Euthanasia/ Culling

[Jana]

Those Czech zoos that euthanise surplus offspring (not all do it) are usualy pretty open about it. They get backlash but it is smaller than if they euthanised animals in secret and then it would be "revealed" to unsuspecting public by a journalist. On the other hand, old animals are not euthanised (unless it is heath related), even lonely old animal will be given best care for years, because it is seen it has earned it by many years "serving" for the zoo. So euthanising for example of last lion or monkey after death of its companion, which is surprisingly common in Australia etc., would not fly here.

We have sad historic examples of captive breeding programs that have collapsed and ceased to exist just because at some moment holding capacity was full or that species was not "in" for time beeig, all zoos simultanously stopped bredding for some years. And when capacity was freed partly again, zoos realised all females grew old or their anticonception could not be reversed anymore, and all the hard work of several generations of zoo workers was just for naught. All those animals who were catched in nature, that were founders of the breeding program, were caught for nothing, their genes didnt survive in the end, only due to bad management.

Zoos in the past were more like museums, they would buy animals, exhibit them, took care about every single animal till its death (so they didnt need to buy a new one). Ever since zoos have decided to stop bringing in new wild-caught animals and started managed breeding programs, they have changed from "museums" into "farms". With all related ethical problems.

Each person drows its limit what animal is ok to be slaughtered. Nobody oposes vermin control like poisoning of rats in sewer system. Vegans dont want any domesticated animal to be killed. "Average" person is ok with slaughter of domestic animals, vernison (deer, wild boar etc.), but doesnt want most large popular zoo animals to be killed. They would be ok with antelope/bison/fox, probably not with a monkey or dolphin. What we see as acceptable is based on cultural norms and individual ethics so it will differ between countries. I urge people to always keep in mind we dont have universal norms on this planet. They change rather quickly depending on space and time.

 

[lintworm]

to breed endangered species and hope that some where will take them just to maintain an exhibit in a collection. Just seems bizarre to me.

You are misunderstanding me, this is not about 1 zoo maintaining an exhibit, but about maintaining a Europe-wide population. There is basically always place for female offspring in zoos, it is the males that are difficult to place (and bachelor groups don't go the whole way, but have certainly allowed continuous breeding of many species, that otherwise would have needed to be halted, such as Gorillas). You can't predict what the sex will be of the offpsring until after the offpsring has been born. Stop breeding and the whole European zoo population will start to overage as their are hardly any new breeding age animals and such a population could then quickly collapse and the species disappear from European collections.

 

[Zoonut]

Yes I get your point but I do not see how surplus animals cannot go to safari parks or zoos with mixed species, until a time that the animal is required. There are two surving southern white rhino both female, so no breeding potential are they not viable animals then. Zoos have a moral duty to care for every animal within there care, euthanasia due to wrong gender just seems wrong to me.

 

[lintworm]

es I get your point but I do not see how surplus animals cannot go to safari parks or zoos with mixed species, until a time that the animal is required.

Because space is limited there too, before euthanasia these animals are offered to such zoos already.

There are two surving southern white rhino both female, so no breeding potential are they not viable animals then.

That is a completely different story, from a population perspective that is indeed a dead end, but that doesn't mean they should be culled and I don't think anyone would argue that.

Zoos have a moral duty to care for every animal within there care, euthanasia due to wrong gender just seems wrong to me.

I think I will leave it at that, as it is a moral choice (and there is no clear right or wrong, just different ways of looking at it), but what I (and others) have been trying to say is that if you follow such a moral code, you have to accept that 0 euthanasia in zoos would mean even less diversity and breeding programs collapsing. If that is your choice, I am fine with that, but I have a different view (even as a vegetarian).

 

[Zoonut]

Also a vegetarian but that is nothing to do with my distaste on this matter

 

[Mr. Zootycoon]

Zoos have a moral duty to care for every animal within there care, euthanasia due to wrong gender just seems wrong to me.

They why is it wrong? Does it violate some right the animal has? Or do you see it as a welfare problem?

I'm trying to understand your ethical view here. We can't have a good discussion if we don't understand each other's views.

As for my opinion:

Spoiler: Warning! Personal ethical opinion ahead!

I personally do not believe in a "right to live" for wild animals (as it would violate the "rules" of the biotic community) and by extension I don't believe predation - e.g. lions eating a giraffe - is morally wrong. I also believe we shouldn't just kill animals for the sake of it because every animal has an inherent moral value, but when the "greater good" (for lack of better wording) are at stake it may be the least bad option. And I also think that welfare is far more important than simply being alive.

(I'm trying to avoid a discussion on Callicot's concentric circles, but my view aligns in several fundamental aspects with it)

I know that there are problems with and inconsistencies in my views and I'm still trying to figure it out. I'm open to change my mind so go ahead and pull my views apart.

 

[banham.tiger]

Dont say greater good you'll get compared to Donald Trump

 

[gentle lemur]

I think that the commonest example of this sort of practice in UK zoos is the culling of infant males of herd species. It is not publicised: but ask yourself how often do you see a herd with one stag, six hinds and three fawns? Why aren't there five or six fawns? I have seen bachelor groups of these species in zoos, particularly for rarer animals, but not very often.
Zoos have to manage their animal stocks and for some species this may be the most effective way to solve a tricky problem.

 

[Jurek7]

Side discussion: it looks like the current position of AZA and EAZA is at a cross with ethics of majority of the society.

To most people, life under substandard conditions is preferable to death. We do not euthanize homeless people because they live in substandard conditions. Nor we euthanize accident victims and prisoners, because 'welfare is not additive' and time of suffering 'cannot be' outweighed by future full-quality life.

One can propose therefore, that it is better to place surplus animals in low-quality zoos than to kill them. Same with male apes, it is better to keep them temporarily alone than vasectomize them so they would never pass puberty and be compatible with their natal group.

 

[Zoonut]

Thank you, someone on the same way of thinking.

 

[Andrew Swales]

We do not euthanize homeless people because they live in substandard conditions.

it is better to place surplus animals in low-quality zoos than to kill them.

Do you propose that ALL species (for example, chickens and rats and cockroaches...) should have exactly the same rights as humans...? - or just selected spp/individuals?

 

[Zoonut]

I think with this current pandemic, a zoonotic disease I think we should all think a bit more of our treatment of animal species.

 

[Rajang21]

I think with this current pandemic, a zoonotic disease I think we should all think a bit more of our treatment of animal species.

Regardless of the rest of this discussion, the current pandemic has no relation whatsoever to welfare or population-based euthanasia decisions in zoos.

 

[SHAVINGTONZOO]

I am against the euthanizing of healthy animals, for example Marius at Copenhagen and in 2018, the euthanasia of 2 lion cubs and 7 more in the past six years at Boras because they were surplus. If they were going to euthanize them, they shouldn't let their lions breed or at least try to find them a home.

In many AZA zoos, when some animals are no longer necessary for the SSP, they try to relocate them to unaccredited zoos and I would rather let that animal live in an unaccredited zoo than euthanize it.

But what if the conditions at the unaccredited zoo are poor?

Which is better, a miserable life or a painfree culling?

 

[SHAVINGTONZOO]

Do you propose that ALL species (for example, chickens and rats and cockroaches...) should have exactly the same rights as humans...? - or just selected spp/individuals?

A very good point. I had this … er, discussion … with an RSPCA Inspector. He'd been called out to an injured swan - which we could not find. As he scanned the edge of the water he dislodged a plant which fell into the water. Along with the snail that was on it. I asked him if he was going to rescue the snail, which was now floating on the water. He looked at me as if I was insane.

I pointed out that their adverts say they are "there for all animals".

Don't get me started on parasites on zoo specimens …

 

[Jungle Man]

But what if the conditions at the unaccredited zoo are poor?

Which is better, a miserable life or a painfree culling?

You have a good point. But, what would you say if it is a specie with low numbers within North America. Only a couple of zoos have them and when they offer the Offspring, no zoos are willing to have them. An unaccredited zoo offers to take them so they will not be euthanized. What would you do? Let the zoo euthanize them or put them in a low quality zoo in which they can maintain their specie alive in North America?

 

[SHAVINGTONZOO]

You have a good point. But, what would you say if it is a specie with low numbers within North America. Only a couple of zoos have them and when they offer the Offspring, no zoos are willing to have them. An unaccredited zoo offers to take them so they will not be euthanized. What would you do? Let the zoo euthanize them or put them in a low quality zoo in which they can maintain their specie alive in North America?

It would depend on the circumstances. The species, the collection offering to house them, the accommodation and husbandry standards they could offer.

It's not a yes/no issue.

 

[Jungle Man]

It would depend on the circumstances. The species, the collection offering to house them, the accommodation and husbandry standards they could offer.

It's not a yes/no issue.

Of course, it depends on the circumstances and it isn't a yes/no issue. I agree completely with you and I do think, some of them could be euthanized. Like for example, hybrid animals that do nothing in breeding programs, but depending. If a zoo wants to take them, without thinking If they are hybrids, it is okay but if no one wants them, the zoo cannot hold them forever.

 

[Sand Cat]

I don't agree with it at all. Zoos have a role to educate the public about wildlife and encourage them to love and respect animals - how can they do that and then say that animals are disposable? But I've got into some heated discussions here before, effectively for being more of an animal lover than a zoo enthusiast - and I make no apology for that.

 

[SHAVINGTONZOO]

I don't agree with it at all. Zoos have a role to educate the public about wildlife and encourage them to love and respect animals - how can they do that and then say that animals are disposable? But I've got into some heated discussions here before, effectively for being more of an animal lover than a zoo enthusiast - and I make no apology for that.

I don't agree that zoos have a role to encourage the public "to love … animals". What does that even mean? I love my wife. How am I supposed to "love" animals?