Dave Terpstra

Review of The Wild Animal Sanctuary

My family and I visited the Sanctuary on a cooler ...

My family and I visited the Sanctuary on a cooler day several weeks ago and saw a number of animals. During my journey down the elevated walkway, I was excited to see the animals. However, after reaching the end and walking back, I began to think more about the absurdity of what is going on here.

The Wild Animal Sanctuary is a retirement home for exotic animals that were rescued from exploitative situations. All of the animals are sterilized so the purpose of the sanctuary isn't to breed endangered species. Also, they won't educate the public about any of their animals. The only education is in regard to the horrors of exotic animals being kept by private individuals. I hope we all agree that is a tragedy.

What I don't understand is why the animals aren't euthanized. The animals no longer have any utility in this world. They aren't bred, they aren't studied, and they can't be released into the wild. Why do they need to be kept alive? Please consider the considerable resources required to maintain a facility like this before you go. While you will watch a video showing the horrors of roadside attractions with tigers, isn t that exactly what the Sanctuary is as well? We are going to see the lions and tigers and bears (oh, my) because they are cool to look at. However, the only difference between the Wild Animal Sanctuary, a zoo, and a roadside attraction is the size of the prison. The animals aren t free in the wild and we are just paying to gawk.

Think before you invest $30. Wouldn t that money be better spent euthanizing these poor animals instead of spending millions maintaining a facility for their comfortable retirement. There are a number of problems in our world that need to be solved. Spending resources on a giant retirement facility for exotic animals isn t a good use of humanity's resources.

***************

Follow up to Wild Animal Sanctuary's Reply

Dear Sir or Madam,

Your reply to my critique of our sanctuary follows the logical fallacy Reductio Ad Absurdum. You made the statement:

"In following his train of thought, there are billions of humans that do not breed, are not studied, do not contribute to the betterment of society, have no utility other than to live, eat, polute and consume valuable resources - so they serve no purpose in his eyes either."

You didn t follow me train of thought at all. I believe the opposite of what you accuse me of believing about humanity. Human lives are infinitely more valuable than any animal's life. (That's why most of us have no qualms about eating them). Also, you do not know me, and yet you accuse me of wanting to kill off humans who serve no utility to society.

I understand that our culture has descended particularly low in its forms of argumentation and thought, but to have an official, public response to a critic accuse the critic of desiring large-scale senicide is ridiculous.

I accurately described your service to society. You are a retirement home for rescued, exotic animals. You educate the public about the cruelty of many privately held exotic animals. I simply am challenging your utility in our world. Do we need a retirement home for exotic animals, or could those funds be better served elsewhere?

Animals are not humans. Despite your efforts to anthropomorphize them with names and "stories" in your tour book, your animals are not humans. It would not be cruel to euthanize them. It would be a better management of resources.