its a shame how humans exploit animals ![]()
IMO, the whole effort trying to reintroduce him to the wild was misguided.
Evie
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
... I'm not so sure there are not some cogent arguments for such exploitation.
Zoos and animal parks do a lot to educate people about the animals on this planet. So if exhibiting some in captivity can help raise awareness of the problems of a species -- even through "exploitation" -- I think we can at least weigh the options and alternatives.
I mean you keep snakes, I have cats (and I suppose it could be argued that I support the lives of several mice -- want some? LOL) I took in from the wild. I would no sooner turn them out now to fend on their own after 4 years of domesticity than I would think of ever trying to return a whale to it's natural environment after 15 years in captivity. I don't think you would consider returning your snakes to the wild, and I don't think you should even give that a second thought! I suppose there are those who think I'm cruel to my boys for not letting them outside (I haven't declawed these cats although in my ignorance I did declaw my first pair ![]()
). But I don't see it that way, because the risk from autos, coyotes and disease is very real and not worth it IMO. We have a reminder of their fate had we not taken them in -- both parents have not been seen in over a year. One surviving brother (kick myself and wanna cry EVERY time I see him we didn't take three!) visits my FIL's back yard with limp and crumpled ear. At least my FIL now feeds him regularly.
Evie ![]()
and you have to wonder at how huge that collective effort was. I'm not lessening the challenge that took place, but can you imagine if that type of effort took hold regarding humanity itself rather than one lone whale?
Sometimes I really believe that people are actually uncomfortable helping other people who don't share the same beliefs or values as themselves and it's easier to support this type of challenge instead. Why is that it's easier to look away from a human problem/challenge? Is it because if the effort fails, you don't feel so badly because it was an animal and not a person? Or is it because some people to some other people just aren't worth the effort, but an endangered animal species is worthy of chaining themselves to a tree somewhere or standing in front of a dozer. I just don't get it...
TONI
... while I think this effort was wildly misguided, I share your appreciation for it's enormity and an example of how the power of one's convictions can make great things happen through *private* charity. Those who contributed to this effort believed in it. I think we can find many similar, if albeit smaller scale, examples where millions have been given to help a single human with a rare medical condition or unexpected occurrence. I'm thinking the outpouring of funds to the McCauhey (sp??) family with the septuplets far exceeds a "reasonable" amount for just seven children. And yet they captured the hearts of many who responded.
I believe in the private charities I contribute to, and the beliefs of the recipients have nothing to do with it. Presumably, since the poor are supposedly largely liberal, giving to any food bank or charity to help the poor is giving to many who do not share my beliefs. The same can be said that for the most part it was Christian institutions that provided for unwed moms, surely none condoned the means by which most got pregnant. Say what you want about Pat Robertson, his aid charities have delivered necessities to millions.
I think that, right or wrong, private charity allows the giver to make their own choices on effective means to better all of our lives. When one has a passion for or belief in a charity, they are likely to be far more generous. I'm not in favor of "helping" addicts with needle programs and methadone clinics that are of limited effectiveness. I am in favor of truly helping addicts beat their demons through faith-based programs. So I would give to the latter, and leave others who sing the praises of clean needles and methadone to support that. It does tend to cause resentment among many when the government sees fit to take their tax dollars for specific charitable expenses they don't agree with. This is the thing about the faith-based initiative which I support only on the premise that IF the government has to inject itself in distribution of charity, it should not discriminate on the basis of religion. I believe charity would be more efficient and effective if returned to the private realm where it belongs.
I've mentioned before that if all the fundraising by environmental groups was just spent on the environment rather than lobbying Congress we would all be better off. That statement could go for a whole host of other programs and issues.
Evie ![]()