Zoologischer Garten Magdeburg Magdeburg Zoo director defends tiger killing

[Sun Wukong]

@jwer: Magdeburg Zoo might have been able to keep the tigers for a little while-but surely not forever. This is not a big zoo, and their space and financial ressources are limited.

I already mentioned the "escapes". Your generalizing assumption that there is no objective reason for euthanasia was the point I was referring to and disproved.

"Appropriate" = in accordance with national (Gutachten für Haltung exotischer Wildtiere) and international guidelines and laws (f.e. 1999/22/EG ). If no husbandry living up to this demands can be found, ...

Magdeburg Zoo followed the orders of the studbook coordinator. Maybe you should ask Peter Müller of Leipzig Zoo your provocative assumption of "freeing up space for pure-bloods" as the ultimate goal of the tiger EEP...

I think that all animals in a zoo should be treated fairly; that is also true for euthanasia. Don't you think that surplus (especially) male ungulates aren't also killed to "clear up space"?

To indicate that Magdeburg Zoo did this just for the sake of financial gain is an extremely malicious imputation. Do you really think that the zoo staff thought they would get profit (i.e. an increase of attendence figures) out of such a highly controversial decision? 'Cause I (and probably everyone in his right mind...) don't.

 

[jwer]

@jwer: Magdeburg Zoo might have been able to keep the tigers for a little while-but surely not forever. This is not a big zoo, and their space and financial ressources are limited.

Allthough you make a fair point, we'll never really know wether or not Magdeburg could have kept these animals.

I already mentioned the "escapes". Your generalizing assumption that there is no objective reason for euthanasia was the point I was referring to and disproved.

"Appropriate" = in accordance with national (Gutachten für Haltung exotischer Wildtiere) and international guidelines and laws (f.e. 1999/22/EG ). If no husbandry living up to this demands can be found, ...

Why do you, and Magdeburg assume that no adequate husbandry can be found? According to Zootierliste there are 85 institutions in Europe that keep "generic" (or hybrid) tigers. To assume that there never will be a place somewhere seems a bit quick, after just a few days (hours?).

Magdeburg Zoo followed the orders of the studbook coordinator. Maybe you should ask Peter Müller of Leipzig Zoo your provocative assumption of "freeing up space for pure-bloods" as the ultimate goal of the tiger EEP...

If these were the orders of the studbook, Magdeburg should have replied "i'm sorry, that's against the law" and leave it at that. I never said "freeing up space for pure-bloods" is the ultimate goal of the tiger EEP, and i don't know how you concluded that.

To indicate that Magdeburg Zoo did this just for the sake of financial gain is an extremely malicious imputation. Do you really think that the zoo staff thought they would get profit (i.e. an increase of attendence figures) out of such a highly controversial decision? 'Cause I (and probably everyone in his right mind...) don't.

Woo, hold the phone, I never said that. The only thing I said is, that this decission seems to have a financial side-effect that is not unfavorable to Magdeburg because it gives them the opportinity to breed new cubs in the near future. I thought i made that out clear enough but apparantly not.

It is therefore, in my mind, VERY hard for Magdeburg to defend that this decission was made purely to help the species survive and it makes me feel uneasy. Decissions are always a lot easier when they allow you to make more money.

 

[Sun Wukong]

@jwer: I'm sure said comission considered all apt options after long and careful consideration. 85 institutions doesn't mean that all of these institutions are apt-or that they have the means & space to keep the additional animals.
Magdeburg Zoo followed the orders. What can happen if you do not follow the orders can currently be observed in Dvůr Králové ...

Does

(...) they think that freeing their space up for pure-blood animals is "better", and i beg to differ.

ring a bell? Didn't you therebye accuse this t be the goal of the EEP?

Same goes for

This also would get me a lot less twitchy if there wasn't a clear financial advantage to Magdeburg Zoo. It somehow annoys me a hell of a lot more that animals are killed for financial gain. Tiger cubs bring in money, and keeping the hybrids as display animals and not having cubs born means less income, so let's kill them.

Didn't you write that? And the last sentence of your last post only underlines your statement:

Decisions are always a lot easier when they allow you to make more money.

That might only count for immoral individuals. Do you thus assume that the people involved at Magdeburg Zoo are immoral individuals? Wait let me pass you the phone to hold it for a while, @jwer.

So the bottom line jwer tries to get through is: Magdeburg Zoo killed the tiger cubs without much consideration & afterthought just to get more money via mass-producing cute tiger cubs, and only used the EEP as a fig leaf to conceal their greedy intentions.

>Irony on<
Sure, Magdeburg Zoo will get a lot of money and joy out of the negative press, the trials with the animal rights activists, the necessity to find a new Amur tiger male and to get rid of the old male, the stressed female and stressed staff who really love killing tiger cubs, just for the sake of making money. And the money keeps rolling in...>Irony off<

Just two personal questions, @jwer: 1) Ever worked in a modern zoo (and I don't mean as an extern for two days in the zoo cafeteria)? and 2) Ever been to Magdeburg Zoo?

 

[jwer]

So the bottom line jwer tries to get through is: Magdeburg Zoo killed the tiger cubs without much consideration & afterthought just to get more money via mass-producing cute tiger cubs, and only used the EEP as a fig leaf to conceal their greedy intentions.

I never liked the way you conduct your discussions. You are aggressive, suggestive and interpret people's words either wrong, or in the most extreme. You also seem to have the idea that people that have worked in a zoo are the only people that can have an educated opinion about things.

Let me restate my opinions;

If you must know, i'm a CPA and have seen quite a few company's on the inside, both profit and non-profit. The financial reward of an accountant can never be dependent on the outcome of their work, because you can never claim to be impartial if the reward is higher when you state that the financial statements give a fair representation. Does that mean that every accountant wouldn't be fair if they had more money for a positive statement? No, it's just that you're 1-0 behind when a discussion rises so you never want to get there...

You can tell me what you want but;
- If Magdeburg tried everything to keep the animals themselves they could have been stuck with them for the next 20 years, without being able to breed tigers.
- Having young tigers earns money

All I'm saying, is that in this discussion they will be coming from behind. I am not saying that they "killed the tiger cubs without much consideration & afterthought", all i'm saying that if they want to defend themselves against such accusations then IMO they're in an almost impossible position.

Hopefully you'll get the idea, if this goes on i'll end up as the cause of WWII, for heavens sake.

 

[Sun Wukong]

@jwer: My style of argumentation is not half as aggressive and suggestive as your wrongful allegation that Magdeburg Zoo euthanised their tiger cubs for the sake of financial gain.

Your argumentation only illustrates why a zoo background is important to fully grasp the matter at stake: basically, a zoo is a company - but it's also much more, thanks to the animals and the dedicated people involved. So accusing the staff of Magdeburg zoo just to have acted out of financial motives doesn't take the reality of zoo life into account. Indeed, I do think that people that have worked and/or work in a zoo are more likely to have an educated opinion about things related to zoos than mere onlookers-due to their training background & experience.
So my suggestion:
Cobbler, stick to thy last. I wouldn't dabble in account subjects, as I don't have the training, nor the experience you probably have. If I were to correct you on account work in both an amateurish and self-opinionated way, you wouldn't react too friendly either, would you?
I'm positive that the Magdeburg zoo staff acted after long consideration-and they certainly didn't take the easy way out.

WWII? Or rather, WWIII? And finally: so have you ever been to Magdeburg Zoo in person, @jwer?

 

[Kifaru Bwana]

I only wish to make these 3 points:
A) Firstly, I did pointed out previously that several zoos do use euthanasia as a accepted method of restricting unwanted/surplus animals. You seem to have ignored that.
B) Secondly, I have re-read the press release by Zoo Magdeburg - which I somehow forgot to mention - and agree fully with Sun Wukong that Zoo Magdeburg's actions where on the advice of the studbook keeper recommendation.
C) Vis a vis the law; I do not really care much for the law on animal welfare or how this does seem to apply to exotics and not livestock. But then I do feel - sure it is personal opinion - that the EU agricultural policy as well as their conservation politics re. wildlife and habitat conservation STINK.

As I said before, I do not wish to be drawn further into this discussion as it is clear we have very oppossing views. Besides, I do not like one bit, the way some people see fit to cut up arguements into short sentences and then be argumentative and aggressive. I say live and let live please and respect another's opinion.

 

[Peter Dickinson]

As I said at the start of this thread "I am here to lend my support to Mr Kai Perret and the staff of Magdeburg Zoo in their quite reasonable decision to euthanase three generic tiger cubs."
I have watched the discussion with interest and an open mind. I am always willing to change if I see a reasonable argument. I remain convinced that the decision taken was the right one.

 

[jwer]

Your argumentation only illustrates why a zoo background is important to fully grasp the matter at stake: basically, a zoo is a company - but it's also much more, thanks to the animals and the dedicated people involved. So accusing the staff of Magdeburg zoo just to have acted out of financial motives doesn't take the reality of zoo life into account. Indeed, I do think that people that have worked and/or work in a zoo are more likely to have an educated opinion about things related to zoos than mere onlookers-due to their training background & experience.

My job, as many others in this world, consist at least 90% of common sense. On almost any matter, I always welcome an objective point of view from any other person, no matter if they are educated on the subject or not. Most of the time, anyone with a common sense can bring a valid argument that you haven't thought of. It is, in my eyes, the essence of arrogance if you don't.

I'll try one more time before I give in... This thread is supposedly about defending the killing of three generic tigers by Mageburg Zoo towards allegations made by green-winged activist.

I'm usually on any Zoo's side, and would love to give the real green wingers a beating in the discusion BUT;
- If it's against the law, there is no discussion possible. I don't care how many studbook keepers gave an order. They are right.
- In this arguement, Zoo Magdeburg will always come from behind because there is a financial gain. That card can be played by green-winged activist and there's hardly any defence against it. If you don't see my point on this, then i'll give up.

I'll defend myself one more time in saying that i never accused Zoo Magdeburg of killing these tigers purely for financial gain, just that there position is weakened in the discussion, and I wouldn't like to be the one to defend them.

 

[Sun Wukong]

@jwer: Well, I prefer an educated opinion over an uneducated one. Accusing a zoo of wrongdoing without knowing the real situation and background is no sign of common sense, but rather real arrogance.

Whether this decision really against German Tierschutzgesetz is among others a question of interpretation the courts have to find out. And once again: I doubt that the zoo will get any kind of financial gain out of all this. You as an account should know better...

 

[Johnny]

I don't think a decision to euthanize unwanted animals is necesarily wrong, my only problem is the pure blood-hybrid controversy. Is one % hybrid genes ( just an example) in an animal enough reason for justified euthanasia, especially when it can be phased out within a few generations? I still think this policy should be slightly altered, certainly when it's a difference only a human could possibly see.

 

[Amur]

I don't think a decision to euthanize unwanted animals is necesarily wrong, my only problem is the pure blood-hybrid controversy. Is one % hybrid genes ( just an example) in an animal enough reason for justified euthanasia, especially when it can be phased out within a few generations? I still think this policy should be slightly altered, certainly when it's a difference only a human could possibly see.

Hi Johnny,

What benefit would there have been in keeping these hybrid cubs?
Tigers breed extremely well in captivity and the captive amur tiger population is healthy.
First time tiger mums often abandon their first litter, and very few of these cubs are hand reared by a keeper.
Why are the first litters often left to die? (not hand reared)....because a few months later mum will have another litter and then she will often know what to do.
I have access to the Tiger Stud Book and i can tell you....cubs that are born dead are still registered in the stud book, and ive seen in the stud book there are lots of first time litters that died.
Those first time litters could often have been hand reared but why was they not?.....because tigers breed very well, gestation period is short, and amur tigers have a healthy captive population.
Lots of pure cubs are left to die, therefore, what benefit is there in keeping a few hybrids?
If this issue was regarding Scottish wildcats....i would be all for keeping the hybrids because the captive population of Scottish wildcats is very poor.
But we are not talking about them....we are talking about captive amur tigers who number about 550-600 that are descended from 112 wild-caught Founders (and thats just the stud book population).
Like i said....lots of PURE cubs are left to die, therefore, what benefit is there in keeping a few hybrids?

best wishes,
Amur

 

[Johnny]

You are clearly missing the point. What is wrong with a hybrid? Especially when the difference from pure-blooded genes is only a few percent, and these genes can be phased out relatively fast? So why kill these animals, and why should they be unwanted? That's the real point, not the fact that there's already a healthy, breeding pureblood population in captivity. I do understand when an animal is surplus, or a product of inbreeding, but the hybrid argument is a false argument in my opinion.

 

[Kifaru Bwana]

You are clearly missing the point. What is wrong with a hybrid? Especially when the difference from pure-blooded genes is only a few percent, and these genes can be phased out relatively fast? So why kill these animals, and why should they be unwanted? That's the real point, not the fact that there's already a healthy, breeding pureblood population in captivity. I do understand when an animal is surplus, or a product of inbreeding, but the hybrid argument is a false argument in my opinion.

Vice versa. Surplus is a false arguement in terms of conservation science, not hybridisation in an otherwise pure-bred taxon. In the latter there is no conservation interest. Euthanasia - by all means - is frequently used in zoos, if not often publicised (as in the Zoo Magdeburg case).

I applaud ZM for being open about it, I deplore that it is currently subject of a law suit. Then again, my personal views are now well be knowest to those on the forum.

 

[Amur]

You are clearly missing the point. What is wrong with a hybrid? Especially when the difference from pure-blooded genes is only a few percent, and these genes can be phased out relatively fast? So why kill these animals, and why should they be unwanted? That's the real point, not the fact that there's already a healthy, breeding pureblood population in captivity. I do understand when an animal is surplus, or a product of inbreeding, but the hybrid argument is a false argument in my opinion.

Hi Johnny,

Of course the hybrid cubs offspring could be diluted over several generations, but the EEP or SSP breeding programs only use stud book tigers.
Those hybrid cubs was descendants of Roman.
Roman was originally thought to have been "wild-caught", but because of some doubts regarding his origin it was decided to do a DNA test, the results showed pure,
he was then stud book registered as "wild-caught" and given stud number 3260, when he became an adult he was bred from, he then became a Founder.
Roman died in 2003 but samples left over from him (in liquid nitrogen) was DNA tested again (late 2007) but this time Sumatran alleles was found.
Roman has 30+ living descendants, with 17 EAZA zoos affected (3 in the UK).
Regarding Roman and the stud book....Roman and all his living/dead descendants have now been "Tagged as Hybrids" and listed separately from the others (to keep an eye on them).
Regarding the 17 EAZA zoos affected....all Roman`s descendants have now been removed from the "Breeding Pool" by the coordinator, but will remain as exhibits.
All zoos affected have been told not to breed their hybrids, but if any cubs are born they will not be given a stud number.

Perhaps the hybrid cubs could of been given to a collection thats not part of the EEP or SSP breeding program.
They could of joined the other thousands of generic tigers, but they could NEVER be part of the EEP or SSP breeding pool.
Its clearly you who is missing the point of what the EEP program is all about.

best wishes,
Amur

 

[Peter Dickinson]

Amur,

Many thanks for this very clear, concise and informed explanation.

Best Wishes,

Peter

 

[Nisha]

The zoo's director and three of his staff have been given suspended sentances for putting the cubs down

Court convicts Magdeburg Zoo workers for killing tiger cubs - The Local

 

[JonnyS18]

This is a good thread for a rather heated subject matter, & after reading threw it i can see everyone's point of view. In my opinion (agreeing with Kifaru Bwana, Su Wukong etc), euthanizing the three cubs was probably the most merciful course of action, as the alternative would have been a life in captivity NOT being able to attribute towards their species & being considered as unwanted and useless. That's if they even found a decent zoo that would take them, otherwise goodness knows where they could have ended up.
I think purity of a sub species is important as it is a result of years of adaptation to specific surroundings, climates and (in the case of tigers) hunting advantages for example bone structure, muscle strength etc:
However (in agreeing with Johnny & Jwer) i don't see why maintaining purity to the maximum 100000 percentage has completely taken over the true goal of saving tigers as a whole. I don't think a captive Amur tiger, who has a great great sumatran tiger grandmother, is useless or in any way less advantaged compared to the purist of pure 'Amurs'. I honestly think what began as an honest & well intentioned attempt to save and preserve animals & their respective sub species, has become a battle of ignorance & ridiculous expectations that results in drastic measures such as the ones taken at Magdeburg zoo.
In all honesty, if it wern't for us human beings, tigers would most likely be the top of the food chain, & like us would probably populate most of the Earth as we have. If a wild male Indo-chinese tiger & a wild female bengal tiger naturally came across one another (which isn't a completely ridiculous theory as tigers can travel for hundreds of miles) i doubt they would walk in opposite directions just because they're 0.00000000001% un identical genetically (that was an exaggeration but you see my point). They would most likely breed naturally & produce hybrid cubs & no human would be the wiser until an autopsy confirmed their heritage.
So to some up, yes i still agree that if purity can be maintained then it should be, especially with a sub species as numerous & healthy as Amur tigers. However i do think breed standards & expectations from so called conservationists is starting to take over the true meaning of preserving the tiger & many other endangered species.

 

[Jurek7]

The sad thing is everybody pretends not to know there is a finite, very fixed number of spaces in zoos as much as in the wild. The lives of these tigers would come at a price of lives of three others, equally cute, tigers cubs.

If a wild male Indo-chinese tiger & a wild female bengal tiger naturally came across one another.

Zoos have already all Amur leopards crossed with one North Chinese leopard.

But, ehm, I don't think female Sumatran tigress would swim across the sea and wander all the way north to Siberia to meet Siberian tiger.

The zoo's director and three of his staff have been given suspended sentances for putting the cubs down

The director should appeal and ask the court to please name the place where zoo can put three extra tigers.

The zoo is certainly prohibited from keeping animals in substandard conditions. So, no way of keeping them somewhere in the backyard.

Maybe Magdeburg cat shelter is willing to take three tigers? Or dog shelter?

 

[Kifaru Bwana]

Jurek,

My point exactly.

Who pays the ferrymen for 50,000 tigers to exist in Asia, the judge ....?
(do not make me laugh) This is populism at its worst catering to the masses to pacify short term palatable objectives. It is a sham in the Year of Biodiversity as this verdict fails to underpin why tigers are losing wild spaces in the first place (and now captive spaces for pure real conservation value tigers in zoo environments too) ....!!!

K.B.

 

[JonnyS18]

''Zoos have already all Amur leopards crossed with one North Chinese leopard.

But, ehm, I don't think female Sumatran tigress would swim across the sea and wander all the way north to Siberia to meet Siberian tiger. ''

So it's ok to cross 'certain' sub species but not others... obviously it's unlikey that a wild siberian & sumatran would come across each other in the wild. But it's a bit confusing when people who are so passionate about hybrid tigers being so terrible, yet they don't mind it when it occurs naturally or if it's between two subspecies who are only a borderline away from each other.. It's an either 'for' or 'against' situation in my opinion, so which is it? =
Again i've explained why i think maintaining purity is important in my early post, relating to the animal's welfare, but for a page so determined to be against hybrid tiger's no-one is actually stating what is wrong with them. All i'm reading is a bunch of zoo legislations, rules & human expectations.. what's wrong with the 'TIGERS' in general..?