Lafone
Well-Known Member
Absolutely! Not suggesting you would it’s just whether the act is a welfare issue.
Tiergarten Nürnberg Nuremberg zoo ...to cull twenty five Guinea Baboons
- Thread starter Strathmorezoo
- Start date
Absolutely! Not suggesting you would it’s just whether the act is a welfare issue.
OkapiJohn
Well-Known Member
If your question is "how to kill an animal" senso lato, yes it is a welfare issue because there are many ways to kill an animal, and the regulator will have to reflect upon that question, taking welfare into consideration. But I am just assuming that for all of us, we can only accept the killing of an animal if it does not violate its welfare. And those methods exist. Any other methods are not even on top of the table for me in this debate.
Lafone
Well-Known Member
I would agree that we would only want to see the animals culled in a humane way. But the act of doing it is a welfare issue for me, as the act itself and the impact need to be managed in a way that the least harm possuble is caused. Not that I believe it should be the case in the first place, but it is what it is now the troop has been allowed to reach this size.
OkapiJohn
Well-Known Member
I perfectly understand what you mean. You take in consideration the welfare of that animal when deciding to kill it, hence you choose a humane way to do so. And I cannot disagree. My point is that the act itself, because it is done humanely, becomes exempt from welfare issues.
Lafone
Well-Known Member
I get where you are coming from too.
Hopefully it will be managed carefully; there is every indication the zoo is a good and responsible place and it's not as if this is being done for fun.
It's just a real shame.
Strathmorezoo
Well-Known Member
Your comment about surplus animals in my mind was behind the reason why I started this thread, I'm surprised nobody else has really picked up on it ,good for you
What makes killing a baboon any different than killing a cow on a farm? While I don't know much about Nuremberg zoo, I am assuming they have some sorts of carnivores in their collection, whether that be lions, tigers, wolves, birds of prey, etc. These animals need to eat meat. Whether it be a baboon, zebra, or cow, an animal is being killed and then fed to another animal.
From purely an animal welfare perspective, I'd imagine it's actually preferable, as much as possible, to feed animals from the collection than outsourcing meat, as I'm sure Nuremberg's baboons likely have a much higher standard of welfare than cattle on the average farm have. If euthanizing "surplus" zoo animals means less cows or horses are raised in subpar conditions, then from a collective welfare perspective I'd certainly say it's more than justified to use surplus zoo animals as a food source.
Among others, EU regulations, such as Regulation (EC) No. 1069/2009 as well as the aforementioned German Animal Welfare Act (Tierschutzgesetz).
OkapiJohn
Well-Known Member
I think Neil Chace was referring to ethics/animal welfare. The legislation may say whatever it likes, but it does not change the fact that both a cow and a baboon are mammals, conscious, complex social animals. Laws are weak arguments in this debate. It reminds me how in Portugal or Spain you go to jail if you keep your dog locked in a car during a summer day but it is perfectly fine to kill and torture a bull in a bullfighting arena. Are dogs and baboons intrinsically different from bovids?
I know what he was referring to; it's nevertheless vital to point out, especially when you are unaware of the relevant national legislation.
And no, I completely disagree with you on this behalf. Look up the Zoo Magdeburg tiger cub case if you don't understand what I mean.
One of the worst things you can say to an official veterinarian...
And no, I completely disagree with you on this behalf. Look up the Zoo Magdeburg tiger cub case if you don't understand what I mean.
OkapiJohn
Well-Known Member
So since you are a vet, can you develop what are the intrinsic differences between a baboon and a cow? Why is it more ethically wrong to kill one and not the other? Why does a baboon suffer more by being killed than a cow? Does the law offer any answer to this? I guess not. The law only reflects what is useful for us humans... it does not reflect the intrinsic nature of those animals. Our human societies need to kill cows so it creates a legal framework for it. It does not need to kill baboons so the legal framework is another one. The nature of the act (senso lato) and the nature of the two species is the same though.I know what he was referring to; it's nevertheless vital to point out, especially when you are unaware of the relevant national legislation.
One of the worst things you can say to an official veterinarian...
And no, I completely disagree with you on this behalf. Look up the Zoo Magdeburg tiger cub case if you don't understand what I mean.
Lafone
Well-Known Member
The trouble with whataboutery is you can bring up anything as an equivalence to divert someone else’s argument if you want to.
Why are we visiting zoos when people in the world are going hungry, why are baboons important compared to people? Etc etc.
The issue isn’t whether bulls should be killed in bull fights or really whether after death the baboons should be fed to other animals.
The issue for me is should zoos produce surplus animals and then kill them. I don’t think they should and that’s my opinion - which I maintain. For the avoidance of doubt I really do understand and comprehend the arguments advocating this practice; I simply disagree with them. I don’t draw an equivalence between a cow and a baboon as I don’t find it useful in this case however I do think humans should actually be killing less things in general.
Why are we visiting zoos when people in the world are going hungry, why are baboons important compared to people? Etc etc.
The issue isn’t whether bulls should be killed in bull fights or really whether after death the baboons should be fed to other animals.
The issue for me is should zoos produce surplus animals and then kill them. I don’t think they should and that’s my opinion - which I maintain. For the avoidance of doubt I really do understand and comprehend the arguments advocating this practice; I simply disagree with them. I don’t draw an equivalence between a cow and a baboon as I don’t find it useful in this case however I do think humans should actually be killing less things in general.
OkapiJohn
Well-Known Member
I think you raised a more interesting question to debate.
I think that if the idea "zoos should not produce surplus animals" is taken seriously, you can close all zoos the next day. This is simply because the biological nature of most species is to breed as much as possible and our human management capabilities are pretty much limited to stop or limit breeding output and I do not think zoos produce surplus animals intentionally. And even if we were capable of pushing the button on or off for breeding it would not be exempt from its negative consequences too.
I am just curious, if you were a zoo manager with a group of baboons what would you do to avoid surplus animals? In my perspective, the options to achieve that are very, very limited (if they exist at all), but would be interesting to see what would be your strategy? Do not have baboons in captivity perhaps?
Lafone
Well-Known Member
I am so far from an expert in baboon husbandry I’d be on Mars and they on earth but as it is, for me, an ethics issue I think on balance it would be a choice which would indeed include the question of keeping them in captivity at all. I don’t think it leads to closing all zoos (I think zoos play a key and critical role myself) it might lead to managing them very differently.
Clearly it would be a good thing to have a widely managed selection of places to keep these particular animals as one of the issues appears to be lots of places don’t keep them.
If there were choices when these animals needed to be in zoos as they are endangered etc then I’d say other animals who reproduce more slowly might be reduced (over time) in some holders in favour of faster breeders.
I’d also devote more research and time into how to manage the population better.
I would however support wild populations of these and other animals better (through legislation as well as education) as I think humans have to face into giving stuff up to keep animals on the planet vs assume we can bend them all around how we want to live.
We are always at the advantage as humans and every decision is made in the human focused favour. To preserve the planet we need to behave differently (that’s we as humans). To be clear though I don’t subscribe to ‘animal rights’.
For me it’s more about obligation as I think our responsibility is total in this space - we effectively completely control what happens to other species.
None of this will happen of course and the animals will be bred and surplus animals killed. But something happening inevitably doesn’t mean I have to like it.
Sure - if you pay me for it.
OkapiJohn
Well-Known Member
That is exactly the question. I'm not standing on my position from a legal or phylosophical point of view (like some other people here). But simply from scientific point of view. The 3 things are intertwined but are different.Sure - if you pay me for it.
I've sat through enough animal ethic classes and have experienced enough of such cases in real life to not fall for such lengthy discussions. Look up the aforementioned case and you might understand why it's more of an legal than a philosophical issue that cannot be solved by theoretical debates.
So ideologies, who depend entirely on individuals and thus are much more variegated than a commonly shared code of actions which can still be updated following new arising needs and scientific backup, are not?
Strathmorezoo
Well-Known Member
Do you know you are still the only one who is bringing up, in my opinion,the serious point that zoos have a problem with surplus animals
Lafone
Well-Known Member
Yes as I think it is a problem.
I don’t believe that zoos are doing this because they are cruel or that they are knowingly acting to destroy animals for fun, or even casually. I’m confident that good zoos have caring animals teams and vets who wouldn’t want to make animals suffer.
But it is an issue to have ‘surplus’ animals in a place where animals are being kept for conservation and education - in my view.
Well, I have to agree with OkapiJohn here. Besides human perception there probably isn't that big of a difference between the (case-relevant) biology of cows and that of baboons: both are vertebrates and mammals with a complex nervous system and social structures. Of course, you can still assume primates and carnivorous mammals like dogs are (and need to be) somewhat more intelligent. But I am not sure, if this really makes that much of a difference in this case. Other cultures don't appear to make this clear-cut difference anyways (particularly when it comes to bush meat which you hunt for on your own).
As to the suggestion to select slow-breeding species for zoo populations, I am also not so sure. Of course, there are substantial differences let's say between elephants and mole-rats. But in general animals always produce far more than are meant to or could possibly survive in nature (especially male specimen). As we all know, this is just how ecological systems and evolution work. There always would be a degree of elimination.
So to do breeding in zoos without producing surplus animals, you basically would have to simulate entire ecosystems with all the complex relations (which of course works far better in the original settings in the first place, if it wasn't for our present rate of destruction). As this just doesn't work (and you will also get into legal trouble for putting carnivores and prey in direct proximity), there always will be and needs to be population management. And this always includes tough/radical decisions like not having some animals breed (with its clear disadvantages) or killing some (with its moral and legal aspects). You cannot ignore this reality without making the debate dishonest. But then, I never understood the notion that life in zoos is cruel, whereas life in the wild means freedom and joy for animals. When it just comes down to death and survival, this is far from true.
As to the suggestion to select slow-breeding species for zoo populations, I am also not so sure. Of course, there are substantial differences let's say between elephants and mole-rats. But in general animals always produce far more than are meant to or could possibly survive in nature (especially male specimen). As we all know, this is just how ecological systems and evolution work. There always would be a degree of elimination.
So to do breeding in zoos without producing surplus animals, you basically would have to simulate entire ecosystems with all the complex relations (which of course works far better in the original settings in the first place, if it wasn't for our present rate of destruction). As this just doesn't work (and you will also get into legal trouble for putting carnivores and prey in direct proximity), there always will be and needs to be population management. And this always includes tough/radical decisions like not having some animals breed (with its clear disadvantages) or killing some (with its moral and legal aspects). You cannot ignore this reality without making the debate dishonest. But then, I never understood the notion that life in zoos is cruel, whereas life in the wild means freedom and joy for animals. When it just comes down to death and survival, this is far from true.