights activists, why focus on poor Knut?
Let him live. Celebrate him. And do your part in safeguarding the welfare of animals.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
24 Responses to “Crazy German Animal Rights Activists”
Knut is so cute! I don’t think most animal activists would be so heartless as to put an end to this little fluffy one! There’s video all over the net showing him swimming in a little pool and playing with a soccer ball. What a sweet little baby.
The German one involved in your post must have a screw loose. If he is worried about polar bears in the wild, he should campaign for legislation to slow global warming, which is destroying the habitat for penguins, seals and polar bears. Sadly, saving them in zoos may soon be all we can do to avoid extinction. Knut should become the mascot for the species.
‘Michael I agree with you.
As for Germans… you know… they have a long history of not caring very much about life.
MvdG- as someone of German heritage, I assure you that a blanket statement like that is not true of all Germans.
kritter: i’m sure there are exceptions.
also – it was a joke
ha ha. Sorry I did not get your humor. Next time you could put a smiley tag on it and I won’t take offense.
I did this ‘;)’
Oh . I thought the symbol was
my mistake 
Michael, if you’re talking about animals born in captivity, I’d agree that humans should take care of them in whatever way is possible (though I wouldn’t go so far as to legislate this: it should simply be promoted as good zoo policy.) But the way you wrote that sentence gave me concern that you might also be calling for laws to protect wild animals in that way? If that’s not what you meant then I’m sorry for overinterpreting, but if you meant it that way then I’m afraid I think that would be- insane. Preventing cruelty to animals at the hands of humans is a noble cause but we have to be careful not to go so far as to say that humans must always try to reverse the cruelty that nature sometimes inflicts on animals (and don’t get me wrong, when an opportunity presents to do so, I’m there: I’ve fostered many a baby bird, etc…but people shouldn’t be forced to do so and it would be an impossible task to try.)
CS If an manevolent act to a wild animal resulted in a similar situation like the polar bear cub in the wild, whats is wrong with saving a cub and sending to a zoo. But we cannot go stomping through the ‘wilds’ l;ooking for neglected infant animals. Animals die and are eaten all the time, thats nature; but when sadistic humans interfer, then some human intervention is warrented.
I agree with you in principle, but see nothing wrong with taking extraordinary steps if survival of a species is at stake.
Kim,
Zoos take extraordinary measures all the time to help species that are endangered.
Rudi,
There would be nothing wrong with sending an animal injured by humans to a zoo, but would you (a libertarian, no less) want to legislate over this?
No I wouldn’t, and if the Berlin polar bear doesn’t assimilate with other bears I would favor killing the bear. It is like the Humane Socity shows on Animal Planet. If rescued dogs don’t pass health and socialization tests thet are put down. I hope this doesn’t start a rash of tree hungers rushing up to the Artic to save polar bear cubs. The adult bears will fatten themselves on the PETA crowd. Some wingnuts would welcome this, however bears who acquire a taste for PETA nuts are a danger to all political persuassions.
Exactly, Rudi (LOL about the bears snacking on PETA nuts).
This reminds me of another twisted tale, the Grizzly Man. I watched the documentary about him recently and found myself in agreement with his critics who felt that he was doing more harm than good to the grizzly bear population. By breaking down barriers between man and wild animals, the animals actually suffer because they might lose their fear of man and of course if you know how the story of the Grizzly Man ends, humans can meet their demise through this intermingling. We shouldn’t try to anthropomorphize wild animals or to glorify them, just treat them humanely and with a healthy respect.
CS The only harm to the Grizzly man was being eaten by his subjects. I just found him a lot naive, but well intentioned. He was better off eaten than dieing from a drug overdose. No cute names or Hallmark cards. At least he didn’t hunt pheasant in a barrel with Cheney.
What a terrible statement to make, Michael? Even in jest…
“This reminds me of another twisted tale, the Grizzly Man. I watched the documentary about him recently and found myself in agreement with his critics who felt that he was doing more harm than good to the grizzly bear population. By breaking down barriers between man and wild animals, the animals actually suffer because they might lose their fear of man and of course if you know how the story of the Grizzly Man ends, humans can meet their demise through this intermingling. We shouldn’t try to anthropomorphize wild animals or to glorify them, just treat them humanely and with a healthy respect.”
You have no idea what you are blathering about.
I can’t not seriously believe that a group that is devoted to Animal Rights would want to deny Knut the right to live. Lets not for get that he is after all is said and done still a wild animal. Regardless of how tame he may seem, he is still that above all else, and should be treated as such. I see nothing wrong with the ZOO bottle feeding the little fellow for the time being as they live on mothers milk in the wild for alot longer than that, however as soon as he can be weaned off of milk and begins eating meat his animal instinicts will take over. I don’t believe that the Animal Rights Group has a single thing to worry about, as Knut will grow into a beautiful full grown Polar Bear one day that would eat one of them the first chance he gets. Pay backs are a bitch aren’t they!
All creatures including animals and humans are created with a natural drive to survive, by any and all means available.
This situation with little “Knut” might be called survival by alternative means — which is perfectly natural.
Surviving and thriving includes being raised by another Mom of the same or different species if necessary.
In the not-too-distant past a mother lion adopted a baby gazelle, nursed and groomed it lovingly and then had to protect it from other lions who wanted to kill it.
Mother dogs frequently adopt baby kittens and other species babies, like foxes, squirrels and raccoons, as do mother cats adopt puppies, rabbits, squirrels etc.
And there have actually been recorded cases of feral human children who were abandoned or lost and either survived on their own or were assisted by animals.
In fact Romulus and Remus were supposedly abandoned on a cliff to die and a she-wolf adopted and nursed them.
And humans are a protective, nurturing species to a pretty wide degree.
This human alternative Mom is raising the cub and there is no excuse for killing a thriving creature for some skewed devotion to a supposed “natural law” that is not, in fact, a true “law” of Nature.
I hope reason and decency prevail and little Knut is spared and lives a good bear’s age.
This supposedly “AR activist” has no idea. Asylum seekers are not living too comfortably in detention centres, but would he suggest that we kill them all? I think not. So how can he suggest something similar in the case of non-human animals without being speciesist?
“If a polar bear mother rejected the baby, then I believe the zoo must follow the instincts of nature,” Albrecht said. “In the wild, it would have been left to die.”
Interesting. So I suppose this bright “AR activist” would also leave abandoned human babies to die as well? Wouldn’t they also die “in the wild”? Once again…speciesist.
Just to point out – Knut has been reprieved. The Berlin Zoo would never have gone along with this.
I suspect the people who ‘demanded’ this are the dyed in the wool Zoo haters. Those who think zoos and not simply bottle fed bundles of fluff are a problem.
It’s like Holocaust denial. You make a statement that ‘might’ sound sort of normal, then push your ‘real’ agenda.
Of course things look a little different if you are an abused Muslim mother filing for an expidited divorce in a German courtroom.
*sigh*
Just to point out that true animal rights activists would never demand that any non-human animal be killed unless he is suffering from an incurable illness which causes severe pain (read my other comment above).
For all we know, this idiot who suggested that the bear be killed could have been invented to create a “media hype”. In any case, what I’m sure of is that this self-styled “animal rights activist” is a fake.
I oppose zoos (unless the “zoos” are sanctuaries), but I would never suggest that animals kept at zoos be killed. Neither would any other real animal rights campaigner.
So please, don’t judge a whole movement on the actions of one individual who is not part of it. Would anyone claim that “human rights activists murder children” if someone falsely claiming that he is a human rights activist demands that a child be killed? I think not.
Animal rights campaigners don’t murder animals.
LOL, OK, Roger, well, perhaps you could tell me what aspect of my statement merited that response?
There are documented cases of humans adopting orphaned wild animals, raising them and releasing them successfully back into the wild. They usually make an effort to break away emotionally from the animal and introduce it to its own kind before the release. I can’t see the harm. ( I admit my source for this is Animal Planet,lol!)
Anybody check this Frank Albrecht chap’s age? Born in the late twenties or early thirties? Member of the Hitler Youth perhaps? Such a clinical disregard for life suggests an affinity for certain previous forms of German social conscious.