Knut-mania or not?

[helles]

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7174829.stm

Should the zoo intervene with 'nature'. I'm torn.

By being a zoo in the first place, they are already 'intervening' with nature as the animals are not kept in the wild or in their natural environment. In the wild, if the mother rejects the cubs, then they would without doubt die. However, by being in the zoo, the keepers can help, especially with a rare/near extinct species. This zoo in Germany seems to be more sanctury-esque as they try to re-release animals into the wild so do not want to do anything.

Knut is an example of a thriving cub that was hand-reared by its keeper when his mother rejected him. At that time, it caused controversy as to whether to interfere with nature too.

What do you think?

[tbw]

We are already 'tampering' with nature by keeping them in the zoo. I would rather see them hand-rear the cub; at the least it is helping to bring numbers up forrare/near extinct species.

Plus polar bear cubs are so cute

[helles]

Poor things. 2 of the cubs were eaten by the mother. Finally they are stepping in to care for the 1 remaining cub.. only after the mother was flinging the cub around the enclosure..

[fumanchu]

if it's in our power to help, then we should. If he is released back into the wild, nature can have her say then

[fumanchu]

I recall the zoo in my hometown eventually got rid of the polar bears. It was back in the day before more naturalized enclosures and the bears slowly went crazy.......they just paced up and down their enclosure all day. Certainly hope the zoos are doing better with their bears these days.