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.
So do you think it is preferable for zoos to source meat for carnivores to a farm, with much worse welfare standards, than to kill surplus animals? From a collective welfare perspective, killing surplus animals is likely the more humane choice. Granted, you could also make the argument that zoos shouldn't keep carnivores if it means killing other mammals, but that's an entirely different argument.
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?
The best strategy I could think of, and far from ideal, would be to manage the baboons as two groups: an all-male group and an all-female group. Of course, given the complexity of primate societies, this is likely only an option on paper due to the conflicts that would arise. However, given their close evolutionary relationship to us, I am surprised there isn't a safe, reversable contraception available for baboons yet. While I'm not disputing the zoo's claim that there isn't, I am surprised by it.
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.
While I think saying "you can close all zoos the next day" is hyperbolic, it is true that creation of surplus animals does happen in all of the major zoo organizations. Even in the United States, where it is less common (though not entirely out of the question) for zoos to euthanize mammals as a management strategy, animals often end up in progressively worst and worst conditions as they are sent out of the SSP. If no surplus were to be created, I suspect the reality would need to be a drastically reduced number of species housed in zoos, so that there can be much more room for bachelor groups and other groups to house non-breeding surplus. Especially for something like ungulates, which live in large single-male herds, you'd need drastically more bachelor group holdings for each species if the goal was to never euthanize or dispose of surplus animals.
So, if you can't/don't stop zoos creating surplus stock
,the question is where should zoos send their surplus animals to? and should zoos be responsible knowing the location to where those animals go to and the care that the animals should receive
I think this is the bigger question. Surplus animals will always be created, except in a species where we have extremely reliable contraception and/or a welfare-conscious way to socially manage breeding (both of these combined is probably still less than 10% of the mammals housed in zoos), however what we do with these surplus animals is certainly a big question. Euthanasia is one option, sending them to unaccredited facilities (of varying quality) is another, but I'm curious to know what other possibilities exist (or don't exist).
Among others, EU regulations, such as Regulation (EC) No. 1069/2009 as well as the aforementioned German Animal Welfare Act (Tierschutzgesetz).
While I am obviously not an expert in EU or German laws and regulations, I'm not disputing that there are differences between a cow and a baboon in the eyes of the law. I would hope that Nuremberg Zoo (and all zoos) take into account their country's laws whenever making a decision like this. Of course, laws can be changed, and many good zoos maintain a higher standard above the legal standard, so the ethics and welfare arguments are still really interesting and important, although I do appreciate you mentioning the legal sides of this argument too.
