Tiergarten Nürnberg Nuremberg zoo ...to cull twenty five Guinea Baboons

Pertinax said:
As to animals' reaction to the death of others, in particular companions/ conspecifics.. I once had a small dog which suddenly
died of a heart attack while we were out on a walk. His much bigger companion of eight years or so showed no sign of concern or interest at all, either when travelling next to him in the car or when we buried him. Completely indifferent.

If it actually happens in Nurnberg's case, I presume they would split the troop beforehand and the ones to be be euthanased, in whichever way, would be kept inside for the duration so the 'saved' ones wouldn't see it anyway. I'm surprised no UK places like Monkeyworld or Port Lympne have so far offered them homes, but the first hasn't got an enclosure available perhaps, while Port Lympne have a very large group of 'Guineas' already.
Click to expand...
Hi, I am having trouble finding where this thread is, I thought that it was in general zoo discussion. Could you tell me where it is please
 
Kalaw said:
It is beyond me how anyone could suggest that culling is preferable to contraception. I think this whole debate is rather silly.
Click to expand...
Thinking that contraception solves everything is the most silly thing in this whole debate. Contraception in wildlife is still poorly developed and poorly efficient. Contraception protocols do not exist for most taxa, are laborious to perform, they often fail (the animals remain fertile or partially fertile), or have consequences for the animals at health, behaviour and reproductive levels. If your contraceptive fails, just once, you will have offspring to deal with, and that happens very often. Some animals become infertile for the rest of their lives after contraception (in this case when you stop hormonal contraception), and others lose secondary sexual physical characteristics that are essential for group dynamics, behaviour or social ranking. There are even cases of individuals removing their implants (from under their skin). Furthermore, denying the animals the right to reproduce (and all its associated benefits) is by itself an ethical problem as it is killing them. The only way to prevent baboons from reproducing without resourcing any to contraception method would be isolation, which we all agree that for a social species, it's not possible. Finally, stopping breeding can have catastrophic implications for population sustainability long term. Your population becomes older and older and not enough young animals are born to replace those that die old. And in some species with reproductive senescence, if you do not breed them when they are still young, you lose your chance. Some species like rhinos or elephants develop physical problems in their reproductive system (cysts ovaries and uterus, in females) which can lead to the animals becoming infertile or developing other health problems.
Contraception is just a tool, not the solution.
 
And good practices of breed and culling do not kill baby animals. They are euthanised at the age of dispersal which means when the young leave their home group/become independent from parental care.
Regarding animal welfare. A dead animal does not have welfare. It is just a body. Animals do not think how long they will live (if years or decades) nor do they even care that much about it. They do care about how good (good welfare) is the life they have. So think about it more regarding quality over quantity. It does not remove the ethical discussion around killing or not an animal. But killing an animal (if in a painless manner) is not per se a welfare issue.
 
All this attention has brought 3 interested parties (probably all with a liking for attention) that would take over the surplus baboons. This includes the Wales Apes & Monkey Sanctuary. The zoo together with the EEP are now discussing whether these are genuine options.
 
Wisp O' Mist said:
The FAQ, translated into English.

‐--------------------------------

Why does the zoo keep Guinea baboons?

The Nuremberg Zoo is currently the only zoo in Germany that keeps Guinea baboons. A total of 278 animals of this species live in zoos run by the European Zoo Association (EAZA). In the medium term, EAZA zoos are required to increase the housing options for Guinea baboons - because the species is coming under increasing pressure in the wild.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), to which the Nuremberg Zoo belongs, classifies Guinea baboons as potentially endangered. In the past 30 years the population has probably already decreased by 20 percent. Reasons for the decline include loss of habitat and human predation.

The Nuremberg Zoo would like to stick to this attitude. It serves the survival of the species that a population is maintained under human care that can form the basis for releases into the wild when there are protected and suitable spaces at some point.

Since when has the zoo kept Guinea baboons?

The zoo has been keeping Guinea baboons since 1942.

How many Guinea baboons are there in zoos?

A total of 278 animals currently live in just ten zoos of the European Zoo Association (EAZA), including 45 animals in Nuremberg. The Nuremberg Zoo is currently the only zoo in Germany that keeps Guinea baboons. He wants to continue the keeping in collaboration with EAZA in order to contribute to the conservation of the species.

Why does the Nuremberg Zoo have to reduce the size of its baboon group?

The Nuremberg Zoo breeds its baboons as part of the European Conservation Breeding Program (EAZA ex-Situ Program, EEP). The breeding of EEP species is managed centrally by a coordinator based on scientific criteria. The goal is to maintain populations that are as genetically diverse as possible.

For this purpose, the participating institutions exchange animals on the recommendation of the coordinator, they breed young animals or pause breeding. In many species, litter sizes and sex ratios of young animals cannot be predicted - it is unavoidable that young animals are born that cannot be used for breeding.

In the Nuremberg Zoo, the baboon group has reached a size for which the facility, which was expanded in 2009, was not designed. The side effect of overpopulation is increased conflicts with corresponding injuries to the animals. The conflicts within the baboon group are expressed, for example, through bite injuries.

These conflicts are generally not unusual for baboons and also occur in nature, but not as frequently as in the group in the zoo.

What are the basic options for reducing the size of the group?

Since 2011, an interdisciplinary animal protection commission (consisting of the management, the curator, the zoo veterinarians, the inspectors, the district management, animal carers and the official veterinarian) has examined all options and taken measures to reduce the group size and growth of the group.

The following six alternatives, some of which were not successful and some of which have not yet been used, were considered:

• Release to other zoos
• International animal brokers
• Release into the wild
• Mercy accommodation/sanctuaries
• Contraception/reversible infertility
• Sterilization and castration/irreversible infertility
• The animal welfare-compliant killing of surplus baboons

Can't the zoo give animals to other zoos?

Animals that are managed within an EEP are primarily placed by the coordinator and based on their recommendations. If the EEP cannot help or the animals do not belong to an EEP, the zoo offers its surplus animals to all institutions that have access to the zoo animal database ZIMS/Species360.

These approximately 1,300 institutions are predominantly the accredited zoos of the VdZ (Association of Zoological Gardens), the EAZA (European Association of Zoos and Aquaria), the EARAZA (Eurasian Zoo Association) or the WAZA (World Association of Zoos and Aquariums). .

In addition, the zoo sends its drop-off and search lists directly to around 200 partner zoos in Europe, including zoos that are considered good and do not belong to any of the associations mentioned. In the case of baboons, only two zoos have added 16 animals to their inventory since 2011. Despite various attempts, no further delivery options have emerged in recent years.

Which drop-off options other than zoos has the Nuremberg Zoo examined?

Some (e.g. Arabic and Chinese) institutions cannot be reached via the associations and databases of which Nuremberg Zoo is a part. In order to examine these options, international animal brokers and transporters are asked whether they can place the animals.

If interest is expressed by zoos that are not organized in an association, it must first be clarified whether the keeping conditions and operational structures are suitable. If the facilities do not meet the minimum standards required by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture's mammal report, the animals will not be released there.

But even facilities of untested quality have shown no interest in taking over Guinea baboons in recent years (since September 2020).

Why doesn't the zoo give the baboons to a sanctuary?

Only facilities in which the animals can live integrated into a social group are considered for the zoo. The only large animal welfare facility that takes in primates until they can be placed with another owner is currently struggling with a “waiting list” of 200 confiscated animals. The zoo also asked there.

Can Guinea baboons not be released into the wild?

The goal of keeping all animal species threatened with extinction in zoos is to return them to suitable habitats. Releases are subject to strict rules drawn up by the IUCN. As a member of the IUCN, the zoo adheres to these rules when releasing ibexes, lynxes, ground squirrels, northern owls, northern bald ibises, bearded vultures, pond turtles, etc.).

There is currently no question of releasing Guinea baboons into the wild because there are no suitable areas in the areas of origin where they could be settled and where they could live safely. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has been observing a decline in natural populations for decades.

They live in an area that extends across Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Sierra Leone and Mali. Their habitats are coming under increasing pressure: for example, Senegal's Niokolo-Koba National Park, which has been on the UNESCO World Heritage List in Danger since 2007.

Reintroduction projects have to be prepared in a time-consuming manner and then the project has to be coordinated and scientifically monitored over many years. A release project for Guinea baboons does not currently exist and is not planned for the reasons mentioned above, which is why the zoo cannot release any baboons into the wild at the moment.

If Guinea baboons cannot currently be released into the wild, why are they kept at all?

A population kept in human care can form the basis for releases into the wild if there are protected and suitable spaces at some point. The attitude therefore serves to secure and survive the species.

Can't the group size be kept stable through contraception?

Attempts to keep the group structure and size stable by temporarily preventing females while at the same time reducing the group growth rate have not had the desired effect. Because the females remained permanently infertile. The zoo has therefore not provided contraception to any of the female Guinea baboon since 2018.

Contraception for males, which would only be possible through sterilization, makes no sense since only one fertile male could cover all females.

The fact that animals can reproduce is not only important for genetic and health reasons: partner choice, mating, births and rearing play a crucial role in the animals' social life. The zoo wants to make all of these aspects possible for its Guinea baboons and sees itself as having a responsibility to maintain a socially functioning, healthy, diverse and reproductive group.

Why doesn't the zoo sterilize all the animals?

Irreversible infertility of animals in the long term is only possible if the population is to die out. Since the population of Guinea baboons in the wild has been decreasing for decades and zoological gardens are required to build up a reserve population on the recommendation of the EAZA, this is not possible in this case.

Why doesn't the zoo stop breeding Guinea baboons?

Zoos are legally obliged to protect species and contribute to the preservation of biodiversity. Their tasks include maintaining stable and healthy populations of various species. The Nuremberg Zoo is currently the only zoo in Germany that keeps Guinea baboons.

A total of 278 animals of this species live in zoos run by the European Zoo Association (EAZA). In the medium term, EAZA zoos are required to increase the housing options for Guinea baboons - because the species is coming under increasing pressure in the wild.

In the past 30 years the population has probably already decreased by 20 percent. The Nuremberg Zoo would like to stick to this attitude. It serves the survival of the species that a population is maintained under human care that can form the basis for releases into the wild when there are protected and suitable spaces at some point.

Can't the enclosure be enlarged?

The baboon enclosure with the associated indoor enclosure was significantly expanded and redesigned in 2009, which also improved the keeping conditions. A further expansion of the system is neither possible nor sensible. She would just postpone the question of how to deal with the limited space.

Why did the zoo allow such a large group of baboons in the first place?

Since 2011, an interdisciplinary animal protection commission (consisting of the management, the curator, the zoo veterinarians, the inspectors, the district management, animal carers and the official veterinarian) has examined all options and taken measures to reduce the group size and growth of the group.

Attempts to keep the group structure and size stable by temporarily preventing females while at the same time reducing the group growth rate have not had the desired effect. Because the females remained permanently infertile.

Contraception for males, which would only be possible through sterilization, makes no sense since only one fertile male could cover all females. There were only a few options for handing over to other suitable facilities, so the group could not be significantly reduced.

The fact that animals can reproduce is important for genetic and health reasons as well as for the social life of the animals. The zoo sees itself as having a responsibility to maintain a socially functioning, healthy, diverse and reproductive group.

How many animals have to be killed?

There is no fixed target size. The zoo wants to gradually reduce the number of baboons. After each removal, we first observe whether and how the situation changes. The next steps will then be discussed within the animal welfare commission.

When will the baboons be killed?

That's not decided yet.

How are the baboons killed?

Basically there are different methods. It is not yet clear which ones will be used, but they will comply with the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act.

Are the baboons fed to other zoo animals?

Whether the baboons are fed to predators in the zoo is always decided on a case-by-case basis. However, as with all animals, the zoo strives to use the animal carcass respectfully wherever possible.

What are the research purposes that Bayerischer Rundfunk reports on?

As with all animals, the zoo strives to use dead animals as respectfully and sensibly as possible. In addition to feeding the muscle meat, many tissue samples are very valuable for scientific purposes. Some samples come from organs that are not fed. Many of these could not be obtained from wild animals, for example for logistical and species protection reasons.

How is it decided which animals (have to) be killed?

The zoo takes various factors into account when making its decision. For example, pregnant females or animals that play a central role in the social structure and are crucial for a functioning group are not removed.

The zoo wants to gradually reduce the number of baboons. After each removal, we first observe whether and how the situation changes. The next steps will then be discussed within the animal welfare commission.

Is the zoo also involved in the natural range of Guinea baboons?

As part of a cooperation with the German Primate Center (DPZ), the zoo supports on-site research work in the Niokolo Koba National Park in Senegal. The DPZ maintains a field station there where employees and external scientists research the behavior of Guinea baboons. Among other things, the zoo supports them by equipping baboons with GPS collars.

Does the zoo keep the baboons to attract visitors and make money?

The zoo is non-profit. The income covers the running costs by an average of 70%. The subsidies from the city budget (30%) are justified by the zoo's services to the public good in the areas of species conservation, education and research.

The selection criteria by which the zoo selects its animal population are very diverse. The criteria include, for example, threat status, whether it is a species from a European conservation breeding program (EAZA ex-situ program), or whether the species is of particular relevance for zoo education, for example. Attractiveness for visitors is also one of the criteria.

Why doesn't the zoo invest the money it spends on keeping baboons into protecting the animals' natural habitats?

Species and nature conservation is a mammoth task in which many people and institutions with different expertise and orientations are involved. Nobody can do it alone.

The task of zoos is to carry out so-called ex-situ species protection. This means, among other things, keeping and breeding animals and supporting local conservationists with their knowledge of the animals' needs. If no one breeds animals, there will be no animals to release into the wild.

-------------------------------

I don't speak German, so I just plugged the FAQ into Google Translate. In-spite of the service's poor reputation, the translation is understandable, if a bit clunky.
Click to expand...
I love the amazing communication offered by this zoo! This is how every zoo should be!
 
OkapiJohn said:
Thinking that contraception solves everything is the most silly thing in this whole debate. Contraception in wildlife is still poorly developed and poorly efficient. Contraception protocols do not exist for most taxa, are laborious to perform, they often fail (the animals remain fertile or partially fertile), or have consequences for the animals at health, behaviour and reproductive levels. If your contraceptive fails, just once, you will have offspring to deal with, and that happens very often. Some animals become infertile for the rest of their lives after contraception (in this case when you stop hormonal contraception), and others lose secondary sexual physical characteristics that are essential for group dynamics, behaviour or social ranking. There are even cases of individuals removing their implants (from under their skin). Furthermore, denying the animals the right to reproduce (and all its associated benefits) is by itself an ethical problem as it is killing them. The only way to prevent baboons from reproducing without resourcing any to contraception method would be isolation, which we all agree that for a social species, it's not possible. Finally, stopping breeding can have catastrophic implications for population sustainability long term. Your population becomes older and older and not enough young animals are born to replace those that die old. And in some species with reproductive senescence, if you do not breed them when they are still young, you lose your chance. Some species like rhinos or elephants develop physical problems in their reproductive system (cysts ovaries and uterus, in females) which can lead to the animals becoming infertile or developing other health problems.
Contraception is just a tool, not the solution.
Click to expand...
Some really interesting points made there that I wasn't aware of, so thanks for bringing them up. Although I am still somewhat disturbed by the culling of zoo animals, but cannot really argue with any of that, so will admit defeat here and thank you for enlightening me.
TeaLovingDave said:
I invite everyone reading this to take a looksee at some of the images from this collection in the gallery, and judge for themselves whether culling is preferable..... :p :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
That was my initial reaction too, but the baboons do seem to have it better than the other animals there (see this photo from @MagpieGoose ). Although naturally the arrival of 25 new individuals will suddenly bring the issue of overpopulation into it, and I am not sure if this is the Guinea Baboon home seeing as ZTL also lists Hamadryas.

full
 
Kalaw said:
That was my initial reaction too, but the baboons do seem to have it better than the other animals there (see this photo from @MagpieGoose ). Although naturally the arrival of 25 new individuals will suddenly bring the issue of overpopulation into it, and I am not sure if this is the Guinea Baboon home seeing as ZTL also lists Hamadryas.
Click to expand...

I believe that is the Hamadryas, one of the newer builds.

This is the Guinea Baboon exhibit (misidentified as Olive on the signage IIRC):

full


full
 
OkapiJohn said:
And good practices of breed and culling do not kill baby animals. They are euthanised at the age of dispersal which means when the young leave their home group/become independent from parental care.
Regarding animal welfare. A dead animal does not have welfare. It is just a body. Animals do not think how long they will live (if years or decades) nor do they even care that much about it. They do care about how good (good welfare) is the life they have. So think about it more regarding quality over quantity. It does not remove the ethical discussion around killing or not an animal. But killing an animal (if in a painless manner) is not per se a welfare issue.
Click to expand...

In regulation (in the U.K example.) which you can find by searching as needed you will find that the killing and slaughter of animals and the means used directly referred to and captured as welfare issues and referred to as such. I think you have missed the element of welfare that refers to the means of killing an animal and the purpose of welfare discussions is not about ‘a dead animal has no welfare’ the welfare issues or regulations happen when it is still alive and in the manner of killing it. There are also regulations protecting some animals from being killed which also explicitly refer to welfare (bans on hunting with dogs in the U.K. for example do that). These animals are not being culled ‘illegally’n of course but the whole statement that the act of killing an animal is not relevant to welfare is simply unfounded.

You may argue such culls are necessary. You may argue the animals don’t care and so the question of destruction is an academic one and those are all opinions in the debate.

But killing of animals (method, legality, purpose) are all included in regulations that explicitly refer to welfare. Given the arguments presented against contraception you are actually also arguing for culls in the explicit interest of animal welfare (of those animals not being culled). So in effect the statement ‘nothing to do with animal welfare per se’ is factually incorrect.
 
lintworm said:
All this attention has brought 3 interested parties (probably all with a liking for attention) that would take over the surplus baboons. This includes the Wales Apes & Monkey Sanctuary. The zoo together with the EEP are now discussing whether these are genuine options.
Click to expand...

On balance based on previous history I think it’s highly unlikely any of those organisations would take these baboons or that the zoo would send them to them.

The zoo stated explicitly it had explored all valid options previously so either they didn’t (which seems unlikely while I don’t agree with this cull at all or the circumstances that lead to it don’t regard the zoo authority as incompetent or intrinsically bad and they seem to have a fine zoo in many regards) or the new offers are not suitable.

But let’s see how it turns out. It’s a shame to have a so called ‘surplus’ at all and if there really are not enough holders with an interest in the species and maintaining it perhaps it isn’t viable as a zoo population.
 
Lafone said:
In regulation (in the U.K example.) which you can find by searching as needed you will find that the killing and slaughter of animals and the means used directly referred to and captured as welfare issues and referred to as such. I think you have missed the element of welfare that refers to the means of killing an animal and the purpose of welfare discussions is not about ‘a dead animal has no welfare’ the welfare issues or regulations happen when it is still alive and in the manner of killing it. There are also regulations protecting some animals from being killed which also explicitly refer to welfare (bans on hunting with dogs in the U.K. for example do that). These animals are not being culled ‘illegally’n of course but the whole statement that the act of killing an animal is not relevant to welfare is simply unfounded.

You may argue such culls are necessary. You may argue the animals don’t care and so the question of destruction is an academic one and those are all opinions in the debate.

But killing of animals (method, legality, purpose) are all included in regulations that explicitly refer to welfare. Given the arguments presented against contraception you are actually also arguing for culls in the explicit interest of animal welfare (of those animals not being culled). So in effect the statement ‘nothing to do with animal welfare per se’ is factually incorrect.
Click to expand...
All of what you said is correct, but one thing is welfare at the eyes of the law. Another thing is welfare in the eyes of the scientific method. Humanely killing an animal (without pain or distress) is not a welfare issue according to science. It is an ethical issue.
 
OkapiJohn said:
All of what you said is correct, but one thing is welfare at the eyes of the law. Another thing is welfare in the eyes of the scientific method. Humanely killing an animal (without pain or distress) is not a welfare issue according to science. It is an ethical issue.
Click to expand...

It is still a welfare issue in legal and regulatory terms.

In scientific terms it is an ethical issue as you state whether to kill an animal. However, how it is killed is a welfare matter in both science and law.

It is of course not a matter of ‘rights’ either way.
 
Lafone said:
It is still a welfare issue in legal and regulatory terms.

In scientific terms it is an ethical issue as you state whether to kill an animal. However, how it is killed is a welfare matter in both science and law.

It is of course not a matter of ‘rights’ either way.
Click to expand...
I don't think I need to repeat it again. When applying a killing method that is DISTRESS and PAIN FREE, it is not a welfare issue. That is what science says. Any zoo veterinarian should be able to perfer an euthanasia correctly. What the law of each country allows or not, what is their understanding of ethics or welfare, etc, runs independently from what science defines. 2 + 2 is 4 in whatever legal system.
 
OkapiJohn said:
I don't think I need to repeat it again. When applying a killing method that is DISTRESS and PAIN FREE, it is not a welfare issue. That is what science says. Any zoo veterinarian should be able to perfer a euthanasia correctly. What the law of each country allows or not, what is their understanding of ethics or welfare, etc, runs independently from what science defines. 2 + 2 is 4 in whatever legal system.
Click to expand...

Disagreement is not lack of comprehension. The point is ensuring it is pain free is a welfare issue. Science cannot act independently of the law in many countries. The point you are making is factually incorrect as you cannot assume outside regulation that euthanasia will be pain free or that it is not a welfare issue.
 
Lafone said:
Disagreement is not lack of comprehension. The point is ensuring it is pain free is a welfare issue. Science cannot act independently of the law in many countries. The point you are making is factually incorrect as you cannot assume outside regulation that euthanasia will be pain free or that it is not a welfare issue.
Click to expand...
I understand what is your point, and I am not advocating to do things outside of the law. Just to be clear.
 
Lafone said:
Disagreement is not lack of comprehension. The point is ensuring it is pain free is a welfare issue. Science cannot act independently of the law in many countries. The point you are making is factually incorrect as you cannot assume outside regulation that euthanasia will be pain free or that it is not a welfare issue.
Click to expand...
Of course, the law will dictate which method of euthanasia you can legally apply or not and in which situation. But outside of the legal/regulatory world, science has methods to kill an animal in a way that does not violate its welfare. In those instances, welfare is not a question in the decision-making of killing an animal or not. As an example: Science can clone humans, but the law will tell you that it is illegal to do so. It is just this distinction that I am trying to make clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top