Why should a humans life be worth more than the lives of 2 innocent bears?

[mtnsnake]

Who says a human's life is always worth more than other forms of life? Us humans?

What gives humans the right to decide whose life is worthless and whose life isn't?

At the very least, they should've let the kid take his chances on getting rabies, which BTW were very remote that he would've even contracted the disease (and tough luck if he did). If the only way they could determine that the bears might've had rabies was by killing them, then they should've let the bears live and waited to see if the kid started foaming at the mouth and let nature take its rightful course. Killing bears in an incident like this should never again be an option in the future.

In a case like this, where so-called higher forms of life should fucking know better, I'll pick the lives of 2 bears, any day of the week and twice on Sunday, over the life of some brat kid who created the entire mess to begin with.

Poor animals

(edited to add links to the original DU thread on this bear story and to the article posted within that link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x508357

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137834300457)

[fleabert]

1. link? story? nt...

[mtnsnake]

5. I just added the links to the OP

with an edit

[dcfirefighter]

2. You then, are antisocial.

Sorry, I sympathize with your empathy, but in the end, I choose humanity, no questions.

[mtnsnake]

7. haha, since that's coming from a higher form of life I guess

I better be real upset about being "antisocial" :eyes:

LOL

[dcfirefighter]

35. I grew up with Maymont, and was born at the hosp. the boy was sent to

Given the set of facts (now) presented in the case, I still would euthanize the bears in order to test them for rabies. 4 year olds are not responsible for their actions. Bear's lives aren't precious to me, and I make no apologies for it. It's a regrettable shame.

[stepnw1f]

45. good catch (nt)

[FlaGranny]

3. Yes, indeed,

the kid deserved to die. We should do away with those brats. Those kids always act just like kids. Who needs foolish, bratty kids.

By the way, I do not think the bears should have been killed either.

Edit: Sometimes you have to wonder if some people remember ever being a kid once upon a time. I have yet to meet a person who was ever a kid who did not do something stupid as a kid.

[mtnsnake]

10. C'mon, I'm not saying we should do away with "bratty kids"

Just asking the question why is it that animals are always the ones to pay the price at the expense of man's mistakes? And who says animals lives are worth less than humans? Just wondering about that...

[Scout]

21. I was a kid and never did anything as stupid as climbing over

a four-foot fence at a zoo to go and put my hand through a chain link fence to try to pet the bears.

Where were this kid's parents while he was doing this? It is THEIR fault the bears are now dead.

And yes, part of me thinks who needs another stupid bratty kid in the world? No, he shouldn't be executed for being a child, or for being stupid, or for being bratty, but I'm damn sick and tired, too, of animals ALWAYS being the ones to suffer because of the stupidity and callousness of humans.

We are not a "higher" life form, just a different one.

[mtnsnake]

31. Your post reflects the way I feel about it, too

Well said, Scout

[FlaGranny]

33. Yes, but did you drive

your car too fast? Did you ever experiment with drugs? Did you ever go somewhere that would have scared your parents to death? I know I certainly did some things like that and I was a "good" kid who never got into trouble.

I agree, in a kid of this age, it was the parents' fault. In Miami some years ago a small chld climbed on top of a barrier and fell into the jaws of an alligator and was killed. I don't know what some parents are thinking (probably NOT thinking at all).

I can't blame kids for being kids, though. They don't have the experience and common sense. One of my own boys was the type of kid who had no fear of anything. Had to watch him like a hawk and he still was a daredevil - even at the age of 2 or 3. Thankfully, his worst injury was a broken collar bone he got from trying to fly off an armchair in the living room.

[HereSince1628]

4. Traditionally, "wild" animals are killed so their brains can be examined

for signs of rabies.

It isn't fair, but it is likely that municipal or state laws require the destruction of the animals.

[FlaGranny]

6. My son was once bitten by a

domestic "barn" cat. The cat wasn't killed. It was confined and observed. If symptoms develop in the animal, the incubation of the disease is long enough that there is time to treat the victim.

Edit: A zoo animal, already confined, can be observed. It's not going anywhere.

[HereSince1628]

20. When I was in public health in the mid-90's, the crux of the problem

was existing law. That a "wild" animal was in captivity had virtually nothing to do with it.

True, a feral cat or dog COULD have rabies and might even be more likely to have contracted rabies than an animal on display, but the law protects "domestic" species and if the owner objects to their destruction allows those critters to be confined and observed.

Pet wolves and wolf-dog crosses were very controversial when I worked in public health; they were treated as "wild" under the law at that time. I can remember the State Public Health Vet and the State's Chief Public Health Physician struggling with the legal issues trying to figure out how to save a wolf-dog hybrid that bit a kid. At that time the issue was that no one had tested the canine rabies vaccine to see if it was effective on wolves. The wolf-dog in question had had a rabies shot, but no one had scientific evidence to suggest the vaccine was effective in that "species." In the end of that particular case, I believe the wolf-dog was destroyed.

[FlaGranny]

30. That's just bad policy.

No animal, wild or domestic, should be destroyed if they can be observed for symptoms. There's plenty of time, if they develop symptoms, to give the shots.

My son, a teenager at the time he was bitten, requested the cat not be killed and the animal showed no symptoms of being sick. He loves animals and was willing to wait. The cat remained healthy, he did not get the injections, and the cat was returned to the barn.

[HereSince1628]

48. It wasn't just policy, it was worse, it was the law.

There was really very very little room for any kind of discretion.

I don't know if after nearly 10 years the law in Wisconsin has changed or not.

I am reasonably sure that similar laws were widespread in the United States, and I suspect that many of them are still on the books. I remember a year or two ago there were problems in New York City with keeping ferrets as pets, because either the city, county or state public health/animal control laws/ordinances didn't recognize ferrets as a domestic animal.

Anyone who is involved with government knows that laws simply have trouble keeping pace with changes.

[mtnsnake]

8. Yeah, I know that. My question is who gives us the right to determine

who's more important than who?

[HereSince1628]

22. Humans have the power, hence we claim the right. or Biblically

if you wish, God gave man the right to name the animals and to have dominion over them. The "right" to claim that control is deeply engrained in Western society.

[mtnsnake]

25. Good post n/t

[The Stranger]

43. Biblically . . . hmm. What a great reason to re-think this whole thing.

What do you say we re-write the rules every thousand years or so?

[sandnsea]

70. We give us the right

Just like the bears gave themselves the right to chew the little boy to bits. It's called the food chain. We're part of it and have as much right for our species to survive as wild animals have to survive. That's what gives us the right. I guarantee you that wild animals wouldn't stop killing a particular species if it was going into extinction.

[mtnsnake]

73. If that's the case, then

give the bears equal opportunity and put the boy's parents in the pen with them...unarmed.

BTW, where do you get that "the bears gave themselves the right to chew the little boy to bits"? Last I heard, the kid was doing just fine.

[sandnsea]

76. Why?

So the bears could prove they do what bears do, maul people when threatened? That's what bears do. When people are threatened, as with rabies, we do what we do. Kill the wild animal and test for rabies. Part of the cycle of natural life.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. We are only "higher forms of life" because we say we are.

As a species we've only been around for the equivalent of a blink compared to most of the "lesser forms of life" who'll be around to munch our remains.

[mtnsnake]

11. Exactly!

"because we say we are"

[Mutley]

12. I don't think "tough luck for the brat" is the way to go either.

You oppose valuing human lives over other lives, but you're valuing those other lives over human lives. Why can't both be precious and worth saving?

[Ladyhawk]

13. 3rd way: I was bitten by a wild animal and chose to get the shots.

They are not as painful as they used to be. In fact, there was very little pain involved. It would probably hurt a child more, though, because they have to pump your arm full of globulin. My guess is they'd use a child's butt cheek.

As an aside, the incident with the wild animal was entirely my fault. The animal most likely did not have rabies, but this you should know: Rabies is 100% fatal. Once you develop the symptoms you can kiss your life goodbye. Contrary to popular knowledge, the virus can lay dormant for years before the onset of symptoms. That means I would have wondered for years whether or not every little ache and pain was the onset of rabies. That's no way to live.

In my way of thinking, a child's life is still worth more than the lives of two bears, BUT the lives of two bears are worth a little pain and discomfort to a child. The pain and discomfort will pass, but you can't resurrect the dead.

My 2 cents. :shrug:

If it were my child, I would hold and comfort during the necessary shots.

[Mutley]

15. If it were my child, he wouldn't have been anywhere near the bears in

the first place.

[Ladyhawk]

19. Good point. I didn't read the story (my bad), but my first thought

was that the treatment for being bitten by a rabid animal isn't that bad these days. I took a stupid chance--I was younger and stupider--but would never let a child get close to a wild animal. I should read the story, but it makes me angry that just giving the kid the shots wasn't even considered.

The kid may have cried a little, but that's all. It's not that bad. :shrug: (I didn't cry...hehe. Seriously, it wasn't that big a deal. :shrug:)

[Mutley]

23. Oh I agree that they should have given the kid the shots.

I think the kid is about 4 or 5, he probably wouldn't even remember getting the shot a few years from now. I'm sure there was pressure from the same parent who allowed the kid to approach the bear cage in the first place to put the bears down.

I got allergy shots for 12 years of my childhood, so I know shots aren't that big of a deal to kids. It hurts for a few minutes, give 'em a lollipop, they forget about it five minutes later.

[Ladyhawk]

29. Amen to that.

I don't think I want to read this story. It sounds like stupidity of the highest order.

[Mutley]

41. It is. It really is.

[Nikia]

44. I don't know why the child wasn't given shots either

That would have saved everyone involved. The bears were not vicious. If they were, the child's hand would have been gone. The zoo might have wanted to put a better barrier up, but that should have protected the public even if the bears might have been rabid. The fact that one of them bit a child sticking his hand through the fence, perhaps with food, doesn't mean that a bear is likely to be rabid.
I don't know how quickly bears develop rabies. Dogs are usually safe to hold for observation, without the vicitm getting shots, because they usually develop rabies much faster than humans. I don't know if they same is true for bears though.
Regardless, the child should have gotten shots and the bears should have been allowed to live, perhaps with a better fence.

[Ladyhawk]

49. Absolutely. I don't get it. Why kill the bears????

Some animals, including humans, can harbor the virus for years without getting sick from it. Once symptoms are present, death is inevitable. There are only a few exceptions on record of people surviving rabies and in each case, there was history of a prior vaccination. At least, that's the way I remember it from my own research when I was bitten by a wild raccoon (which was totally my fault).

As I said before, today's treatments do not require the painful abdominal injections. The shots are no big deal.

Like you said, the kid should have undergone the shots and bears should have received better housing. I don't get it. :wtf:

[TheFarseer]

14. I don't understand why the bears had to die

because they MIGHT have rabies? I hope that is not the reason because that is so dumb. They said bears are very low risk for rabies and can't they just keep them in lock down until they are sure one way or another?. The kid was probably poking them with a stick or throwing rocks at them. Little bastard.

[Ladyhawk]

16. LIke I said: Give the child the necessary shots and everyone

is happy. The shots don't hurt nearly as much as they used to, no more than, say, a tetanus shot. I don't understand why no one is talking about choice number three when it leads to a happy ending for everyone involved. Sheesh!

[Mutley]

17. Read the article.

"The child may have been eating an apple or had apple on his hands," said Julia Dixon, spokeswoman for Game and Inland Fisheries. The child put his hand through the fence and was bitten.

[mtnsnake]

18. They said the only way to test them was if they were dead n/t

[HereSince1628]

32. That is because central nervous system tissue must be examined.

Typically, the suspect animal is killed, decapitated, the head is placed on ice and rushed to a state laboratory of hygiene for the high priority gross examination and tissue work up. Sad but true.

Society's concern is understandable, there is virtually a 100% mortality rate with rabies. Only ONE person in _history_ (a girl from Wisconsin) is known to have been infected with rabies then had the disease manifest its presence and go on to survive. She survived with some damage to the nervous system.

[Realityhack]

24. Because thats the way nature works.

One animal dies for another to live.

Do you cry for the animals a tiger kills. Contrary to some peoples beleif they are sometimes just for sport and not eaten.

We do a lot to protect animal life. Perhapse not enough but a lot. There are a lot of laws protecting bears. But sometimes we run into a situation where they are killed to protect our own.

We see ourselves as supirior for the same reason a Bear does not think twice about killing a salmon, or a human for that matter. Except we DO think twice about killing animals and often avoid it.

If you are going to cry over every animal death you are going to have a LOT to cry over.

[mtnsnake]

27. Very good post

That is definitely food for thought, and thanks for sharing your view on this. Your view is a good one, IMO.

[LeftyMom]

34. As human beings with the capacity for reason we have the option of mercy

A bear snatches salmon from a stream and eats them because he is an instinctual being and that's all he knows to do. As human beings we have the capacity for reason that allows us to make gentler choices about treatment of our animal brethren- it's sad that that capacity for gentle treatment and mercy was not put to use in this case.

[FormerDittoHead]

74. No! We should let the 4 year old die to save the lives of the bears!

:sarcasm:

...but that is what was suggested, eh?

[uppityperson]

26. How about making a kid-proof fence instead?

How about sending the bears somewhere where they would not be able to have kids get to them? Edited to say this is stupid. My first reading left me with the impression the child died. It just got bit? THIS IS WHAT ANIMALS DO! I wonder if they would've killed a horse if it bit the child?

[stray cat]

28. A bear would kill me if I threatened her cubs

I guarantee I would also try to kill a bear who threatened a child. No relationship to the case in point. However, I will choose a child's life over a bears in a crisis. I also believe saving a childs life with antibiotics even if it means killing bacteria (another legitimate form of life).

[DenaliDemocrat]

36. We are the highest in the food chain....

and please don't give me that "well we should our teeth and claws" nonsense. We are animals just like others. We have evolved a supeior brain, which has moved us to the top. Sure, we lose iwth a lion or a bear every now and then, but most times we win. We use our brain, we use tools, we are top predator.
It is all veru nature oriented. The top predaotr decides who lives and who dies, just like the lion in Africa that kills the hyena because it can. Noting more, mothing less.

[mtnsnake]

38. Yes, that's the way we look at it, obviously, but

animal instincts don't have anything to do with deciding who dies at the others' expense. For the very reason you mentioned, "We have evolved a superior brain", we ought to know that just because we're the "top" predators on the planet, it doesn't give us the right to do what we do to animals or the natural environment.

[sproutster]

37. Because they tasted human flesh.

Jeeze, I am a huge proponant for bears - I have land where bears roam free, I have turned in poachers - BUT YOU DO NOT WANT BEARS AROUND WHO HAVE TASTED HUMAN FLESH. Period, end of story. It's tragic, but kids are kids are kids. Hell I got kicked out of a zoo for growling at the bears and causing them to charge the barrier. I don't think I deserved the death penalty.

I think the bear threads are a joke.

[mtnsnake]

39. You might think "the bear threads are a joke", but what's a joke is your

subject title, "Because they tasted human flesh" and your line, "BUT YOU DO NOT WANT BEARS AROUND WHO HAVE TASTED HUMAN FLESH."

What? The bear who bit the kid's hand is going to run around eating all kinds of humans now that it's got the taste of human blood on its tongue?
LOL

[ret5hd]

50. mmmmm...humans...

[mtnsnake]

55. LOL!

[leftofthedial]

40. because humans have guns

yeah! and the same goes for plants

what give us the right to murder broccoli just so we can survive?

I'm not a fan of killing bears, but with all due respect, you picked the wrong example.

and how do you know the bears were "innocent"? they might have killed bambi.

[The Stranger]

42. Kicked and recommended.

[htuttle]

46. My God, don't you watch the Threat Down? Bears are Threat #1!

They're after our children!

You're either with us, or with the Bears.



You're on notice, buddy!

[Neil Lisst]

47. Indeed! I've done my part, too.

Here

[annabanana]

53. really... next stop:

Dead to Me

[dorkulon]

64. I was wondering when someone would post a Colbert joke.

...About damn time.

[rpgamerd00d]

51. While I disagree with what they did to these bears, Humans > Animals

Human lives are always worth more than an animals.

Period.

Thinking otherwise is pure ridiculousness.

[mtnsnake]

56. "Human lives are always worth more than an animals"? Why is that?

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but if "thinking otherwise is pure ridiculousness", then please explain why humans have more of a right to the earth than a human does.

I'm not saying we shouldn't give up "our" right to be masters of the earth, but tell me why it's ridiculous to think animals might have just as much right to a life as we do?

[rpgamerd00d]

59. Animals are a lower life form, they are not as valuable as a Human

An animal cannot create life-saving medicines.
An animal cannot become a doctor and save lives.
An animal cannot become a poet and enlighten people.
An animal cannot become a comedian and give people laughter and happiness.
An animal cannot teach children the wonders of of the world.

I could go on and on and on.

But quite simply, Humans are always worth more an animals, and it boggles my mind how anyone could possibly think otherwise.

[mtnsnake]

60. Thanks for your reply, but you forgot to add in your list that

an animal doesn't OFTEN kill it's own kind for reasons of greed...or over differences of religion.

Yeah, we humans are sure a higher life form than animals. Maybe we shouldn't be.

(edit for grammar)

[rpgamerd00d]

62. We aspire to live up to our "higher lifeform" status, and often fail

Failure to be peaceful lifeforms is a flaw we possess.
That flaw doesn't negate the rest, however.

[dorkulon]

52. What, you never ate a steak?

How dare you contribute to the murders of such noble creatures as cows and pigs, just for your culinary satisfaction?

Monster.

[mtnsnake]

54. plants either. I only eat

posters. :smoke:

[dorkulon]

57. Careful then, you may get

Mad Troll disease. :puke:

[mtnsnake]

68. or worse yet,

rabies.

[SmokingJacket]

58. I don't think this has anything to do with a life for a life...

it's about liability, which sucks. They had to kill the bears in order to show the litigious public they're dealing with the problem. Do bears even get rabies? You'd think they'd be vaccinated, if so.

And it sucks that the parents let the kid climb the fence. There probably should be better staffing at the zoo -- probably a keeper assigned to each exhibit to keep an eye on stuff like that. Why do they even let bears get close to the public?

(And the kid was four -- if he didn't know any better, it's 100% the parents' fault.)

[Paladin]

65. Any Warm-Blooded Animal Can Contact and Spread Rabies

I'd say the possibility of a bear in a contained situation having rabies is pretty small. And you're right, chances are they were vaccinated. They could be quarantined and tested for it; no need to kill them.

A few years ago, an attendant at the Houston zoo was killed by one of the tigers there. The tiger was not put down as a result. I'm on the bears' side in this current unfortunate incident, litigious public be damned.

And finally, this notion that other posters are spreading that rabies shots are unusually painful is simply not true; hasn't been true for decades.

[DanCa]

61. They fundies think that god gave us dominion over the animals

To bad they ignored the verse that says that we are supposed to be it stewards.

[Unformatted]

63. What gives humans the right to decide whose life is worthless and whose li

Roe vs Wade?

[MoonRiver]

66. Don't know if they had to kill the bears, but

the kid was only 4. Can't exactly expect a small child to understand the consequences of his actions.
:cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:

[JNelson6563]

67. Because we've got the guns

so what we say goes. Besides, like the bible says, we are the ones like bible-god, the other creatures of the earth are beneath us. They don't even have immortal souls. They, like all the earth (and any other part of the universe we can get our grubby hands on), are subject to our will, being the favored species that we are.

:eyes:

[mtnsnake]

69. I like your style

BTW, did you ever read the verse in the good book that went something like this, "Throw thy 4 year old boy to the bears. If the bears do unto the child as the child would do unto thee, then thy own self will be true and thee wilt realize that battle wounds from a friend can be trusted, but don't go lusting after your neighbors heart and don't let her take thee with her eyeballs either".

or something like that :evilgrin:

[JNelson6563]

78. Thanks

My favorite bible bear story is the one where the kids tease the old man and a she-bear comes out and tears them apart. Where else can one read such evidence of the all-loving bible-god?

Of course, your story was a good one too, though I don't remember that particular one. ;-)

:toast: Julie

[mondo joe]

71. The bears would make the same call if it were up to them.

This is simple biological self interest.

We tend to value based on closeness to ourselves - we'll choose our children over a stranger, we'll choose our own family over another, we'll choose our species over another. There are plenty of exceptions, but by being so exceptional they prove the rule.

I promise you, the bear would choose to protect one of his or her own over you.

[jarab]

72. Looks like the OP has the majority (DU) view ...

Threads which bemoan the death of a close blood relative get 50 concerned responses. "My cat died today..." - 200.
...O...

[AngryAmish]

75. Nothing like a good-ole fashioned bear-fight

[Spinoza]

77. Excellent point..

But why stop at bears ? Killing any mammal should be a crime equivalent to killing a human being. I propose public trials with a life-imprisonment sentence if convicted.

Of course, to be fair, we can't discriminate against homo-sapiens either. Since all mammals are morally equivalent, ALL mammals who kill other animals must be tried for murder and, if convicted, sentence to life behind bars. (Maybe we could call their prisons....zoos?) ALL mammals, not just human beings, have the capacity to live healthy lives as vegetarians. They don't NEED to eat meat anymore than people do. So what this really means is an educational program to convert ALL the worlds mammals to a vegetarian diet. If they blow it, if they kill other animals, we lock the murdering SOBs up....human, wolf, bear, lion, etc. Noone is superior to anyone else and so no distinctions in punishment.

Again, great point. But you don't go far enough.