That is horrible.
But so is this.
Curse you China!
And to be clear, these weren't just strays. They were family pets. People were trying to hide their dogs...
| Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/ |
|
| Group of Meercats killed... http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9402 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | extremejon09 [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 3:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Group of Meercats killed... |
Because some bratty 9-year old girl didn't want to get a Rabies Vaccine. Where I live this is the hot topic of debate. My parents want to burn her house down. Just Terrible. |
|
| Author: | Ninti [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
That is horrible. But so is this. Curse you China! And to be clear, these weren't just strays. They were family pets. People were trying to hide their dogs...
|
|
| Author: | Marshmallow Roast [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wow, that's on a whole new level of stupidity that is just within the borders of my comprehension. I mean, what the crap?! Her parents really let them destroy the meerkats just because their Precious Little Daughter didn't want a few shots? They're all horrible people. |
|
| Author: | Shippinator Mandy [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's the kid's fault. The meerkats were defending themselves. They had every right to bite her. Frankly, I think the kid is a spoiled brat who basically murdered an innocent family of meerkats. I also agree with everything everyone has said. |
|
| Author: | Sui [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, that article puts a spin on it that would be inaccurate in other circumstances. Until I saw the mention that it was extremely unlikely that the meerkats actually had, I thought there wasn't anyone at fault. "But the state Department of Health ordered them killed and tested because the girl's parents didn't want her to get rabies shots if they weren't necessary", from a different article, is a bit more truthful. Not saying the girl isn't at fault, but at least THAT quote doesn't act like there was no chance that the animals were rabid. There wasn't much of one; biting a human is normal behaviour for a meerkat (biting by a shy animal or shyness by an non-tame one is a sign of rabies), but at least it left that possibility open. Think about it, if it was a case where it was easily likely that the animals were rabid, they'd have to put them down anyway to remove the risk. All I'm saying is that the spin could make a difference in other circumstances, so the journalism's a bit off. In this case, though, as I said... biting a human is normal for a meerkat, so there'd be a very low chance of rabies, so there was no real need to test the meerkats... So that is terrible, I'd say. |
|
| Author: | topofsm [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The thing that bothers me is the chance that the meercats could have had rabies. Then the girl would have had to get the shots anyway. It would have been a waste of animal life. And plus, what's wrong with the child getting shots? Don't those parents take her in for normal shots and vaccines like flu and other stuff? |
|
| Author: | extremejon09 [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
What the f- DEADLY IRONY! |
|
| Author: | PianoManGidley [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
This is just disgusting to me, and further evidence that we feel like we get to play God when it comes to the lives of other creatures. I hate this level of human arrogance. I'm no PETA member or anything (that's too extreme for my tastes), but I'm tired of seeing so much disregard for nature and for other creatures. And just because the parents were too lazy to get her daughter a few shots--a daughter who they should have been watching in the first place to prevent her from going out of her way (climbing rock work and reaching over a glass barrier) to touch animals that she ought naught be touching in the first place. That's why barriers are THERE, people. And now you just go ahead and kill the whole lot of them, because one of them was only doing what was instinctual: defending its territory from a threat. People hundreds and thousands of years ago had it better worked out when it comes to respecting nature. Granted, this is largely due to how underdeveloped people were at the time, falling victim to the forces of nature much more easily than we do today in our world of air conditioning, insulation, fire places, umbrellas, and questionable governmental tactics concerning mass evacuations for hurricanes. Nevertheless, I truly believe that as the intelligence-dominant species of this planet, if our species' existence has any purpose whatsoever, it is to act as stewards of the absolutely gorgeous planet we have been given. For far too long, we have acted as though we were kings instead of stewards--gods instead of, say, "maintenance men," spoiling the planet for our own whimsy. If we wish to continue to thrive on this planet for ages to come, we need to gain a respect for nature that has been long since forgotten by so much of society, because whether we like it or not, our species' existence is just as finite as any other; we WILL become extinct at some point, and nature WILL continue to storm against us and itself as it goes through a process of change that has been occuring for billions of years. Our distinct advantage, though, is that we have the ability to find a way to preserve our own existence (as well as the existence of others) both with and against nature a bit longer--if we wished. |
|
| Author: | ChickenLeg [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think that getting rid of the meerkats was pretty stupid. If they did happen to have rabies, then the girl would've needed shots anyway. Nothing should've died in this, yet 5 meerkats were killed because of some kid refusing to get shots. I know they're painful (And I happen to fear them) but I take one for the team. It's better to have a clean bill of heath and nothing dying than having lockjaw. |
|
| Author: | Inverse Tiger [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rabies shots are expensive, something like $2000. If that was the problem, couldn't they have asked an animal group for help collecting donations to pay for the shots? Some people seem to think rabies shots hurt more than others, but that's old info. They have a newer kind now. You have to go back a couple times over a month, but each shot is like any other shot. [Girl gets tetanus, measles, and diphtheria all at the same time] "Oh, I didn't get her the shots.. it would have been painful for her!" |
|
| Author: | Mr. Sparkle [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I say we test her for Rabies just in case... |
|
| Author: | ready for prime time [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Shippinator Mandy wrote: It's the kid's fault.
The meerkats were defending themselves. They had every right to bite her. Frankly, I think the kid is a spoiled brat who basically murdered an innocent family of meerkats. I also agree with everything everyone has said. she shouldn't have tried to touch them. i'll bet you there was a huge sign saying "FOR GOD'S SAKE, DO NOT TOUCH THE MEERCATS!!!" |
|
| Author: | Teh Ch8t [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That kid is just horrible. If I was the parent, I would FORCE her to get a shot, no matter what in the heck she says. No meercats deserve to EVER die because some bratty kid doesn't want to get a shot... |
|
| Author: | The Noid [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Those parents deserve whatever is coming to them. Unless it's nice. Let's hope it's bad. Little brat, that's all I have to say. |
|
| Author: | Tompkins [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
PianoManGidley wrote: {long speech}
You don't know how much I agree with you. "I don't want to get a shot that will only hurt for two secounds... So I'll get them to kill a family of meercats! It makes perfect sence!" |
|
| Author: | Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This is almost as bad as that Cat burning video. |
|
| Author: | Teh Ch8t [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote: This is almost as bad as that Cat burning video.
I'm glad I've never seen that video, and I don't want/plan to... |
|
| Author: | Lu Bu [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Heh, those people will pay for their arrogance and cruelty eventually, don't worry. |
|
| Author: | Inverse Tiger [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Lu Bu wrote: Heh, those people will pay for their arrogance and cruelty eventually, don't worry.
I would just like to take this opportunity to welcome our glorious meerkat overlords... (yeah, I know what you meant  )
|
|
| Author: | bwave [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
PianoManGidley wrote: This is just disgusting to me, and further evidence that we feel like we get to play God when it comes to the lives of other creatures. I hate this level of human arrogance. I totally agree with you. The whole purpose of a zoo is to give the animals a habitat in which they can live safely like in their natural enviroments, and yet, a little kid had an opportunity to mess things up, and the animals are punished. It seems to me that the parents were looking to save money, or whatever, because there was no reason for them to do this. Think of this: If you thought that you might have a disease, do you: a) Wait a week for testing b) Get vaccine? The latter makes more sense, and furthuremore: The Article wrote: "It's unfortunate," Fisher said. "But we understand we have to do that. We want to make sure that people are safe."
I think that that was just pure stupidity. If they cared at all about her safety, they would have had her treated. I don't care what the little girl's take on the subject was, because very few 9 year olds actually like hospital visits, but I think the parents should have shown more maturity. I think the park officials should have shown a little more backbone. They could have easily taken it to court, if necessary. |
|
| Author: | Acekirby [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That's just too bad. The girl should have gotten shots since it was her fault the meerkat bit her. Second Article wrote: Pam Bennett-Wallberg, who runs what she calls "a retirement home" for meerkats in the California desert, said the animals "are not at all aggressive. People go into our enclosure all the time, and never in 20 years has anyone been bitten."
I supposed since the parents would not budge on the shots, they had to put them down. Unfortunately, she would have had to get shots if they had rabies anyway. Then again, they would have still put them down if they had rabies. It's just too bad. Oh well. Nothing you can do. |
|
| Author: | Chekt [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
it is all that stupid girl and her stupid parent' fault. we should burn them down. but it is better the meerkats die than the girl. but they were vaccinated so... |
|
| Author: | ramrod [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's sad when I read about stuff like this. Didn't that little girl know why the barriers were there? They're not for climbing. |
|
| Author: | Windee [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Honestly, I don't blame the little girl. Kids do really silly things. Meerkats are pretty cute and harmless looking. I probably would have wanted to pet one too at that age if I thought I had the chance. The parents are completely at fault. The article said that she would have had to do a lot of climbing in order to reach the meerkats. Where were her parents to stop her? In addition to the possibility of her getting bit by the animals, she could have fallen off that rock and hurt herself. This is negligence on their part. If the kid wanted to pet animals that badly, I would have taken them to the petting zoo area. I'm sure that zoo had one, most do. Secondly, that little girl should not have had any say whatsoever in regard to getting those shots. Yes, in the end she technically did not need them, and the probability of her having contacted the disease was nearly nonexistent. Still, if that had happened to me, you bet my parents would have made me get those shots without a second thought, even if they had to hold me down to receive them. The fact is is that rabies kills, and a responsible, loving parent does not take chances with it. What would have happened if indeed that little girl had developed the disease? Would her parents let her be if she said that she didn't want to take her shots even then? |
|
| Author: | What's Her Face [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Where were the parents when this kid was climbing the barrier? It was probably Margarita time, or something. This story reminds me of the drunk teenager who climbed over three barricades in Dublin Zoo, and got her arm mauled by some Bengal tigers. Am I totally callous for thinking that she got exactly what she deserved? |
|
| Author: | Lunar Jesty [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
In the girl's defence, the article did say that the wall was there for a better view. I think the zoo and the parents are at fault. |
|
| Author: | minib198 [ Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
She still reached in to touch 'em... This story is getting old. I hear it on the news every night. |
|
| Author: | Snailmail [ Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
the_chekt wrote: but it is better the meerkats die than the girl. but they were vaccinated so...
Animals aren't any lower than humans. It's better those carefree parents get a call from child services. Even if they did have rabies, killing them won't do anything, because she would still die. They could vaccine the kid and the meercats, and everything would be fine, but apparently the child rules the household. The reason parents are parents are for kids to learn, and be guided. The kid needed to learn, getting a shot is better than losing a life. They don't care for their kid, and apparently are blind, and stupid.. |
|
| Author: | ready for prime time [ Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
too bad she didn't want to pat a crocodile...... |
|
| Author: | Acekirby [ Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Lunar Jesty wrote: In the girl's defence, the article did say that the wall was there for a better view. I think the zoo and the parents are at fault.
Exactly. If the girl could reach in from there it's the zoo's fault, and she shouldn't have even been up there. You know, also in their defense, and as was said before, the shots cost around $2000. I don't know about you, but I don't have $2000 lying around that I could spend in case I was accidentally and unexpectedly bit. A lot of people would have probably done the same thing to see if their child actually needed the shots instead of spending $2000 where it might not have been necessary. If they had gone for the shots right away, they would have been out $2000 dollars. Now, think about that. What if it's just some middle class family? Don't you think that that could hurt them a little? $2000 is not something you just pick up and use. It's too bad that the meerkats had to die, but I think that the article is not telling the whole story. It makes it out to seem as if the parents refused treatment just because the little girl didn't want shots. The truth is more likely that they didn't have/didn't want to pay the $2000 for shots that might not have been worth it. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|