Remembering Dead Animals in Zoos

[ZooElephantMan]

At no point did I 'legally imply' anything - and snowglobes have been introduced into this by you, not me.
Of course animals are important individually, and of course they are not objects - again I never said anything to the contrary.
In a large zoo, hundreds of staff have cared for and have been personally committed to many thousands of animals, for maybe hundreds of years. Everyone has had a different personal relationship with many of these. A graveyard is ridiculous. A chicken farmer producing thousands of birds for human consumption (or 'waste' chicks for zoo animal feed) would not have a statue of 'clucky'. Some animals in zoos are fed as live-food or dead-food to others, so how can these be 'valuable intrinsically as individuals' and suitable for memorials. Some zoos sell meat from their animals in zoo shops.
Animals are not humans.
Misquoting me though, is insulting.

They are animals, not people.

I am sorry, I did not intend to misquote you.

My point is that there is a difference between being a human and being a person. According to legal definitions, every entity is either one of two things-- a person or an object. Because you said that animals are not people, and because everything is either a person or an object, you are implying that animals are objects (under the legal definition) because they are not people. That is my point-- not to say you said something that you did not, but to say what you may have unintentionally implied. Because you seemingly implied that animals are objects because they are not people, I offered the snowglobe comparison, to show what another collection of objects may look like.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

That'd be cultural appropriation...
and culturally insensitive, since rattlesnakes come from the Americas. So depending on the species, I would have to follow indigenous rituals - which would lead to more cultural appropriation...
The Vipera berus might get a viking funeral, though. Hopefully, far down the road.

Might I suggest an Aztec funerary ritual for the rattlesnake ?

You will need to create several effigies of the snake and burn these while weeping copious amounts of tears and bewailing its sad fate and gesticulating wildly to show grief.

Then conduct a speech to honour the serpentine gods like coatlicue or quetzalcoatl and to allow them to give safe passage to the snake through the underworld of Mictlan.

Finally place a piece of jade under its tongue and bury it with all the things that it will need for the afterlife (so plenty of frozen rats etc).

 

[Ned]

The idea that something is either a person or an object is the craziest thing I've ever heard. Surely a plant is neither a person or an object?

 

[TeaLovingDave]

My point is that there is a difference between being a human and being a person. According to legal definitions, every entity is either one of two things-- a person or an object.

These being "legal definitions" you just invented yourself in order to justify your nonsensical accusation that Andrew views his animals as no different to a collection of snowglobes.

There is no such legal definition stating that things can only be people or objects.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

The idea that something is either a person or an object is the craziest thing I've ever heard. Surely a plant is neither a person or an object?

Yes, it seems absurd to me too that we must apply a definition of "personhood" to animals, plants, ecosystems, rivers, forests etc in order to prevent them being categorized under legislation as "objects" / "property".

Apparently there is a legal definition under statutory and case law ( "animal law" ) that does make the distinction between animals and humans with the former being categorized as "a creature or living thing, other than human, being able to move of its own accord".

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

These being "legal definitions" you just invented yourself in order to justify your nonsensical accusation that Andrew views his animals as no different to a collection of snowglobes.

There is no such legal definition stating that things can only be people or objects.

I think that @ZooElephantsMan may be confusing this because a number of animal rights activist organizations like PETA have put information / misinformation out there that suggests that the legal plight of animals is that reductive / black and white.

The motive behind this is apparently to seek to challenge contemporary laws and legislation with the aim of elevating animals to having rights of "personhood" as defined by the law.

This would presumably (according to them) prevent incidence of cruelty, neglect or crime against animals (they seem to forget that the universal declaration of human rights hasn't prevented genocides, murders or violence amongst humans).

 

[Batto]

Might I suggest an Aztec funerary ritual for the rattlesnake ?

You will need to create several effigies of the snake and burn these while weeping copious amounts of tears and bewailing its sad fate and gesticulating wildly to show grief.

Then conduct a speech to honour the serpentine gods like coatlicue or quetzalcoatl and to allow them to give safe passage to the snake through the underworld of Mictlan.

Finally place a piece of jade under its tongue and bury it with all the things that it will need for the afterlife (so plenty of frozen rats etc).

But am I, as a Non-Indigenous person actually allowed to perform such a ceremony?

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

But am I, as a Non-Indigenous person actually allowed to perform such a ceremony?

Yeah, fair point, as you mentioned there could be cultural appropriation of Meso-American Precolombian civilizations (which no longer exist so cannot be offended).

I would say do it anyway, Quetzalcoatl demands it !

 

[ZooElephantMan]

These being "legal definitions" you just invented yourself in order to justify your nonsensical accusation that Andrew views his animals as no different to a collection of snowglobes.

I am sorry if I have come off as making up nonsense evidence in order to justify my point, but I am trying to have a genuine discussion here, to express my views and listen to the views of others, and I am going into this openmindedly and am willing to change my mind.

I think that @ZooElephantsMan may be confusing this because a number of animal rights activist organizations like PETA have put information / misinformation out there that suggests that the legal plight of animals is that reductive / black and white.

Apparently there is a legal definition under statutory and case law ( "animal law" ) that does make the distinction between animals and humans with the former being categorized as "a creature or living thing, other than human, being able to move of its own accord".

I would like to thank @Onychorhynchus coronatus, for understanding that I have come into this discussion with good intentions, and that I am not intentionally making up evidence just to further my own point. I think you are probably right, that I may have somehow heard about this idea from someone connected with PETA (an organization which I strongly oppose), without paying enough analytical attention to realize that it was actually just "fake news". I had never before heard of the definition categorizing animals as "a creature or living thing, other than human, being able to move of its own accord," but it sounds like a rational middle ground between classifying animals as either persons or objects.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I am sorry if I have come off as making up nonsense evidence in order to justify my point, but I am trying to have a genuine discussion here, to express my views and listen to the views of others, and I am going into this openmindedly and am willing to change my mind.





I would like to thank @Onychorhynchus coronatus, for understanding that I have come into this discussion with good intentions, and that I am not intentionally making up evidence just to further my own point. I think you are probably right, that I may have somehow heard about this idea from someone connected with PETA (an organization which I strongly oppose), without paying enough analytical attention to realize that it was actually just "fake news". I had never before heard of the definition categorizing animals as "a creature or living thing, other than human, being able to move of its own accord," but it sounds like a rational middle ground between classifying animals as either persons or objects.

No problem, I think there is a lot of misinformation put out there by animal rights organizations so it is easy to fall for that kind of stuff and of course this is a very nuanced topic and particularly when it comes to law and legislation.

But yes, there is actually a sensible rational legal middle group categorization of animals which doesn't necessitate the application of the whole "personhood" thing (which is very much in vogue at the moment).

 

[Bib Fortuna]

If there should be memorials for zoo animals, then also for the animals that are eaten by humans-and they had a truly horrible life, right ? Or are they "other" animals ?

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

If there should be memorials for zoo animals, then also for the animals that are eaten by humans-and they had a truly horrible life, right ? Or are they "other" animals ?

I think a bit of a distinction is needed here between these two examples you give.

The first example is an animal kept in captivity in conditions which promote the visiting public to form connections in empathetic and intellectual / educational and aesthetic appreciation terms towards individual animals and the plight of the species in the wild (i.e. salience).

Indeed that might be argued to be one of the purposes of the modern zoo, right ?

The second example you give is of animals that are kept in industrial production facilities and slaughtered away from the gaze of the public to provide food and while some people feel empathy for these it is a totally different kind qualitatively from animals in zoos.

A memorial to the "unknown cow / pig / chicken" killed in order to provide meat for burgers / chicken nuggets or bacon is not going to have the same emotional appeal as a memorial to an individual gorilla , okapi or elephant at a zoo who people have formed an emotionally salient connection with.

 

[Pootle]

If there should be memorials for zoo animals, then also for the animals that are eaten by humans-and they had a truly horrible life, right ? Or are they "other" animals ?

The post (I think I'm right) was about very special animals to specific zoos, not the other 99% of zoo animals or animals eaten or any animal born. Reading some daft posts here I think I should make a shrine to every egg I eat! So ZooChatty to pick holes in another's post .

 

[Terry Thomas]

I still think back in 2017 at Oregon Zoo Packy the elephant deserved to be mounted for their indooor museum type exhibit in Forest Hall. I hope other elephants' remains will be saved for exhibition upon their passings in the future.

I do not think that I would like to be stuffed and mounted for display after my death! If an animal is really cared for, sentimentally, why put it's remains on display? Surely that is disrespect!

 

[Batto]

I do not think that I would like to be stuffed and mounted for display after my death

That would be another case of anthropomorphization, based on individual preference. I doubt that any animal understands the concept of disrespect in regard to its afterlife or longs for a funeral.
For the purpose of education, a expertly done preservation might do more good than just burying the body.

 

[DaLilFishie]

Reef HQ has a display for the preserved skeleton of Oscar, a Queensland Grouper that lived at the aquarium until he died in 1999.
https://www.zoochat.com/community/media/oscar-the-queensland-grouper.511477/full

 

[ZooElephantMan]

I am sorry if I have come off as making up nonsense evidence in order to justify my point, but I am trying to have a genuine discussion here, to express my views and listen to the views of others, and I am going into this openmindedly and am willing to change my mind.





I would like to thank @Onychorhynchus coronatus, for understanding that I have come into this discussion with good intentions, and that I am not intentionally making up evidence just to further my own point. I think you are probably right, that I may have somehow heard about this idea from someone connected with PETA (an organization which I strongly oppose), without paying enough analytical attention to realize that it was actually just "fake news". I had never before heard of the definition categorizing animals as "a creature or living thing, other than human, being able to move of its own accord," but it sounds like a rational middle ground between classifying animals as either persons or objects.

In case anyone was still curious, I found this short article (Opinion | Should Chimpanzees Be Considered ‘Persons’? (Published 2018)) about personhood in animals, written by the director of the animal studies program at NYU. Even if you disagree with the argument, it may be interesting to read just to see their point of view.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

In case anyone was still curious, I found this short article (Opinion | Should Chimpanzees Be Considered ‘Persons’? (Published 2018)) about personhood in animals, written by the director of the animal studies program at NYU. Even if you disagree with the argument, it may be interesting to read just to see their point of view.

I've heard about this case before and IMO there is a very "animal rights" / academia angle to this drive for "personhood" for chimpanzees bull ****.

Will granting "personhood" to chimpanzees in the USA make a difference to the plight of the species / subspecies in the wild ?

If the answer to that question is "no" then it is merely an irrelevant supefluous and pretencious ivory tower talking point with no significant implications for preventing the extinction in the wild of our closest living relative.

 

[Andrew Swales]

The post (I think I'm right) was about very special animals to specific zoos, not the other 99% of zoo animals or animals eaten or any animal born. Reading some daft posts here I think I should make a shrine to every egg I eat! So ZooChatty to pick holes in another's post .

No, the initial comment said 'I feel that some sort of memorial for dead zoo animals should be normalized' - it did not differentiate a rattlesnake from a locust, or a panda or an okapi...
Even if you accept this principle, you would never reach an agreement on which 99% to deny such a memorial. Everyone would have a different list, depending on what they had worked with and what relationships had developed...

 

[FBBird]

I do not think that I would like to be stuffed and mounted for display after my death! If an animal is really cared for, sentimentally, why put it's remains on display? Surely that is disrespect!

It can be the sincerest form of respect. I have had several of my own birds stuffed after their natural death, the necessary qualifications being that they were good examples of their species rather than pets.
I wouldn’t have one of the dogs stuffed.
The famous Bristol gorilla, Alfred, first of his kind to attain maturity in a U.K. zoo, is stuffed and on show. He fills the dual roles of a zoological specimen and a local celebrity