Self-proclaimed animal rights activists want to kill a polar bear. Yes, you read me right. Activists who demand for animal rights are calling for the death of Knut, a polar bear recently born in the Berlin zoo but abandoned by his mother. The zoo staff have started to bottle-feed Knut, and this practice has raised the ire of the animal rights activists:

Animal rights activists argue that he should be given a lethal injection rather than brought up suffering the humiliation of being treated as a domestic pet.

“The zoo must kill the bear,” said spokesman Frank Albrecht. “Feeding by hand is not species-appropriate but a gross violation of animal protection laws.”

The zoo staff counters that polar bears are rare enough already, so why should they have to listen to vegans suffering from malnutrition anyway? OK, so that’s not exactly what they said, but the gist is there. And I think the California Condor would argue against Albrecht’s argument, too. But the idea of preserving species doesn’t really work for animal rights activists:

But Albrecht and other activists fret that it is inappropriate for a predator, known for its fierceness and ability to fend for itself in the wild, to be snuggled, bottle-fed and made into a commodity by zookeepers.

It’s more important to these animal rights activists that the animals be kept in a pristine natural state than kept alive. Death is preferable to snuggling.

“They cannot domesticate a wild animal,” added Ruediger Schmiedel, head of the Foundation for Bears.

I think Schmiedel means that people shouldn’t domesticate a wild animal. People are certainly capable of domesticating certain wild animals, as every domesticated animal will attest. But animal rights activists have a long laundry list of verboten practices when it comes to animals: domestication of animals, using animals as food, or using their fur, leather, milk, eggs or honey. Strangely enough, not on that list is the practice of euthanizing pets:

It is an unlikely locale for an unlikely criminal case. Today, two employees of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a radical animal-rights group that opposes meat-eating, are on trial for the strangest of charges: killing animals….

Now, two of its employees stand accused of tossing garbage bags full of euthanized cats and dogs into a Dumpster behind a Piggly Wiggly in Hertford County, 130 miles northeast of Raleigh.

Adria J. Hinkle and Andrew B. Cook, both of whom work in PETA’s Norfolk office, are charged with 21 counts each of animal cruelty, a felony that can carry prison time, along with littering and obtaining property by false pretenses.

Huh? What are animal rights activists like PETA doing euthanizing unwanted cats and dogs? How on earth can they justify this?

A PETA spokeswoman, Kathy Guillermo, said PETA never wanted to get into the business of euthanizing animals. But she said the group couldn’t ignore the horrible conditions in animal shelters around Norfolk and in northeastern North Carolina. The group now euthanizes thousands of animals a year.

“Euthanasia is a better alternative to sitting in a stinking pound,” Guillermo said. [emphasis mine - ed]

Really? How about using this logic to snuff out people with life sentences in prison? “Euthanasia is a better alternative to sitting in a stinking prison.” Has a certain ring to it. Or how about, “Euthanasia of a calf (and then eating the veal) is better than the alternative of standing in a stinking stall”?

Animal rights advocates are not standing up for animals; they seem quite comfortable killing animals. But it’s all for their own good. So that makes it all OK.

Yeah, right.

Leave a Reply