Introduction:
It
seems that there is a lack of understanding and more than a few
misconceptions when it comes to the subject of animals. This article
will discuss some of these misconceptions and the realizations that we
need to make if we are to avoid deaths and animal attacks. The problem
seems to lie in our misconceptions that animals are driven by emotions
rather than by pure survival instincts. This causes us to attribute an
animal attack to the human emotion of anger or revenge. I know that all
people do not hold these misconceptions, which would be presumptuous.
What I am saying is that a majority of people do, simply based upon the
evidence. The evidence I refer to includes television shows on
Discovery, Animal Planet, TNT, etc. It also includes the news media, and
even Academia. Again, some shows are guiltier than others, but the
fallacies range from the small to the absurd.
The main point the
reader needs to take from this article is that animals are animals,
driven by basic instincts necessary for their survival. They do not feel
anger, jealousy, love, or plot revenge. Although some animals may
contain the capacity for these emotions, I doubt those senses are as
highly developed or reasoned through as ours seem to be. So, when we
attempt to attribute human emotions to animal motivations we are making a
silly mistake. We need only try to look at the situation from the
animal's point of view. This shouldn't be hard, because we have the
ability to reason. We need only attempt to return to a state of mind
that we haven't had since we rubbed sticks together and drew on cave
walls.
The Main Issues:
The tree hugger is as much to blame
as the hunter. When a nature lover is attacked brutally by an animal and
survives they usually make the statement; "It didn't know what it was
doing". This is not true. The animal knew full well what it was doing.
They would also make the claim that they should not have put themselves
in that situation. That statement actually is true, to an extent. When
we venture out into nature we cannot expect that we will not be attacked
by a wild animal. What we must expect is that there is a possibility,
and we must accept responsibility for this if we are going into the
woods anyways.
Animals are finding their natural lands threatened
by housing developments, businesses, and other activities that bring
human beings into areas where animals used to roam. Their territory is
shrinking. So, when we go out into the woods than it is our
responsibility. If a person enters the forest for any reason, and is
attacked by an animal, whatever the reason; it's their fault. Why?
Because they know in the back of their mind that it is a possibility. If
you go into the woods with your children and they are attacked, then it
is the parent's fault. Why? Because they knew it was a possibility. You
have every right to take the risk, but when and if something bad
happens, you can't blame the animal.
There are people out there
who believe that animals are of no consequence. The only thing that
matters in this world is the human race. If an animal is hit by a car,
shot, or killed by anything other than natural means; so what. This is a
very ignorant viewpoint to have for one reason. We live in a world that
is governed by balance. One thing affects another and if one species
disappears it will affect other species. Sometimes it can be in a good
way for that species and sometimes it can be in a bad way. If all
predatory birds were to go extinct than it would be great for rodents.
It would not be so good for whatever the rodents feed upon and it most
certainly would not be good for us. Granted some species can go extinct
without greatly upsetting the balance of things. It's when multiple
extinctions occur that a major problem will arise. These individuals
that do not hold animals in high regard, when attacked by animals,
usually are quick to anger. That animal attacked me and therefore must
die! I doubt that they would even consider the possibility that they
bore any responsibility whatsoever for entering the woods that day. The
bottom line is that if people enter the woods, we must be aware of the
dangers. This goes for any natural environment that we consciously
enter, knowing full well that we could be attacked by a bear or a shark.
I
will never forget an episode of Worlds Most Amazing Video or maybe it
was the Most Extreme, where an elephant was rampaging through the
streets of Mexico. If I remember correctly, this elephant was performing
in a circus, turned on its trainer (killing him), and then began
running through the streets. This elephant ended up being shot to death
in the street. I had no problem with that, it was clear the animal had
to be taken down. What I did have a problem with was the statement made
by the bonehead commentator of the show. He stated, "This is a tragic
event, but let's not forget why this was necessary." That may not be his
statement word for word, but the point is clear. The elephant had to
die because it was a rampaging monster! How ignorant is that? In my
opinion that was an extremely ignorant statement that had me cursing out
loud at my television set. It is true that the elephant did kill his
trainer. It is also true that the elephant was out of control. Why are
these the only valid points? Did anyone stop to think that the elephant
should not have been there in the first place? Elephants do not belong
in circuses and they do not belong in zoos. The only purpose a zoo
should serve is to rehabilitate injured animals or to shelter animals
that are endangered.
No comments:
Post a Comment