I had to comment to Melvira's post. I know that was over a year ago, and this comment board is old, but I think people need to understand one thing.
The researchers aren't going to interfere with the animals. Why? Well that would bias the research. If a meerkat that should have died lives on to reproduce, then chances are the offspring won't have the best genes for survival either, which means the meerkats will all need human help to live... which I hope you can see isn't a good idea.
Life is tough. Sometimes fuzzy, cute little baby meerkats die. But it is nature's way of weeding out the ones that aren't strong enough to survive in the harsh world. If you start saving the weak ones, they go on to produce more weak ones, and you have tainted the gene pool in an endless cycle of animals needing human help. That isn't natural.
Melvira sounds like a typical PETA person (whether or not they are, they sound like one). They say they care about animals, but they know very little about them, have never even taken biology classes, do not understand the circle of life and the laws of nature. I am studying to be a zoologist, and yes I do want want to work in a zoo and take care of animals, but I at least understand how the real world natural kingdom works. If prey doesn't die the predators will. Animals kill, animals die.
And I'm sure it was hard on the researchers, who studied this group for 10 year... TEN YEARS they watched this tribe of meerkats. I'm sure they love animals just as much as anyone else who gives up a nice salary to work with animals (there isn't much money in this sort of thing) and I'm sure it tore them up inside to watch whatever meerkat you are talking about suffer and die. But it wouldn't have been right or ethical to step in and mess up nature.
People are so crazed recently about having everything natural. No pesticides, organic food, etc. But when they see the dark side of what that really means they can't handle it. It isn't the fault of the researchers that the meerkats die, its the natural way of life, dog eat dog, survival of the fittest. Deal with it.
The researchers aren't going to interfere with the animals. Why? Well that would bias the research. If a meerkat that should have died lives on to reproduce, then chances are the offspring won't have the best genes for survival either, which means the meerkats will all need human help to live... which I hope you can see isn't a good idea.
Life is tough. Sometimes fuzzy, cute little baby meerkats die. But it is nature's way of weeding out the ones that aren't strong enough to survive in the harsh world. If you start saving the weak ones, they go on to produce more weak ones, and you have tainted the gene pool in an endless cycle of animals needing human help. That isn't natural.
Melvira sounds like a typical PETA person (whether or not they are, they sound like one). They say they care about animals, but they know very little about them, have never even taken biology classes, do not understand the circle of life and the laws of nature. I am studying to be a zoologist, and yes I do want want to work in a zoo and take care of animals, but I at least understand how the real world natural kingdom works. If prey doesn't die the predators will. Animals kill, animals die.
And I'm sure it was hard on the researchers, who studied this group for 10 year... TEN YEARS they watched this tribe of meerkats. I'm sure they love animals just as much as anyone else who gives up a nice salary to work with animals (there isn't much money in this sort of thing) and I'm sure it tore them up inside to watch whatever meerkat you are talking about suffer and die. But it wouldn't have been right or ethical to step in and mess up nature.
People are so crazed recently about having everything natural. No pesticides, organic food, etc. But when they see the dark side of what that really means they can't handle it. It isn't the fault of the researchers that the meerkats die, its the natural way of life, dog eat dog, survival of the fittest. Deal with it.