First off, bears are omnivores, they will eat plant matter as well as meat and most animal once they realize that they can eat people they will. That is why when an animal attacks people for any reason it is put down. Is it sad? Yes. But these bears cannot be released into the wild, that doesn't work to well as pointed out by previous posts. And sadly they may attack their keepers now, no matter how careful their keepers are.
350billion people on this planet and im supposed to be concerned because 1 idiot drunk gets mauled by a bear.I DONT CARE!Zoos are a good place to see animals.its his parents fault. they didnt tell him a bear might kill him.its the zoos fault. their 20 ft fence didnt deter a drunk.One thing is certain !!!its not the drunks fault.
Eveeryone seems to be missing a very seriuos point here. The zoo is responsible for making sure that all people can't get to there animals, even drunk ones. They need to raise the fences or do whatever will fix the problem. nuf said
Grace - Thanks for the information from your conservation group and for being a member. It shows you care.
I didn't mention reintroduction in my last note because I'm aware of it's drawbacks, but I still applaud the effort. I mentioned "pets" being released in foreign habitats, that then overrun indigenous species. The "owners" do this out of fear of prosecution and sometimes that their beloved "pet" will die in some zoo. As far as captivity virus', it doesn't surprise me, given the living conditions of most zoos.
Lastly - Your conservation group's answer is to redirect the almost $500 Million dollar global zoos budget to fund THEIR agenda. Well . . . if you close all the zoos, stopping the income flow, how much of that budget is left? Consider that most zoos are private and operate on profit, good luck getting them to contribute. Many public zoos were set up through endowments, donated by wealthy philanthropists, close the zoo and you lose the endowment that funds it. I wonder how much is left? Most government contributions to zoos are in place because it directly benefits their community, city, state or country. Close the zoo and they will find another way to use THEIR money. How much is left now?
Let's just say, for argument's sake, you were able to get only 10% ($50 million) of that global budget, plus your annual dues and other contributions, that your group already gets. Where do you think your group would spend it given their recommendations on where it would be better spent? Where do they spend the bulk of their money now? Lets see:
A. Establishing protected reserves:- Animals should be kept as near as possible to their natural habitat.
Good luck getting 3rd world countries on board, Oh, where do most of these animals live?
B. Funding anti-poaching patrols:- Money is required for even the most basic of equipment such as clothing and transport for wardens, boats, aircraft, fencing etc.
What no guns or ammo. "Poachers, stop doing that or I'll have to say 'stop doing that' again"
C. In education:- By educating local people to value and protect their wildlife, and teaching them the importance of conservation.
Most of these people can't read or write, don't have food, shelter or clean water and you want to spend money there to do what? They do value and protect their wildlife, but they value and protect their own lives more, self conservation. It's a very important motivational tool, you should try it sometime. That's why they poach, feed their family first before other poachers come and take what little they have left.
D. Lobbying for legislation to protect wildlife:- Wild animals are killed for fur, ivory, horn, body parts for medicines, ornaments and sporting trophies. (This one's the easiest to achieve) Well, we didn't have any results with our other ideas, but we got all this money left. . . What do you do? Well, you fly all around the world, wine and dine politicians, their wives, their secretaries, who ever will listen, until they promise they'll listen to what our members have to say. We have over a million members and this is what they believe in and if you don't persuade them, well, they won't vote for you. Then what? We can't expect them to actually do anything they're only politicians after all. They'll shake hands and kiss a baby seal or something, so our members feel like we're getting things done and send more money.
Jaded, sarcastic, realistic. . . yup. But still and always optimistic.
Necessity is the mother of invention, not education. Don't listen to the experts answers, find your own! They can only find the problems. You, Grace can find the solution!
Mike - posting info from an organisation of which I'm a member.
The conservation con
"Zoos make much of the tiny numbers of animals reintroduced into the wild, but reintroduction opportunities are nearly always flawed or impractical".
Roger Mugford, Consultant Animal Psychologist to CAPS.
Reintroducing animals to the wild
Of the 5,926 species (mammals, birds, reptiles and others) classified as threatened or endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, only around 120 species are involved in international zoo breeding programs, and from these just 16 species have been reintroduced to the wild... with varying degrees of success. The costs, both financial and to the animals themselves, of captive breeding conservation programmes are astronomically high.
For example, when the black footed ferret was reintroduced to the wild under a programme supervised by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the eventual cost was estimated to be around $400,000 per individual survivor! Added to this was the cost in suffering to the animals. Reintroduced ferret populations can experience a mortality rate as high as 90% during the first year of release. And of those reared in indoor cages, up to 91% may die within the first year of release. (*a)
In a South American zoo programme, this time involving the golden lion tamarin (a primate), death rates were also high. Of over 100 golden lion tamarins released into the wild, only about 30 survived. While their offspring fared somewhat better, there were other more significant problems for the programme. In 1991 a zoo bred tamarin, awaiting release to the wild, was found to be carrying the lethal arenavirus. This virus was unknown in the locality and could have devastated the wild population of tamarins and other primate species which would have lacked any immunity to it. The virus may have been spread to the zoo tamarins by mice which they were fed on while in captivity. The infected tamarin had been just 3 days away from release when diagnosed... (*b)
During the 1980's, Gopher tortoises were released into the wild in California. A virus present in the tortoises resulted in the deaths of an estimated 40,000 wild desert tortoises. (*c)
Arabian oryx were bred in captivity and released into the wild at an estimated cost of twenty-five million dollars. Recent information received suggests that the animals are again being poached in the wild, ironically to supply zoos. Preventing the loss of oryx is not easy while there is an international demand for captive animals, and the illegal trade can be highly profitable. Since 1996, more than 40 oryx have been smuggled from Oman, to be sold to private zoos and animal collectors.
In 1990 one of London Zoo's oryx was found to have developed BSE. The latest research into this disease indicates that it can be passed on from parent to offspring, which raises the worrying question:- Could reintroduced Oryx have BSE?
Arabian oryx have also been found to have TB, which can spread between species. In the 1980's the numbers of oryx in a Saudi Arabian captive breeding programme were drastically reduced because of TB.
Conservation - the way forward?
Trying to restock the wild is costly, flawed and impractical. Animals must be conserved in the wild, thereby protecting not just single species - as practised by zoos - but whole eco-systems. Vast amounts of money - the global zoo budget is thought to be $500 million dollars - are used to keep and breed animals in captivity. This could be used for conservation in the wild, protecting both the animals and their habitat.
Money could be better spent:
Establishing protected reserves:- Animals should be kept as near as possible to their natural habitat. Funding anti-poaching patrols:- Money is required for even the most basic of equipment such as clothing and transport for wardens, boats, aircraft, fencing etc. In education:- By educating local people to value and protect their wildlife, and teaching them the importance of conservation. Lobbying for legislation to protect wildlife:- Wild animals are killed for fur, ivory, horn, body parts for medicines, ornaments and sporting trophies. References: *a: Stefan Ormrod 'Zoo Biz' 1994 *b: Stefan Ormrod 'Zoo Biz' 1994 *c: BBC Wildlife Magazine 'Showboat as Ark', Stefan Ormrod '94
Grace- I don't share you simple solution. Without some zoos, certain species WOULD be extinct. The help some zoos provide for injured or diseased wild animals is instrumental in the survival of those species. Don't forget animals that are captured and raised as pets then released in foreign habitats, they find a haven in some zoos. What would you do with all those animals? Your view may be current, but you are just as cruel, . . so now where are we?
t.c. and C.T- Ironic, isn't it?, opposite opinions and reverse initials.
C.T.- Contrary to popular misconception, we (and I am assuming here) as Humans, are not at the top of the food chain!! Without tools, i.e. weapons, and the knowledge and skills to use them, we would be, well, dinner.
t.c.- Thank you for your kind words, but . . be careful what you wish/hope for. Do you watch House? Also, I AM sure you could have said it better. Finally, do you have a son already or was that a propagational hint?
I guess nobody commenting on the incident have ever done something stupid whilst drunk. I am sure the man never would of put himself in the situation if he knew what was going to happen. Just another reason to reinstate prohibition in the states. Some write about family and children, but the real threat is when your child comes of age and does something just as stupid because his judgement is impaired by alchohol. And as far as the two bears--take a shotgun to their heads. I am all for the practicing of our place on the food chain. Add a couple more bears to the hunt as far as I am conerned.
what a stupid man! he goes and gets drunk, then goes to a zoo?! there are children, and other innocent people who had to watch this awefull scene! he was stupid enough to climb the fence, he was stupid enough to go to the zoo, DRUNK,and he was stupid enough to get drunk. maybe if he had some common sense, and didnt get drunk in the middle of the day, he would still be alive! and yet some people seem to think it was the BEARS fault?! what is up with that?! that area where the man fell into BELONGED to the bears, it was their HOME! they are not just going to sit there and watch an intruder walk alover their home! it's like some random person breaking into your home, your not going to let them walk around, no, your going to defend yourself, your family, your property, your dignity. x
Stupid people do this all the time.Then the want to sue the zoos(here in america)or cry to have the animals put down awhen its there own falt.aevery zoo ai know have gates and posted stay out.Stupid people dont listen or ignore signs.They get what they deserve.
Oh and by the way, to all you genius' out there, BEARS are HERBOVORS (with the exception of Polar Bears). That is to say , they don't typically eat meat, they don't hunt for food, they forage and occasionally fish. They will, to protect their territory, maul any intruders. By maul we mean to claw, bite or crush. NOT TO EAT. So Kurt, they did not get an early meal, But we can hope about that stupid gene theory. Do you have kids? DOH! And Sharon, come on, did you ever get a buzz from "drunken man meat"? Think people, THINK!!!
July 06, 2009, 07:00
The poor bears shouldn't be in a cage anyway!
the man shouldn't be in the zoo if he was drunk
July 06, 2009, 00:17
First off, bears are omnivores, they will eat plant matter as well as meat and most animal once they realize that they can eat people they will. That is why when an animal attacks people for any reason it is put down. Is it sad? Yes. But these bears cannot be released into the wild, that doesn't work to well as pointed out by previous posts. And sadly they may attack their keepers now, no matter how careful their keepers are.
July 02, 2009, 19:14
What brand name of alcohol was the man drinking
June 14, 2009, 03:50
350billion people on this planet and im supposed to be concerned because 1 idiot drunk gets mauled by a bear.I DONT CARE!Zoos are a good place to see animals.its his parents fault. they didnt tell him a bear might kill him.its the zoos fault. their 20 ft fence didnt deter a drunk.One thing is certain !!!its not the drunks fault.
June 11, 2009, 23:49
Why Was A Drunk Man Allowed Into A Zoo Anyway? Surely That Hints That Something Bad Will Happen
June 04, 2009, 22:55
Eveeryone seems to be missing a very seriuos point here. The zoo is responsible for making sure that all people can't get to there animals, even drunk ones. They need to raise the fences or do whatever will fix the problem. nuf said
May 28, 2009, 23:43
What Chuck said...
Hopefully the drunk's parents can find some sort of solace in their grieving
and hopefully the drunk had yet to start a family of his own.
Shoot the bears? They are innocent and certainly don't need to sacrifice their lives
for the careless action of a drunk human.
May 28, 2009, 18:20
Grace - Thanks for the information from your conservation group and for being a member. It shows you care.
I didn't mention reintroduction in my last note because I'm aware of it's drawbacks, but I still applaud the effort. I mentioned "pets" being released in foreign habitats, that then overrun indigenous species. The "owners" do this out of fear of prosecution and sometimes that their beloved "pet" will die in some zoo. As far as captivity virus', it doesn't surprise me, given the living conditions of most zoos.
Lastly - Your conservation group's answer is to redirect the almost $500 Million dollar global zoos budget to fund THEIR agenda.
Well . . . if you close all the zoos, stopping the income flow, how much of that budget is left? Consider that most zoos are private and operate on profit, good luck getting them to contribute. Many public zoos were set up through endowments, donated by wealthy philanthropists, close the zoo and you lose the endowment that funds it. I wonder how much is left? Most government contributions to zoos are in place because it directly benefits their community, city, state or country. Close the zoo and they will find another way to use THEIR money. How much is left now?
Let's just say, for argument's sake, you were able to get only 10% ($50 million) of that global budget, plus your annual dues and other contributions, that your group already gets. Where do you think your group would spend it given their recommendations on where it would be better spent? Where do they spend the bulk of their money now?
Lets see:
A. Establishing protected reserves:- Animals should be kept as near as possible to their natural habitat.
Good luck getting 3rd world countries on board, Oh, where do most of these animals live?
B. Funding anti-poaching patrols:- Money is required for even the most basic of equipment such as clothing and transport for wardens, boats, aircraft, fencing etc.
What no guns or ammo. "Poachers, stop doing that or I'll have to say 'stop doing that' again"
C. In education:- By educating local people to value and protect their wildlife, and teaching them the importance of conservation.
Most of these people can't read or write, don't have food, shelter or clean water and you want to spend money there to do what? They do value and protect their wildlife, but they value and protect their own lives more, self conservation. It's a very important motivational tool, you should try it sometime. That's why they poach, feed their family first before other poachers come and take what little they have left.
D. Lobbying for legislation to protect wildlife:- Wild animals are killed for fur, ivory, horn, body parts for medicines, ornaments and sporting trophies.
(This one's the easiest to achieve) Well, we didn't have any results with our other ideas, but we got all this money left. . . What do you do? Well, you fly all around the world, wine and dine politicians, their wives, their secretaries, who ever will listen, until they promise they'll listen to what our members have to say. We have over a million members and this is what they believe in and if you don't persuade them, well, they won't vote for you. Then what? We can't expect them to actually do anything they're only politicians after all. They'll shake hands and kiss a baby seal or something, so our members feel like we're getting things done and send more money.
Jaded, sarcastic, realistic. . . yup. But still and always optimistic.
Necessity is the mother of invention, not education. Don't listen to the experts answers, find your own! They can only find the problems. You, Grace can find the solution!
May 28, 2009, 04:05
Thank goodness he wasn't driving, otherwise someone else might have been the victum!
May 26, 2009, 08:54
Mike - posting info from an organisation of which I'm a member.
The conservation con
"Zoos make much of the tiny numbers of animals reintroduced into the wild, but reintroduction opportunities are nearly always flawed or impractical".
Roger Mugford, Consultant Animal Psychologist to CAPS.
Reintroducing animals to the wild
Of the 5,926 species (mammals, birds, reptiles and others) classified as threatened or endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, only around 120 species are involved in international zoo breeding programs, and from these just 16 species have been reintroduced to the wild... with varying degrees of success. The costs, both financial and to the animals themselves, of captive breeding conservation programmes are astronomically high.
For example, when the black footed ferret was reintroduced to the wild under a programme supervised by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the eventual cost was estimated to be around $400,000 per individual survivor! Added to this was the cost in suffering to the animals. Reintroduced ferret populations can experience a mortality rate as high as 90% during the first year of release. And of those reared in indoor cages, up to 91% may die within the first year of release. (*a)
In a South American zoo programme, this time involving the golden lion tamarin (a primate), death rates were also high. Of over 100 golden lion tamarins released into the wild, only about 30 survived. While their offspring fared somewhat better, there were other more significant problems for the programme. In 1991 a zoo bred tamarin, awaiting release to the wild, was found to be carrying the lethal arenavirus. This virus was unknown in the locality and could have devastated the wild population of tamarins and other primate species which would have lacked any immunity to it. The virus may have been spread to the zoo tamarins by mice which they were fed on while in captivity. The infected tamarin had been just 3 days away from release when diagnosed... (*b)
During the 1980's, Gopher tortoises were released into the wild in California. A virus present in the tortoises resulted in the deaths of an estimated 40,000 wild desert tortoises. (*c)
Arabian oryx were bred in captivity and released into the wild at an estimated cost of twenty-five million dollars. Recent information received suggests that the animals are again being poached in the wild, ironically to supply zoos. Preventing the loss of oryx is not easy while there is an international demand for captive animals, and the illegal trade can be highly profitable. Since 1996, more than 40 oryx have been smuggled from Oman, to be sold to private zoos and animal collectors.
In 1990 one of London Zoo's oryx was found to have developed BSE. The latest research into this disease indicates that it can be passed on from parent to offspring, which raises the worrying question:- Could reintroduced Oryx have BSE?
Arabian oryx have also been found to have TB, which can spread between species. In the 1980's the numbers of oryx in a Saudi Arabian captive breeding programme were drastically reduced because of TB.
Conservation - the way forward?
Trying to restock the wild is costly, flawed and impractical. Animals must be conserved in the wild, thereby protecting not just single species - as practised by zoos - but whole eco-systems. Vast amounts of money - the global zoo budget is thought to be $500 million dollars - are used to keep and breed animals in captivity. This could be used for conservation in the wild, protecting both the animals and their habitat.
Money could be better spent:
Establishing protected reserves:- Animals should be kept as near as possible to their natural habitat.
Funding anti-poaching patrols:- Money is required for even the most basic of equipment such as clothing and transport for wardens, boats, aircraft, fencing etc.
In education:- By educating local people to value and protect their wildlife, and teaching them the importance of conservation.
Lobbying for legislation to protect wildlife:- Wild animals are killed for fur, ivory, horn, body parts for medicines, ornaments and sporting trophies.
References:
*a: Stefan Ormrod 'Zoo Biz' 1994
*b: Stefan Ormrod 'Zoo Biz' 1994
*c: BBC Wildlife Magazine 'Showboat as Ark', Stefan Ormrod '94
May 22, 2009, 19:23
Grace- I don't share you simple solution. Without some zoos, certain species WOULD be extinct. The help some zoos provide for injured or diseased wild animals is instrumental in the survival of those species. Don't forget animals that are captured and raised as pets then released in foreign habitats, they find a haven in some zoos. What would you do with all those animals? Your view may be current, but you are just as cruel, . . so now where are we?
t.c. and C.T- Ironic, isn't it?, opposite opinions and reverse initials.
C.T.- Contrary to popular misconception, we (and I am assuming here) as Humans, are not at the top of the food chain!! Without tools, i.e. weapons, and the knowledge and skills to use them, we would be, well, dinner.
t.c.- Thank you for your kind words, but . . be careful what you wish/hope for. Do you watch House? Also, I AM sure you could have said it better. Finally, do you have a son already or was that a propagational hint?
May 22, 2009, 09:28
The solution is simple!
Close all zoos!!!!
They are dated and cruel!
May 21, 2009, 20:57
First off C.T. YOU ARE A ASS. Mike you right on it i could not of said it better.I hope my son grows up to think like you.
May 21, 2009, 20:20
Bears 1......stupid 0
May 20, 2009, 09:26
I guess nobody commenting on the incident have ever done something stupid whilst drunk. I am sure the man never would of put himself in the situation if he knew what was going to happen. Just another reason to reinstate prohibition in the states. Some write about family and children, but the real threat is when your child comes of age and does something just as stupid because his judgement is impaired by alchohol. And as far as the two bears--take a shotgun to their heads. I am all for the practicing of our place on the food chain. Add a couple more bears to the hunt as far as I am conerned.
May 18, 2009, 22:28
what a stupid man! he goes and gets drunk, then goes to a zoo?! there are children, and other innocent people who had to watch this awefull scene! he was stupid enough to climb the fence, he was stupid enough to go to the zoo, DRUNK,and he was stupid enough to get drunk. maybe if he had some common sense, and didnt get drunk in the middle of the day, he would still be alive! and yet some people seem to think it was the BEARS fault?! what is up with that?! that area where the man fell into BELONGED to the bears, it was their HOME! they are not just going to sit there and watch an intruder walk alover their home! it's like some random person breaking into your home, your not going to let them walk around, no, your going to defend yourself, your family, your property, your dignity.
x
May 18, 2009, 21:24
Stupid people do this all the time.Then the want to sue the zoos(here in america)or cry to have the animals put down awhen its there own falt.aevery zoo ai know have gates and posted stay out.Stupid people dont listen or ignore signs.They get what they deserve.
May 10, 2009, 21:49
Stupid is as stupid does.
May 08, 2009, 17:49
The lesson that we can all learn is that it is not how much you drink ,it is what happens to us when we do drink.
May 06, 2009, 12:50
Oh and by the way, to all you genius' out there, BEARS are HERBOVORS (with the exception of Polar Bears). That is to say , they don't typically eat meat, they don't hunt for food, they forage and occasionally fish. They will, to protect their territory, maul any intruders. By maul we mean to claw, bite or crush. NOT TO EAT.
So Kurt, they did not get an early meal, But we can hope about that stupid gene theory. Do you have kids? DOH!
And Sharon, come on, did you ever get a buzz from "drunken man meat"?
Think people, THINK!!!
Post comment