Meerkats Destroyed at Minnesota Zoo

[mduffy31]

Meerkats' rabies tests prove negative
By Bob Von Sternberg / StarTribune

A family of five Minnesota Zoo meerkats destroyed after a girl was bitten did not have rabies after all, a zoo official said Friday.A family of five Minnesota Zoo meerkats destroyed after a girl was bitten did not have rabies after all, a zoo official said Friday.

The 9-year-old girl, who has not been identified, was bitten Wednesday when she reached her hand into the animals' exhibit.

The meerkats -- two mates and their three offspring born this spring -- had been vaccinated for rabies but were killed because the girl's parents didn't want her to have to undergo a series of rabies shots, said zoo collections manager Tony Fisher.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14194508/

Hey girls parents...here is an idea, hows about watching your fucking kids and keep them from sticking their hands in the cage of a wild animal, so the rest of us can enjoy the exhibit rather than have to deal with your phenomenal stupidity and negligence, and I cite this:

The girl had climbed atop 3 feet of rock work and reached over a 4-foot glass barrier when she was bitten, said Fisher. The rock work is designed to allow kids to climb up for a better view, he said.

Sue Gergen, another zoo spokeswoman, said the child "really had to work to get to a place where she could be bitten. She had to climb quite a bit of rock work."

I mean who the hell doesn't notice their kid doing that.






:wtf: :argh: :grr: :rant: :mad:

[Heidi]

1. I really dislike zoos.

I realize lots of people love them and that perhaps there's an argument to be made that zoos give people an appreciation for nature and thus a stake in preserving natural habitat, but gosh, I hate zoos (and circuses that force captive animals to perform, also.)

Meerkats are beautiful animals.

[China_cat]

3. Hate them all you want

but remember that zoos may be the only chance some species have of any kind of survival.

[Heidi]

5. I think there are humane ways of preserving species

without subjecting them to human crowds which wouldn't be part of their natural habitat. If I were one of the last few humans on earth, I wouldn't like to have my family caged, ogled and taunted by spectators in the interest of preservation of my species. There are better ways. That's all I'm saying. :shrug:

[China_cat]

8. The better way would be to not destroy their

habitat. That isn't going to happen any time soon.

[Heidi]

9. On that we can agree.

:hi:

[grace0418]

51. I understand what you are saying. Believe me.

I get really upset sometimes at zoos. My husband hates going with me. The things that upset me the most are bad living conditions and the bad behavior of zoo visitors. Over the last decade, the enclosures in most of the zoos I've visited have been vastly improved. The behavior of zoo visitors, however, has devolved it seems.

But...

I recognize that zoos are a necessary evil in this world at this point. We've simply destroyed too much of the planet to allow many of those species to survive. Are there more humane ways? Perhaps. But if we walled off habitats for animals and didn't allow humans to see them, I think many people would never learn to understand WHY we need to protect them. You and I may understand, but we're "the choir" so to speak.

Zoos provide a necessary function, even if it is not ideal, beyond just providing a way to physically preserve species that otherwise wouldn't make it. Zoos allow us to study animals and learn new ways to help and protect them. But I think, most importantly, zoos provide a means for children to gain an appreciation for a creature who's habitat may be halfway around the world. I think many children don't really learn to understand and respect animals until they've had some real-life experience with them. A picture book can never do justice to the majesty of a giraffe, the beauty and grace of a tiger, the intelligence of a gorilla, etc. If you don't find a way to make people care, many of them simply won't.

However, I think that people also need to learn proper behavior at zoos. The OP story is a perfect example of the fact that most people are complete idiots. I don't know the solution, but zoos, schools, governments and parents NEED to start teaching kids (and many adults) the following: screaming at or taunting the animals is NOT okay, pounding on the enclosure is NOT okay, climbing over barriers to "pet" the animals is NOT okay, throwing food or rocks or garbage at the animals is NOT okay, flashing your camera in their eyes is NOT OKAY.

Fercrissakes, I actually saw a sign at the Brookfield Zoo in Illinois that said something like "OUCH! Please do not pluck feathers from the peacocks tails. They need them for balance and to attract a mate." Now YOU KNOW they put that sign there because PEOPLE WERE PLUCKING FEATHERS FROM A LIVING CREATURE. WHAT. THE. FUCK?

That is the thing that drives me nuts.

[pitohui]

53. make animals irrelevant and soon there will be no more animals

i have seen kids who are terrified of animals because they have literally never seen any except pigeons or a drug dealer's pit bull, i mean terrified, as shrieking in fear from a peacock coming over to ask nicely for a bit of popcorn

only by a safe contact w. animals does the child learn not to fear an animal merely because it's different

as the world grows more urban, as human population swells, more and more habitat will be taken away from the animals

there is already a large class of people (the vegans) who consider animals not even worthy of being eaten

such societies first make animals irrelevant and then make them extinct because you can't justify preserving habitat worth billions of dollars post-development just for some animals if people do not perceive that animals have value for food, science, beauty, inspiration, etc.

zoos serve an important role in catching the imagination and showing off the wide diversity possible among animals

wilderness will be saved, in the end, only if people think the beauty is more valuable than the developed land -- zoos are a way to awaken the sense of beauty

[xchrom]

2. stupid reaction to the family's lunacy.

[NMMNG]

4. &%$#@!

I am so sick and tired of innocent animals suffering and dying because idiotic humans can't be responsible for themselves and their kids. :grr:

[City Lights]

14. What you said!

:mad: :grr: :argh: :nuke:

Watch your fucking kids, people!

[MissHoneychurch]

6. So the merkats defended its territory

they had kids after all and acted like it was supposed to react. And they get killed for that?? Oh no, they got killed because the family didn't want to pay for the shots :wtf:

[MissHoneychurch]

19. Edit

why did they kill the animals after all? The kid got bitten and the parents didn't want to pay for the shots. So what would they have done if the animals had tested positive????
Something doesn't make sense here and makes me even more upset

:mad:

[northzax]

32. the shots aren't particularly pleasant

I had a series as a kid, and although I think they've gotten rid of the abdominal series, it's still a grueling and expensive process. So if the meerkats had tested positive (which is highly unlikely in a zoo setting like this) they would have proceeded with the shots. You really don't want them unless you need them, though.

I think the family should, at the very least, compensate the zoo for the street value of the meerkats, though, since it was, after all, their fault.

[grace0418]

57. The shots aren't nearly as bad as when we were kids. And if they are

expensive, a responsible parent would consider that a lessoned learned. Even if it meant the zoo paid for the shots, it's a far better alternative than killing those animals.

[Puglover]

60. And I think that maybe when the little

brat was getting the shots she might remember not to stick your hands in the animal cages and her ASSHOLE knuckledragging parents might remember to watch their kid. But no, how silly, much easier to slaughter the meerkats. :eyes:

[pokerfan]

7. I just vomited in my mouth

An entire family of five? Just so their little monster could avoid some shots? Makes me sick.

Nine years old, she should know better. At least understand germs and shit.

[NewWaveChick1981]

10. Makes me sick.

The animals suffer because a bratty kid won't behave herself and her parents won't correct her. Yeah, that's fair.... :sarcasm:

Makes me want to puke. :puke:

[Tyler Durden]

11. I vote for feeding the kid to the meerkats.

The kid's parents should be BILLED for the vet work AND the value of the animals.

The more animals I make friends with, the less fond I am of people in general.

Unless they wear their robes in the back yard.

[NewWaveChick1981]

12. That would have been the sensible thing.

Billing the family would have recouped some of the monetary losses (although you can't recoup the loss of life :( ) and taught them a thing or two about responsiblity. Maybe. :eyes:

Guess I'll just have to wear my robe in the back yard more often. :P

[Tyler Durden]

13. Sometimes, we must settle for the mild satisifaction....

...of spanking the stupid.

Plus, we would have the satisfaction of likely NEVER seeing their faces in that zoo again.

The Detroit Zoo has sent all of their elephants to Sanctuaries, and keeps primates in "troops" for proper socialization.

They even have a hot tub for the Japanese Macaques to use in the winter.

Hot tub? Back yard??? SILK ROBE???!!???!?!?!

[NewWaveChick1981]

21. Does that mean I have to go hot-tubbing with the Japanese

Macaques? :P

:*

[Tyler Durden]

24. Silly child.

Just channeling my "dirty old man" this morning. I have a job interview this afternoon to get out of this shithole working for these Nazis, and it makes me a little manic.

[NewWaveChick1981]

27. No problem.

Channel him here anytime you like! :hi:

Good luck on the interview.

[Tyler Durden]

30. THANKS!!

And love the pizza quote. Have also heard it used with Chineses takeout.

Wish I could eat. I feel ill. This job is a 2 minute drive from home...where I work now is 50-60 minutes, AND it will likely be moved another 40 minutes farther out soon.

[GirlinContempt]

15. You vote to kill the kid?

And feed it to wild animals?

[Tyler Durden]

16. Oh come now, read the post.

The style of the title is called a "GRABBER." It is usually sarcastic.

I may not like people much, but feeding time at the zoo should not involve small children.

With some very rare exceptions.

And who the hell gave these idiots the CHOICE of no rabies shots? Stick your hand in the rat trap, get ready for broken fingers: a "LEARNING EXPERIENCE."

[GirlinContempt]

17. Ah. Thanks for clearing that up.

Sort of.

[Tyler Durden]

18. Big time animal lover here.

Meerkats predate humans. I think that sort of gives them squatter's rights.

I just think if some dumb kid with minimal survival instinct does major rock climbing unsupervised by clueless P and M, MAYBE, barring medical conditions that prevent it, she should be REQUIRED to put up with the Rabies series, OR if P and M object, THEY should pay for the value of the animals plus the vet to destroy them .

Just sayin'...

[GirlinContempt]

20. I like animals as well

I just also have spent enough time with kids to know that, sometimes, this stuff just happens. It doesn't mean the kid is stupid, or the caregivers are clueless. It means kids can and will get into shit so fast it'll make your head spin. Also, medical care costs money that I don't assume all parents have.

[Tyler Durden]

23. PEACE, child!

The original article stated the kid "...had to do some serious rock climbing..." to get where they could annoy the meerkats. And it also stated the parents did not WANT to pay for the rabies shots. I don't see where "choice" comes into this one.

As to kids, as the 53 year old ex single parent of 3, remarried with a 10 year old adopted daughter, they don't get 10 feet from me in a public place until they are over 18, have a job, a car, and their own health insurance. I call it part of "responsible parenting" that a child who can rock climb in a zoo (KNOWN for their barriers due to liability insurance) is not ALLOWED that much leeway, or it's off to the car and HOME WE GO.

RELAX. These are STRANGERS, and with any luck, the kid will learn some other painful but non-fatal lesson to teach her that live can be dangerous if you act the fool, something her so-called parents are loathe to teach.

[GirlinContempt]

25. I'm totally relaxed.

The original article also stated that the rocks were designed for climbing, and it didn't say anything about the parents willingness or ability to pay. That's all.

When I take kids places, they get 10 feet from me all the time. Especially when they're climbing on things designed to be climbed by kids. Maybe the parents were negligent, I don't know. Maybe she climbed too far and stuck her hand in before her parents could stop her. Maybe any number of things.

But you make a good point, these are strangers. So it's very hard for either of us to know what the parents have taught, are 'loathe to teach', or what really happened.

[northzax]

33. well, every zoo I know of

would pay for the rabies shots in this circumstance, to avoid having to kill an animal. And the article states that the parents 'didn't want her to undergo the shots' with no reason given (maybe they're Christian Scientists, who knows?)

[Shell Beau]

36. I wouldn't want my child to undergo them either. But then again, I

wouldn't have wanted a whole family of meerkats destroyed. The zoo shouldn't have paid for it either. They were of no fault that I can see. Unless, the animals were too easy to access. Even though I am sure there were plenty of warnings about getting near the animals.

[northzax]

40. the Zoo should have paid

for a couple of reasons. first, they can probably get them for cheaper, buying in bulk (a series of shots, post-exposure, costs about $1,000) and second, at the end of the day, the Zoo is responsible for keeping people away from the animals, especially children (and yes, people can be stupid and willfully so, but kids are simply curious) I don't think there's any liability, but if my property does damage to your kid, even when it's your fault, I will pay for your kid's doctor visit, to protect myself.

[Shell Beau]

41. I get what you are saying. But I am sure zoo's go to great lengths

to protect the people as well as the animals.

[Puglover]

63. TOUGH SHIT...

watch your goddamn kids. I'm so fucking over the rest of us (mostly those poor meerkats) paying for other peoples children. If you can't watch them stay at home.

[petronius]

47. Precisely - your middle paragraph sums it up perfectly

Zoos have signs all over the place about keeping fingers out of the cages, and if your child is unable to understand she should be on a leash (or otherwise directly and actively supervised) or not in the zoo at all...

[YankeyMCC]

22. Wow what will that do to the kids ego

Do something wrong and have other living things killed for your convienence.

BTW: Why was the choice between testing the girl and killing the Meerkats? The Meerkats can't be tested without killing them? That seems odd.

[Tyler Durden]

26. Rabies is a virus...detection requires a brain disection.

The verification of infection in animals is disection of the brain and microscopy for the virus and characteristic cell inclusions called "Negri Bodies."

[GirlinContempt]

28. They can't test humans

until the disease is fatal and without cure. She'd have to undergo 28 days of treatment, and still not know. As for the animal testing, I'm not sure.

Note, I am not saying she shouldn't have just had treatment. But that just is the way it is, that you can't test for it until it's too late.

[Tyler Durden]

31. You are correct...

No way to test humans: definitive test requires brain disection. I still don't know how P and M got out of liability for the shots. Usually, in cases where there is doubt, they start the series right away just to be safe.

[grace0418]

55. There is alternative though. My neice got nipped by a squirrel she was

feeding in the back yard. He wasn't trying to bite her, he just got her finger when he grabbed at the peanut she was holding. My brother saw the whole thing but didn't get to her in time to stop her. But rather than have the squirrel killed, they trapped it and kept it in a cage for observation for a week or so (the doctor okayed this) until it could be determined that the squirrel had no symptoms of rabies. They let the squirrel go. Nobody had to get any shots and no squirrels had to die.

It seems to me that a zoo would have a pretty effing good idea whether or not their animals had exhibited any symptoms of rabies prior to the incident, and could observe the animals for a few days afterwords without murdering them all.

I think this is a product of our overly litigious society. We lack any sense of personal responsibility and we're so quick to blame everyone else for the stupid things we do. In this case, some beautiful little creatures had to die because I'm sure the zoo lawyers were too afraid something might happen to the little girl who's parents were too busy doing something else rather than watching her.

[Shell Beau]

29. Although the girl should have known better, she apparently didn't.

It is always easy to pass judgment, but we really don't know what happened. It is a sad situation. It does seem that the animals didn't have to be killed. I was just beginning to understand meerkats by watching Animal Planet's show they have on them. Such cute and smart animals. They are a real family.

[Juffo Wup]

34. More worthless parents

Don't worry, kiddo, just cry a little and mommy and daddy will move heaven and earth to punish everyone but you. Good parents would've had the kid tested, then made sure that she learned a valuable lesson from the experience.

There was a great article I read in a psychology magazine that said, in essence, parents are too overprotective and we are raising a nation of wimps who can't be self-sufficient.

[Shell Beau]

35. I wouldn't go so far as to call them worthless. We don't know

what the situation really was. Truth is kids do stupid shit. If my parents even knew half of the stupid shit I did... But they aren't worthless parents either. Parents try to protect their children from pain. Is that so wrong? I hate that the meerkats were destroyed. I am not sure that was the best way to deal with the situation, but it is always so easy to blame the parents.

[Juffo Wup]

37. You're right, it is easy

Were they even keeping an eye on the kid? Have they taught her that when there's a warning, she should follow it? Respect other people's property? Those were things I knew by the time I was in kindergarden.

And it's not even necessarily that. It's that they FORCED THEM TO KILL A ZOO ATTRACTION so that their poor little girl wouldn't have to get an unnecessary shot. It's this attitude that MY kid is perfect, MY kid can do no wrong, MY kid takes precedence over everything else on the planet. These parents are teaching the girl through their actions that the solution to life's problems is to find fault with everything else.

[Shell Beau]

39. That is the way you see it, but I am not sure that is the way it is.

I have no clue what these parent's have taught their children. I hate that the meerkats were put down. I think it is awful. But I am not so quick to judge the parents. Seeing as how I have no clue as to what kind of people they are.

[grace0418]

58. I wouldn't call them worthless either. And I know kids get into things

really fast (although in this case I think it had to have taken her at least a little time to scramble up a large rock and reach over a tall enclosure). But regardless of whether or not the child acted too quickly for the parent to react, a good parent would take responsibility for the child's actions. That's what you sign up for when you have a child.

Furthermore, a responsible parent would say "Honey, you shouldn't have done that and you're definitely old enough to know better. Now you're going to have to get a bunch of shots to make sure you don't get sick. I know they'll hurt and I know you don't like it, but that is why we you need to listen when we tell you not to do things."

The option of destroying the animals should never even been considered IMHO.

[Tyler Durden]

44. I wouldn't say WORTHLESS...

Mainly because I haven't checked the morning bids on the Shanghai Illegal Organ Bank line...

This kid had to climb 3' of ROCKS followed by a 4' glass Barrier, then LEAN OVER IT to get bitten.

"No, Dear. Get down, now dear, now DEAR....oh MY! KILL those nasty creatures!!!!!"

[smokey nj]

45. I have to say that I agree with you sentiments.......

Once again, nature suffers at the hands of human stupidity.

[Divameow77]

49. Not to mention...

I doubt there was anything that close to the glass to give the meerkats access to bite her, how far was her arm over the glass?

[Spacemom]

38. This makes me so sad

My sons and I have been hooked on Meerkat Manor since it started. They are such amazing animals. This is disturbing all the way around. It seems like it could have easily been prevented with responsible parenting. :(

[XemaSab]

42. Maybe it's ageist of me to say this

but the thing I like least about zoos and wild animal parks is that they are designed for the lowest common denominator: 4 year olds with ADD.

Everything at the zoo has to look like a fucking cartoon and the animals can't get any peace at all. The cages are tiny (because MORE animals make a better zoo). I especially hate zoos with rides.

If I was an animal in a cage with nowhere to hide, the last thing I would want to be subjected to is a shitload of screaming little kids.

I guess the thing that really bugs me about it is I think little kids have a really hard time distinguishing between a real elephant sitting in a cage and cartoon elephants on TV. I just don't think really little kids get shit out of the experience.

Even as an adult I find there's SO much shit to look at it all blurs together. I saw a study once that almost all the animals in the zoo are actually LOOKED AT for an average of something like 5 seconds. I went to the Santa Barbara zoo a few weeks ago and the only animals I really spent time with were the meerkats, flamingos, penguins, and gorillas. The meerkats were really cool, but I felt bad for them. There were two of them and they took turns keeping a lookout. I talked to the zookeeper and he said they used to have a lot more, but these were the last two left of the family and they'd been there 9 years and still kept a lookout all day. :cry:

ps 9 years old is old enough to give the kid a choice: either get some really nasty shots, or live the rest of your life knowing you caused the meerkats to be put down. Either way around, the parents should be liable for the cost either of the shots or replacement meerkats.

[Shell Beau]

43. I agree with you! Even though I am guilty of going to zoo's, I find

them really cruel sometimes. Poor tigers caged up in a cage so small. It seems they should have plenty of room to roam and run free. Same for all of the other animals too!!

[kwolf68]

48. Some of you have a very poor idea of real zoos

Zoos, in their worst are bad, but can be a very useful tool to save genetic variation and to educate and inspire the public.

Curators do everything they can to make exhibits that are positive, very often mimic the wild and are mentally stimulating to the animal.

Most zoos are public facilities so they are not run for profit, but the millions who want to go see a tiger or panda are providing refuge and resources so that we can save these animals. Many zoos are on the cutting edge of research and as we learn more about these animals it allows us opportunities to save them.

As a keeper or curator I would understand that the survival of the entire species may rest with subjects in zoos. Subjects that should be treated with the utmost of empathy. Most true keepers and curators do this.

Instead of railing about zoos, lets ban menageries that create harm for their animals, lets ban the owership of exotics, lets protect habitat, lets re-introduce, lets setup conservation easements, lets not let the ESA be gutted by ghouls and goons.

Some of the best scientific minds working on the cure for diseases and genetics are working in public zoos...get rid of the zoos and there is your last line against extinction. I can name countless animals that would be completely extinct if not for zoos...hopefully, one day we'll be able to reintrodudce those same animals.

I've been to the Baltimore Zoo, the National Zoo, the Fort Worth Zoo, the Indianapolis Zoo, the Cincinnati Zoo, among others and I can tell you right now that the felines in them all were taken care of and very content. they were in no way miserable, unhealthy, nor did they lack spirit.

Yes, there are some real shitholes out there and I've been to those as well...There is a zoo in Wilmington, NC where they had a couple black Leopards in concrete cages with very little room. When you look into the eyes of those animals, they are lost, gone...the spirit has been destroyed. YES, these places are horrible, but not all zoos are and zoos are not a worthless endeavor in the plight to save species.

You will find no one more dedicated to the cause of nature, animal "rights" as I am, but there has to be a sense of perspective.


As far as the topic at hand, I am appaled these merkats had to be destroyed for humane irresponsibility. If I was working at this zoo I would have probably been terminated for refusing to administer such a response to human ignorance.

[XemaSab]

65. I'm a biologist

and I accept that zoos do a tremendous amount for research and conservation.

Totally railing against zoos was not the point of my post, but rather the fact that zoos seem less like real educational facilities than they seem like an amusement park. I think if we want to instill a real appreciation for wild animals and for conservation, we'd be better off making them more like true educational facilities than like Disneyland.

Looking at the Santa Barbara Zoo, I see they offer 600 animals representing more than 180 species housed on 16 acres. I'd rather see a zoo that had, say, wild-sized populations of 16 species of animals within one acre enclosures.

The argument that zoos help conserve populations seems dishonest when there's one or two really rare species and a shitload of relatively common species all thrown in together. It should be about quality and not quantity.

[pitohui]

54. what zoos are these?

modern zoos do not have small cages, they have huge habitats, even the audubon zoo in new orleans does and this in an area where land is after all at a premium

[XemaSab]

61. Uh... every zoo I have ever been to?

:shrug:

Even the "huge" enclosures I have seen seem really small. At the Santa Barbara zoo, the two gorillas have about 200x200, the two elephants have maybe 300x300, the four giraffes have about 500x150, and the four lions have about 200x150.

Those are the "big" enclosures, and almost all the other animals have an area of about 50x50 or less.

[XemaSab]

62. dupe

[Dangerously Amused]

46. This is ridiculous. My kid would have taken the shots.

To the extent that my child should have known better she would have received (in addition to the shots) a stern lecture AND she would have written a letter of apology to the zoo. For my part, I would have held myself accountable for not properly supervising my child, and I too would have written a letter of apology to the zoo.



"... In the United States, the (rabies) treatment consists of a regimen of one dose of immunoglobulin and five doses of rabies vaccine over a 28-day period. Rabies immunoglobulin and the first dose of rabies vaccine should be given as soon as possible after exposure, with additional doses on days 3, 7, 14, and 28 after the first. The vaccinations are relatively painless and are given in one's arm, in contrast to previous treatments which were given through a large needle inserted into the abdomen."

Source: Wiki.



On edit: Here is a link to a local news story video on this incident. It shows the enclosure itself, and upon seeing same I am further convinced that the parents were at fault as it was clearly not an area where children were encouraged to climb (you have to sit through a short station promo at the beginning). At the end is a poll in which I think it was 50% of the people responding thought the girl should have been forced to go through the shots, and the animals spared. So... see for yourself.

http://www.kare11.com/video/player.aspx?aid=31335&bw=

[Divameow77]

50. I think

the zoo would have sprung for any rabies shot she needed, they certainly can afford it for the obscene amount of money they charge for admission.
The girl was 9 years old not 3, she knew better. Her parents should have warned her that they are wild animals and can/will bite.
My 9 yo son would have taken the shots, and learned a lesson on the value of life.

[judaspriestess]

52. The Zoo should press charges against

those retarded parents. I am sick of people having kids because its very easy to get pregnant and overpopulate this world and then not give a shit about them. disgusting.

[grace0418]

56. The more I read the more pissed I get. Those effing parents, and YES, I

am blaming the parents on this one, should be taking some goddamn responsibility. This was not a case of the parent looking away for a split second and a toddler running off. This was a 9 y.o. girl who took the time to climb a rather large rock and reach over a large enclosure wall. And yet, she's too delicate or something to withstand a series of rabies shots (which aren't as hellish as they were when I was a kid)? Give me a break.

What have they taught this girl?

•There are no real consquences for doing something stupid even though you're old enough to know better.

•The lives of five beautiful animals mean nothing if it will spare you from a little bit of discomfort as a result of your stupidity.


ARGH! I AM JUST FURIOUS!

[dpbrown]

59. I wish the Zoo would sue those bastard parents

Selfish pricks teaching their children to be equally selfish pricks.

Now no one in Minnesota will be able to enjoy that meerkat family ever again.

[Puglover]

64. Anyone who is so clueless as to defend

these horrid irresponsible parents should look again at this video and see for themselves just how "easy" it would be for them to lose track of their little darling for just a second, because children are so quick you know. Everytime I read this story I just get irate. And people wonder why our society is filled with clueless monsters.

http://www.kare11.com/video/player.aspx?aid=31335&bw=

[Lisa]

66. people who work with animals often get precautionary rabies shots

I mention this because a very good friend of mine, who worked for the SPCA, had to go through that. He's terrified of needles, but he agreed to do this because a) he really loves working with animals, and b) he didn't want an animal to die simply because its brain had to be tested for rabies, if he were bitten or scratched.

If the girl is so fond of animals as to make that much of an effort to touch them -- rabies shots (even after exposure) are not that big a sacrifice, compared to the one faced by the animals -- who wouldn't have a choice in the matter. (And the rabies treatment is a lot less painful than it was, only a couple of decades ago.) I only wish that her parents had seen it from this perspective, and been willing to explain it to her. (I know a lot of 9-year-olds who would have chosen the shots.)

In fact, if the animals had tested positive, she would have had to have the shots in any case.

I don't know whether the girl in the news story was scared of needles (and whether her parents were trying to shield her from that) -- but I should note that my friend has had all his immunizations, plus the shots he has to take when he goes to work in tropical environments, because he knows that the alternative is far worse.

[XemaSab]

67. FR's response

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1680261/posts

[ContraBass Black]

69. Looks like the response here.

This isn't a political issue.

[Tyler Durden]

71. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Dangerously Amused]

72. Maybe there have been more responses since you read them.

But I just read it now and unlike here, there are plenty of them taking the parent's side. Spewing the "no human being should ever have to be uncomfortable for even a second if an animal can be killed instead" crap.

On the other hand, many were quite enlightened on this issue. That was impressive. Well, but then half of them blew it in their sig lines.


:banghead:

[ContraBass Black]

68. Hold on,

"The meerkats ...were killed because the girl's parents didn't want her to have to undergo a series of rabies shots..."

How does killing the animal after the bite make shots unnecessary?

[Dangerously Amused]

70. They have to kill it to remove the head/brain for testing.

Dissecting the brain is the only way to determine whether the animal had rabies or not. If the (now dead) animal did not have rabies, the girl does not have to undergo rabies shots.


If the animals are not killed and tested, the girl would have to undergo rabies shots as a preventative measure. Why? Because rabies can take months on end to manifest to the point of being diagnosable in a live animal, and by the time it is outwardly apparent, there is virtually no hope of survival for the animal, or anyone the animal infected along the way.

[mduffy31]

73. Because they could test the meerkats for rabies

...and if they are negative, their little princess wouldn't have to have the shots. If they hadn't tested the meerkats she would have underwent the treatment prophylactically.

[BreweryYardRat]

74. Let me sum up the response I posted over at SA.

Force kid to get the shots (preferably the old style stomach shots), throttle mother with bare hands for gross incompetence, stupidity, and inhuman callousness/self-centered behavior.

[Divameow77]

75. I guess they had to come out with this

to try and make the parents not seem so bad.

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/605744.html