Sanctity of animal life? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ace_O_Spades · 02-23-2006, 06:40 PM

Now this is just sad...

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet...=1137834300457

Quote:

Maymont bears euthanized

BY JANET CAGGIANO
Times-Dispatch Staff Writer

Feb 23, 2006

What do you think?
Black bear at Maymont
Maymont officials had a closed-door meeting this morning and determined to euthanize the park's two black bears after one of the animals reportedly bit a child. (Sammye Newman)

Maymont's two black bears were euthanized today after a child was bitten by one of the bears Saturday.

Maymont spokeswoman Kate Brown said the bears were sedated and then given a lethal injection and will be tested for rabies.

Brown said there is no way to test for rabies in a live wild animal because brain tissue must be examined. Both bears were euthanized because it was not known which bear bit the child.

The child entered a restricted area and climbed a four-foot fence to reach the bears' two-acre habitat. The child apparently then put his or her hand through a 10-foot chain-link fence and was bitten.

Maymont officials do not know the identity, age or gender of the child, Brown said. However, they were informed in a closed-door meeting this morning that the skin on the child's right hand had been broken and the rabies test was necessary.

Maymont officials released a statement last night saying they had been informed on Tuesday by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries that a child had been bitten by one of the bears.

"We understand that the wound was not severe," the Maymont statement said.

Executive Director Geoffrey Platt Jr. and other Maymont representatives met with officials of the game department and the Virginia Department of Health "to assess the situation with respect to the child and animals involved."

The Maymont exhibit's two male black bears, ages 9 and 12, came to the park from the game department. The older bear was orphaned and given to the park as a cub. The other bear was classified as a "nuisance" bear and was relocated to the park when it was about 2.

In 1995, Maymont celebrated with Bear Family Day when the older bear was introduced to the public. Children brought their favorite stuffed bear for a Victorian Teddy Bears' Picnic and Parade.

See bold... I don't even know what else to add. Why do we feel the need to kill these bears who's only transgression was biting the hand of a kid who went through extraoirdinary measures like he was almost TRYING to get bitten.

IT'S A BEAR! What do you expect it to do when you shove your hand in its face?

Won't someone think of the bears!?!?!?

*Nikki* · 02-23-2006, 06:45 PM

I agree with you completely, odviously the parents of this child are the ones to blame here.

Once again the animals are the ones to suffer the consequences of human stupidity.

Carno · 02-23-2006, 06:47 PM

Yeah, that is pretty stupid..

What a bummer.

Psycho Dad · 02-23-2006, 06:48 PM

It is a shame that this came to the killing of the bears for being bears. I thought that there were ways these days to determine if an animal carried rabies without destroying the animal.

RAGEAngel9 · 02-23-2006, 06:48 PM

In cases like this, I, unfortunately, believe the animal must be put down for the good of public health and safety. On the other had, I believe the park (or preserve or whatever) should be able to sue the hell out of the family and they should ban them for life.

Since they use the word child, I'll assume the kid is pretty young, 11 or less. As such, the parents are retarded for not watching their kid and deserve the full wrath of the courts on them, for both child negligence and tresspassing and whatever else that can be applied.

Carno · 02-23-2006, 06:55 PM

The good of the public health and safety? They are in a freakin cage. It's not like they are roaming the streets biting people.

Trisk · 02-23-2006, 09:07 PM

Agreed.
Bears are big carnivorous animals that eat soft fleshy things resembling humans. Just because we're human beings, the bears should just know better? They have to be diseased to bite something pink and fleshy in their territory?
These bears were kept at a distance from areas where humans normally were, and I assume there were signs if it was a restricted area. They don't put signs and fences up because they expect the bears to bat their eyes at the human beings in the park.
All it would have taken is a tad of parental responsibility and common sense to avoid this.
It's really a shame that animals are killed for being animals in the face of human stupidity.

Also...every time a domesticated dog bites a small child, the animal is NOT put to sleep. From the sound of it, this wild animal did no more damage than someone's pet dog would do. I don't really understand the logic here.
"Trained" dog bites someone - it is scolded and brought home.
Wild bear bites someone - it is killed, because bears definately should know better?

Tamerlain · 02-23-2006, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Brown said there is no way to test for rabies in a live wild animal because brain tissue must be examined.

As far as I know (and confirmed by Wikipedia) rabies is present in saliva. Rabies is transmitted most commonly through bites, which is why rabid animals are "abnormally aggressive" -- the virus makes them aggressive so they bite and spread the disease. It would stand to reason then that they could tranquilize the bears and test them.

Also, the child would get a rabies vaccine regardless of whether or not one of the bears was rabid. I got one when my friend's dog bit me even though the dog was vaccinated and I had been inoculated as a child.

EDIT: Or, at the expense of the parents, tranquilize the bears and withdraw a piece of their brain with a needle. If it can be done on humans, it can be done on bears. Sure, it may be expensive, but the parents can foot the bill. Afterall, it was their stupidity in not watching their child that led to this mess. This may just be me being angry at the situation though.

-Tamerlain

cyrnel · 02-23-2006, 10:19 PM

For the greater good?

1) Maymont has to protect attendance to continue funding their work.
2) Who won't blame the parents (and the faceless bureaucrats)?

Not that _these_ bears were trivial, but Black Bears aren't an endangered species so this works to educate the masses for the benfit of all.

Just trying to see the good side in this. They should have put the parents in the bear cage and tested the brains of the losers.

Ace_O_Spades · 02-23-2006, 10:38 PM

just because something isn't endangered doesn't mean it is automatically on the block for killing... or am I misguided in assuming that?

Is it REALLY our place to exploit absolutley everything on this planet slowly but surely?

cyrnel · 02-23-2006, 10:47 PM

Agreed. Please take that rationalization in the context of the rest.

It sucks, but the negative reaction to killing the bears may do more good than would negative PR from fining the parents. Maybe. Then again, is it Texas that has the idiot tax? I could see it being applied in this case.

02-23-2006, 06:47 PM	#3 (permalink)
Carno Junkie	Yeah, that is pretty stupid.. What a bummer. __________________ http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

02-23-2006, 06:48 PM	#4 (permalink)
Psycho Dad Mulletproof Location: Some nucking fut house.	It is a shame that this came to the killing of the bears for being bears. I thought that there were ways these days to determine if an animal carried rabies without destroying the animal. __________________ Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

02-23-2006, 06:55 PM	#6 (permalink)
Carno Junkie	The good of the public health and safety? They are in a freakin cage. It's not like they are roaming the streets biting people. __________________ http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

02-23-2006, 10:19 PM	#9 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	For the greater good? 1) Maymont has to protect attendance to continue funding their work. 2) Who won't blame the parents (and the faceless bureaucrats)? Not that _these_ bears were trivial, but Black Bears aren't an endangered species so this works to educate the masses for the benfit of all. Just trying to see the good side in this. They should have put the parents in the bear cage and tested the brains of the losers. __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

02-23-2006, 10:38 PM	#10 (permalink)
Ace_O_Spades The Death Card Location: EH!?!?	just because something isn't endangered doesn't mean it is automatically on the block for killing... or am I misguided in assuming that? Is it REALLY our place to exploit absolutley everything on this planet slowly but surely? __________________ Feh.

02-23-2006, 06:45 PM	#2 (permalink)
Nikki ~~~~~~~ Location: Charleston, SC	I agree with you completely, odviously the parents of this child are the ones to blame here. Once again the animals are the ones to suffer the consequences of human stupidity.

02-23-2006, 06:48 PM	#5 (permalink)
RAGEAngel9 Insane Location: Vermont	In cases like this, I, unfortunately, believe the animal must be put down for the good of public health and safety. On the other had, I believe the park (or preserve or whatever) should be able to sue the hell out of the family and they should ban them for life. Since they use the word child, I'll assume the kid is pretty young, 11 or less. As such, the parents are retarded for not watching their kid and deserve the full wrath of the courts on them, for both child negligence and tresspassing and whatever else that can be applied.

02-23-2006, 09:07 PM	#7 (permalink)
Trisk Insane	Agreed. Bears are big carnivorous animals that eat soft fleshy things resembling humans. Just because we're human beings, the bears should just know better? They have to be diseased to bite something pink and fleshy in their territory? These bears were kept at a distance from areas where humans normally were, and I assume there were signs if it was a restricted area. They don't put signs and fences up because they expect the bears to bat their eyes at the human beings in the park. All it would have taken is a tad of parental responsibility and common sense to avoid this. It's really a shame that animals are killed for being animals in the face of human stupidity. Also...every time a domesticated dog bites a small child, the animal is NOT put to sleep. From the sound of it, this wild animal did no more damage than someone's pet dog would do. I don't really understand the logic here. "Trained" dog bites someone - it is scolded and brought home. Wild bear bites someone - it is killed, because bears definately should know better?

02-23-2006, 10:47 PM	#11 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	Agreed. Please take that rationalization in the context of the rest. It sucks, but the negative reaction to killing the bears may do more good than would negative PR from fining the parents. Maybe. Then again, is it Texas that has the idiot tax? I could see it being applied in this case. __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195