Euthanasia/ Culling

[Jurek7]

Children learn how to treat other people by treating animals. Zoos have an important educational duty: teaching compassion to new generation.

By euthanizing old and surplus animals easily, zoos give children example that it is acceptable to neglect elderly and poor people. A child can easily make a connection: if it is fine to euthanize an old lion, why care about old grandmother? Her life is of a poor quality and there is too many people on the planet, as I hear. And attitude to old and sick people is a big problem in Western countries.

 

[Jurek7]

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?

You are obviously misdirecting the argument. And I think you may be doing it purposefully.

 

[Zoonut]

This conversation is showing the hypocrisy in the whole concept of some zoo's, I have worked in zoo's in the UK and abroad and in none of these have an animal been euthanased due to it's gender. I have a private collection of appendix 1 parrots and have more aviaries for there offspring than breeding aviaries, none are handreared unless essential, and all are gifted to collections for no payment. Surely the whole concept of zoo's is for eventual release into the wild, although I have seen time and time again collection's being abused when they do that exact thing. People on here have argued that they should be sent to other collections, surely that's the whole ethos that zoo's base themselves on.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

People on here have argued that they should be sent to other collections, surely that's the whole ethos that zoo's base themselves on.

The key issue is that of capacity - there are too often fewer collections capable of taking surplus stock, than there is surplus stock itself. The fact that some collections refuse to take surplus stock, and then when the animals in question are due to be PTS make a big fuss about being willing to take them when it is too late (but they are apt to get good publicity for making the last-minute offer) does not help matters either.

Moreover, as alluded by some individuals above it is sometimes not feasible to stop a species or individuals from breeding due to a lack of capacity without risking being unable to resume breeding once demand or capacity increases. Some species need to reproduce on a regular basis, or at the very least reproduce before a certain age, lest they lose the ability to reproduce entirely. This includes species such as Asian Elephant, Giraffe and Rhinoceros. Similarly, some species do not react well to contraceptive implants, and may well be permanently sterilised and incur health issues such as obesity - this includes many primates and cat species.

lthough I have seen time and time again collection's being abused when they do that exact thing.

If you are referring to the two particular zoos I think you are referring to, it is disingenuous to pretend there aren't good reasons for the complaints people have expressed about their approach to "reintroduction" of species such as Western Lowland Gorilla

 

[Zoonut]

Not at all not Gorillas, but many other species the thought that animal's should be sent to other collections rather than return to the wild goes against all the whole ethos of the existence of zoo's, isn't it to conserve species until release is available and when it is an uproar happens on here, maybe it's not successful maybe it is but is that not the whole point of zoo's existence.

 

[Zoonut]

Oh I see that was a sarcastic comment about the aspinnals, John aspinnals was thought to be a nutcase but remind me how many Gorillas have both parks bread, tigers, dholes,European bison and how many enclosures did he have for one species. Or Gerald Durrel having 10 aviaries for white eared pheasants. Luckily I had the privilege of meeting both of them.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Oh I see that was a sarcastic comment about the aspinnals, John aspinnals was thought to be a nutcase but remind me how many Gorillas have both parks bread, tigers, dholes,European bison and how many enclosures did he have for one species. Or Gerald Durrel having 10 aviaries for white eared pheasants. Luckily I had the privilege of meeting both of them.

Not a sarcastic comment, and not about *John* Aspinall at all I was referring to the fact that his son has received a lot of flak on Zoochat for his haphazard and ill-fated reintroductions of Western Lowland Gorilla, and rightly so. I had (incorrectly, it seems) assumed that it was the criticism of these reintroductions to which you were referring.

 

[SHAVINGTONZOO]

Children learn how to treat other people by treating animals. Zoos have an important educational duty: teaching compassion to new generation.

By euthanizing old and surplus animals easily, zoos give children example that it is acceptable to neglect elderly and poor people. A child can easily make a connection: if it is fine to euthanize an old lion, why care about old grandmother? Her life is of a poor quality and there is too many people on the planet, as I hear. And attitude to old and sick people is a big problem in Western countries.

I think your opening statement is untrue. And if children's compassion depends on visiting the zoo then society is in a dark place.

On your second paragraph does that mean euthanasing pets is also wrong? Children are far more likely to be aware of their elderly family pet being put down than any zoo lion.

 

[Zoonut]

But is that not the whole concept of zoo's, yes I agree with you he did do it in the wrong way. But surely the whole point of zoo's is to release animals into the wild and yes wholeheartedly agree with you he did it it in the wrong way. The fact he had a TV crew with him to do it was a mistake. The whole point of this is we need to try releasing animals into the wild, if it doesn't work then surely rescued animals from ie the USA could be kept in none breeding situations, to generate money for there wild counterparts. I just think some and I say some zoo's euthanise animals to get breeding pair's in. I have known zoo's raise huge amounts of money for their wild counterparts without the need for crowd pleasing cubs, fawn,etc. Some sanctuaries around the world have a surplus of rescued animals that can't be released that would make excellent exhibition animals and not produce unwanted offspring. It's just a thought.

 

[SHAVINGTONZOO]

Not at all not Gorillas, but many other species the thought that animal's should be sent to other collections rather than return to the wild goes against all the whole ethos of the existence of zoo's, isn't it to conserve species until release is available and when it is an uproar happens on here, maybe it's not successful maybe it is but is that not the whole point of zoo's existence.

It's part of the ethos, but - in my opinion - not the sole purpose. Nor even, necessarily, the main purpose of zoos.

 

[Zoonut]

Funny that there is an outpouring of grief from people when a particular animal passes away at a zoo, including alot of this site's members.

 

[Zoonut]

What education so are all zoo's going to announce that we had a youngster born, but didn't fit in with the breeding programme so we euthanasied it at birth.

 

[Rajang21]

Funny that there is an outpouring of grief from people when a particular animal passes away at a zoo, including alot of this site's members.

Does this bear any significant relation to the topic of this discussion? The term 'passes away' also implies that the animal in question has died without human intervention. When zoos announce an animal has been 'put to sleep,' the general public response tends towards sympathy and understanding.

 

[Zoonut]

Due to old age, or an incurable condition bit different. Even if human intervention is involved.

 

[Rajang21]

Due to old age, or an incurable condition bit different.

Would you accept that an animal with an incurable health condition or age-related issues should be euthanased on welfare grounds?
(Assuming said condition is detrimental to the animal's quality of life.)

 

[Zoonut]

Would you accept that an animal with an incurable health condition or age-related issues should be euthanased on welfare grounds?
(Assuming said condition is detrimental to the animal's quality of life.)

Yes I thought that was implied.

 

[Zoonut]

Sorry reread what I wrote.

 

[TinoPup]

I think it's important to mention that "culling" has multiple definitions. More specifically, euthanasia is "hard cull". Spay/neuter is "soft cull".

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Marius the giraffe was fed to the lions after he was euthanised.

My question: why is feeding a giraffe any worse than feeding a cow?

To add to that, horse meat obtained from recently culled animals is commonly fed to big cats in zoos across the world. Considering the strong relationship and cultural salience that people have with horses (as opposed to cattle which are just viewed as sources of leather, meat, and dairy products) you would expect there to be a "moral outrage" towards this (even though zoos are recipients of this meat rather than actively culling it) on levels similar to those shown during the giraffe incident.

But strangely there doesn't appear to be any "outrage" generated by this practice which can probably be explained by most people not knowing that it exists and it not being common public knowledge. I suppose that the issue with the giraffe in Copenhagan was more about the zoo acknowledging openly that they had culled the animal and fed parts of the carcass to the lions and the subsequent public attention it received.

 

[Andrew Swales]

To add to that, horse meat obtained from recently culled animals is commonly fed to big cats in zoos across the world. Considering the strong relationship and cultural salience that people have with horses (as opposed to cattle which are just viewed as sources of leather, meat, and dairy products) you would expect there to be a "moral outrage" towards this (even though zoos are recipients of this meat rather than actively culling it) on levels similar to those shown during the giraffe incident.

But strangely there doesn't appear to be any "outrage" generated by this practice which can probably be explained by most people not knowing that it exists and it not being common public knowledge. I suppose that the issue with the giraffe in Copenhagan was more about the zoo acknowledging openly that they had culled the animal and fed parts of the carcass to the lions and the subsequent public attention it received.

I am not sure that there is actually a huge amount of pubic outrage'. It is the 'outrage' of a minority, a proportion of whom are anti-zoo anyway, fueled by an opportunistic and sensationalist media. Here, we have no evidence that there is any more issue with feeding horse, than any other meat. A small (very small) proportion of visitors will complain if they can see recognisable pieces of carcass being fed, presumably because they are used to having their own food sanitised and processed for them. Some zoos, of course, fuel this 'miss-education' and feed day-old chicks and other recognisable food items outside public opening hours.