Until recently, I believed that animal rights activists existed for the purpose of ensuring the welfare of animals. But a story in the news this past week proved this concept to be incorrect. An animal rights activist named Frank Albrecht said last week that a 3-month-old polar bear cub raised by German zookeepers should be killed because the zookeepers interfered with nature.
In December, the cub named Knut was born to a mother who chose to ignore him. Rather than let the bear die, zoo officials decided to raise it themselves. One would think this would be a pleasing action to animal lovers.
But it is not so. Albrecht was not the only animal rights activist to speak out against the zoo’s decision. Several other animal rights groups spoke out against the zoo’s choice, calling its current treatment of the bear “inhumane.”
I’m sorry, but all of this seems a little bit ridiculous to me. Is it now considered inhumane to save an animal’s life when it’s facing death? And animal rights people are the ones promoting this idea? I’m perplexed.
Albrecht’s reasoning is that the zoo interfered with nature by giving the cub a chance to survive. In an article on CNN.com, he stated: “If a polar bear mother rejected the baby, then I believe the zoo must follow the instincts of nature. In the wild, it would have been left to die.”
Again, this confuses me. This bear was not born in the wild – it was born in the Berlin Zoo. Already, the so-called instincts of nature are somewhat lessened.
Zookeepers are responsible for taking care of the animals within the zoo. If they had the ability to save this cub’s life, then it would have been inhumane of them to let it die. It’s not as though they are disrupting a delicate natural balance within the parameters of the zoo. All the factors are under their control.
Some activist groups say the zookeepers are interfering with the cub’s ability to one day interact with other polar bears. Again, if the cub is being raised in a zoo by people who are quite knowledgeable about animals, isn’t it safe to assume that these people will do their best to ensure that this cub is able to grow into a healthy and able polar bear adult?
Andre Schuele, the veterinarian at the Berlin Zoo, brought up several viable reasons for the zoo’s care of baby Knut. First, he stated that polar bears often live alone in the wild; therefore, Knut’s natural instincts are not being opposed in that respect. Also, Schuele said polar bears are threatened by extinction, so it makes sense for the zoo to care for Knut, thereby prolonging the species.
Many people support the zoo’s decision to raise the cub and believe that it would be wrong to kill Knut, especially now that the cub is 3 months old. Even Albrecht admitted later to The Associated Press that it would be wrong to kill the cub now that it can live on its own.
This contradicts an earlier quote of his that was published in Bild, a popular daily newspaper in Europe: “The zoo must kill the bear.” Perhaps upon reflection, Albrecht realized the nonsensical nature of his own statements.
I find it laughable that this controversy was even considered newsworthy. Animal rights activists trying to get an animal killed for no compelling reason? To me, it seems this is the very activity that these groups would normally oppose.
To me, there is no controversy here, merely some attention-hungry activists who want to stir something up, exposing their own ineptitude in their quest to make a scene.