Denmark zoo asks people to donate unwanted pets

[Daktari JG]

The stock is killed humanely,

Well if killed humanely its meant "Smashed on the head, or beheaded" then yeah.
I actually have no problems with that. I eat meat knowing full well what that means.
But most people have no idea.
However, I for one would certainly not want to ever eat a pet nor would I donate a pet
to be eaten.

 

[Mr Gharial]

The wider issue is why people have pets (extending that to horses) they don't want and can't care for. People shouldn't have animals in the first place if they are not able to look after them

The thing is. We have chickens. Every time there's a new nest, there's a chance multiple roosters hatch. And you can only have one rooster, so we have to sell them. We always try to sell them as pets first, but that's an oversaturated and underwanted market. So usually we give them to a local falconer instead.

We also have two chickens that are unusually mean. Most of our chickens are hand-raised and perfectly lovely, one will even come up to you for hugs. But two of them are mean, will peck at other chickens, peck at us, and even kill chicks. So we had to separate them. The only reason we still kept them around is they laid a lot of eggs, which our other chickens didn't do as much.

However, recently they stopped laying. Personally, I don't mind having a second, smaller aviary for two meaner chickens, but my mother would rather get rid of them as soon as possible. The local falconer won't take adult chickens, but if he did, that's where they'd go.

Most farms (or farm-like houses) will end up with unwanted animals. Rabbits, well, breed like rabbits, and not all owners can take care of that many, and you can't always sell all of them. So giving them to a zoo to be used for food is fine. I can see why people may have a problem with it, but in truth it's no different than giving them cows, pigs, or even fellow zoo animals. The main difference is that people usually see pets more up-close, and won't see them as food

 

[Cody Raney]

The thing is. We have chickens. Every time there's a new nest, there's a chance multiple roosters hatch. And you can only have one rooster, so we have to sell them. We always try to sell them as pets first, but that's an oversaturated and underwanted market. So usually we give them to a local falconer instead.

We also have two chickens that are unusually mean. Most of our chickens are hand-raised and perfectly lovely, one will even come up to you for hugs. But two of them are mean, will peck at other chickens, peck at us, and even kill chicks. So we had to separate them. The only reason we still kept them around is they laid a lot of eggs, which our other chickens didn't do as much.

However, recently they stopped laying. Personally, I don't mind having a second, smaller aviary for two meaner chickens, but my mother would rather get rid of them as soon as possible. The local falconer won't take adult chickens, but if he did, that's where they'd go.

Most farms (or farm-like houses) will end up with unwanted animals. Rabbits, well, breed like rabbits, and not all owners can take care of that many, and you can't always sell all of them. So giving them to a zoo to be used for food is fine. I can see why people may have a problem with it, but in truth it's no different than giving them cows, pigs, or even fellow zoo animals. The main difference is that people usually see pets more up-close, and won't see them as food

More to your point, it's not uncommon for Big Cat sanctuaries to have whole cow carcasses donated to them, but most people don't think of a cow or chicken as a pet. Same reason most people are so against eating horse, they see a pasture pet.

 

[Mr Gharial]

More to your point, it's not uncommon for Big Cat sanctuaries to have whole cow carcasses donated to them, but most people don't think of a cow or chicken as a pet. Same reason most people are so against eating horse, they see a pasture pet.

Agreed, but we absolutely see our chickens as pets. As I said, one of them will absolutely come up to you for pets. Pigs, too, make for wonderful household companions. But because humans are used to seeing these animals as food and not as creatures that can be loved, suddenly it's a problem to eat them.

In truth, it's the exact same problem with people in the Western world being shocked when people in some Asian countries eat dogs, whilst they themselves eat cows, an animal sacred in parts of Asia.

 

[Cody Raney]

I think the issue is the use of the word pet, I personally couldn't donate an animal that I have bonded with, even if it had been put to sleep for health reasons. The thought of your best friend being eaten (which for most people their pet is) is the stuff of nightmares.

 

[Cody Raney]

Agreed, but we absolutely see our chickens as pets. As I said, one of them will absolutely come up to you for pets. Pigs, too, make for wonderful household companions. But because humans are used to seeing these animals as food and not as creatures that can be loved, suddenly it's a problem to eat them.

That's why I would be a terrible farmer; I can't take care of something without bonding with it. I eat meat all the time and farmers and ranchers have my full support; I just can't do it.

 

[Steve Robinson]

This is one of those things which is perfectly reasonable in principle and absolutely boneheaded in practice.

Please explain.

 

[Dino]

I don't really know how to feel about it. In theory its a way to prevent unwanted animals from ending up in shelters or possibly living a life of neglect or disposed of in other ways but also the idea of taking animals from the public with no knowledge on the animals backgrounds or the history or reasoning of the owner feels weird and I am sure there's some weird reasons people would give them animals or something.

 

[CGSwans]

Please explain.

I thank Senator Hanson for the question.

I don’t think Aalborg Zoo is going to get enough donated rabbits and guinea pigs to offset the negative publicity that comes from asking people to donate pets to be fed to carnivores. It’s just a bit intentionally tone-deaf, I think.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Apart of maybe someone who owns chickens that stop laying eggs or similar situation, it sounds like they are asking exactly for people who got tired of their pets and want to get ride of them.

But I agree with others that the tone of zoo director, "if you're bored of your pet, just get it killed", is totally inappropriate and promoting a very poor attitude to pet keeping.

I think the issue is the use of the word pet, I personally couldn't donate an animal that I have bonded with, even if it had been put to sleep for health reasons.

I don’t think Aalborg Zoo is going to get enough donated rabbits and guinea pigs to offset the negative publicity that comes from asking people to donate pets to be fed to carnivores. It’s just a bit intentionally tone-deaf, I think.

I believe it's already been highlighted once upthread, but to repeat - the zoo never actually asked people to donate "pets" and didn't use the word (or its Danish equivalent) whatsoever.

Here are screenshots of the original post on the Aalborg Zoo website which provoked this whole debate, both in the Danish-but-Google-translated-into-English and English versions of the page:





Always best to go to the original source rather than the media spin on matters

 

[Steve Robinson]

I thank Senator Hanson for the question.

I don’t think Aalborg Zoo is going to get enough donated rabbits and guinea pigs to offset the negative publicity that comes from asking people to donate pets to be fed to carnivores. It’s just a bit intentionally tone-deaf, I think.

I don't know about tone deaf - intentionally or otherwise. Maybe in some circles.

Here in rural Australia we regularly receive donated livestock for animal food. The reason for the donations are many and varied but have never included sentiments such as "we've grown tired of it" or similar.

I think that the introduction of the word "pets" early into this discourse may have coloured some of the subsequent posts and I thank TLD for clarifying what the zoo was actually seeking.

 

[CGSwans]

I just went and looked at the original Facebook post. The Facebook automatic translation to English does say ‘pets’, so I think people can be forgiven for responding to that.

Copying the Danish text into Google Translate renders the same word as ‘livestock’, so it’s an unfortunate quirk of Facebook’s translation platform. Not the first or last time Meta has created completely unnecessary division.

 

[LiSom]

I think the issue is the use of the word pet, I personally couldn't donate an animal that I have bonded with, even if it had been put to sleep for health reasons. The thought of your best friend being eaten (which for most people their pet is) is the stuff of nightmares.

Yes!! I think the issue here comes with the concept of "pet". If we go to the original post on their website they actually never mention the word "pet" and talk about the donations more like talking about livestock and they have limitations on the amount of animals they are willing to receive and different points that the animal and owner must pass (Donation of animals for feed).

This is a practice among scandinavian zoos and I think it is good they are open about it. What is the difference between feeding the lion a horse donated by someone than a horse killed at the slaughterhouse a few hours ago? Carnivore animals in a zoo need to eat meat and that meat will only reach there if an animal is killed. They are not obligating anyone to bring their pets and I don't think anyone will use this to get rid of their pets (there are easier ways to do this in Denmark).

 

[DaLilFishie]

I've heard of facilities that do feed roadkill -As long as it's reasonably... freshly killed and relatively intact- but it's considered best practice to keep the "donations" in the deep freeze for at least a month.

That takes care of the majority of disease and parasitic concerns. Although there's always a risk.

I believe it was once common practice in Australia to feed roadkill to captive Tasmanian Devils, although (at least in Tasmania) the practice has stopped due to devil facial tumour disease - if wild devils had been feeding from a carcass, it could transmit the disease to the disease-free captive populations. Now, devils are fed whole carcasses, typically wallabies, sourced from licensed shooters.

 

[Zz123]

I just went and looked at the original Facebook post. The Facebook automatic translation to English does say ‘pets’, so I think people can be forgiven for responding to that.

Copying the Danish text into Google Translate renders the same word as ‘livestock’, so it’s an unfortunate quirk of Facebook’s translation platform. Not the first or last time Meta has created completely unnecessary division.

I get your point about the Facebook auto‑translation, but I don’t think it’s fair to blame Facebook alone for the confusion. If the zoo truly only wanted livestock and not pets, they should have used a more specific word than husdyr, which in Danish can cover both livestock and companion animals. By choosing such a broad term, the zoo itself left room for misunderstanding.

 

[Mr Gharial]

I get your point about the Facebook auto‑translation, but I don’t think it’s fair to blame Facebook alone for the confusion. If the zoo truly only wanted livestock and not pets, they should have used a more specific word than husdyr, which in Danish can cover both livestock and companion animals. By choosing such a broad term, the zoo itself left room for misunderstanding.

True, but rabbits and guinea pigs are more pets than livestock

 

[Lafone]

While horses are a different matter (and these news stories came about due to the facebook post about small animals, not the website article on horses) and you can more or less say chickens and possibly rabbits might be viewed or kept as livestock vs pets (though rabbits might cross over), it is harder to understand the Danish activity in farming guinea pigs and how people are keeping those as anything other than pets (in most cases, one or two people farming them is not a nation). Interesting to hear from Danish posters on guinea pigs being 'livestock' in Denmark as that is what is being asserted they are here now. I don't think that would be the case in many countries in Europe, so good to hear about the differences.

In my view the zoo are asking for small unwanted animals and by the nature of things at least some of them would be 'pets'. Happy to be corrected though that in Denmark Guinea Pigs are regarded as a farm animal.

 

[LiSom]

In my view the zoo are asking for small unwanted animals and by the nature of things at least some of them would be 'pets'. Happy to be corrected though that in Denmark Guinea Pigs are regarded as a farm animal.

That might happen but again what difference does it actually make. If some unethical person out there thinks the best way to give out his or her pet is to bring it to the zoo to feed some lynx maybe we should question that person instead of the zoo itself... The zoo is simply asking for animals and they are very clear with the destiny of those animals, it's up to you if you want to donate or not. As I said before there are other ways to give out your pets in Denmark, is not like kill them in Aalborg zoo is your only option.
Lot of zoos will receive unwanted exotic pets and euthanize them without informing the owners due to lack of space for them, is this practice correct because it is kept secret?

 

[Lafone]

That might happen but again what difference does it actually make. If some unethical person out there thinks the best way to give out his or her pet is to bring it to the zoo to feed some lynx maybe we should question that person instead of the zoo itself... The zoo is simply asking for animals and they are very clear with the destiny of those animals, it's up to you if you want to donate or not. As I said before there are other ways to give out your pets in Denmark, is not like kill them in Aalborg zoo is your only option.
Lot of zoos will receive unwanted exotic pets and euthanize them without informing the owners due to lack of space for them, is this practice correct because it is kept secret?

I was actually questioning the poor keeping of pets and the careless way people have and dispose of them in the first place. Many people have a poor attitude to animals and treating them as disposable is a symptom of that.

The zoo is making the most of a situation. The zoo hasn't caused it at all. I do think they will contribute to it however. But causation and consequence are not the same.

But really, if it doesn't matter at all as you now state then why the posts clarifying the wording translation and trying to make it clear this is in no way about pets?

First you say this is all about livestock and was never about pets, now when asked about animals which are (lets face it) just not routinely kept as livestock, it's also pets after all but that's ok as it makes no difference anyway? While the lynx are having their guinea pigs you are also having your cake and eating it too as they say.

 

[LiSom]

But really, if it doesn't matter at all as you now state then why the posts clarifying the wording translation and trying to make it clear this is in no way about pets?

First you say this is all about livestock and was never about pets, now when asked about animals which are (lets face it) just not routinely kept as livestock, it's also pets after all but that's ok as it makes no difference anyway? While the lynx are having their guinea pigs you are also having your cake and eating it too as they say.

Sorry I think I didn't make myself clear and I'm mixing what I want to say... My point is that I don't see the difference between feeding a livestock or a pet as they are still both animals that will get kill to feed some carnivore, if we have problems with some animals getting kill to feed carnivores maybe we just shouldn't have carnivores in captivity? Now as I said this part is just my personal opinion, not related at all with whatever the "zoo" thinks and wants.

On the other hand the zoo is really avoiding to ask for "pets" and focus on receiving just some livestock and I agree it is expected people might donate their unwanted pets because of the species they are willing to take but if that happens why should the zoo be blame? As I said they are very clear with what will happen with the animals once they reach there, they are not hiding anything contrary to what some rescue centers or even other zoos do. I don't think this will contribute to anything as if someone is actually willing to bring the guinea pig or rabbit they had in their house even knowing that animal is gonna get kill to feed the lynx then I guess they probably didn't even consider that animal as their pet in the first place